For his incitement to violence that led to the storming of the Nation's capitol, while lawmakers were debating the electoral college results, leading to the deaths of four citizens.
Period. That's it. That's the post.
Massive hit piece on YouTubers in today's New York Times. The latest wave of censorship is just getting started. They smell blood. https://t.co/a88tLqRfMm— Mark Dice (@MarkDice) June 8, 2019
"He began referring to himself as a “tradcon” — a traditional conservative, committed to old-fashioned gender norms. He dated an evangelical Christian woman, and he fought with his liberal friends." These are signs one is becoming "radicalized" according to the New York Times."And people in this person's orbit were shocked at how radical this was:
“It was kind of sad,” said Zelda Wait, a friend of Mr. Cain’s from high school. “I was just, like: ‘Wow, what happened? How did you get this way?’” hahaha. How dare a guy date a Christian woman, and support traditional family values!We used to have a name for what Caleb Cain is describing himself as, and it was "normal."
'Rubio's right: Trump is not "under investigation". That's a significant fact, and the only unleaked fact. Everything else leaks non-stop: Someone who met with someone who once worked for Trump in some hotel near Trump Tower two months before he launched his campaign once had business dealings with someone who knows a Kazakh oligarch who used to be close to someone close to Putin...
'This is thin gruel. It only thickens and congeals and sticks if in the general atmosphere Trump himself is believed to be "under investigation".
'He isn't, and never has been. Comey confirmed that to Trump three times. '
"What we have with President Trump is an administration that is welcoming business input. We’re glad to have a seat at the table as we think through things like trade policy, tax reform, regulatory reform and a strong and stable defense budget. The president is very good at inviting dialog and is open to ideas and inputs."Pressed about Boeing's business in China:
"I think that conversation has led to a very productive engagement between the U.S. and China. President Xi [Jinping’s] visit [to the U.S.] and the dialog he had with President Trump set a very cooperative tone. The world needs more than 39,000 new commercial airplanes over the next 20 years, and almost 6,800 of those will be in China. We’ve been able to make the case to the president and his administration that a productive trade relationship with China can create this kind of mutual growth."Of course, Boeing wants to leverage the administration's "fair" trade stance to stop what it considers dumping by our Canadian neighbors:
"The fact that this airplane is being sold to customers in Canada at a much higher price than it’s being sold to [Delta Air Lines] should also provide pause. It’s clearly a classic dumping case. We stand on the principle of a fair and level playing field for trade."Trump's trade and immigration rhetoric will turn out to have been mostly bluster. He's turning out to be much more a mainline conservative republican, in the mold of, oh, Marco Rubio.
"And, again, you look back in hindsight, you think should I have resisted harder? I just said, all right, it isn't worth -- this isn't a hill worth dying on and so I just said, OK, the press is going to completely ignore it. And that's what happened.
"When I said, we have opened a matter, they all reported the FBI has an investigation open. And so that concerned me because that language tracked the way the campaign was talking about FBI's work and that's concerning.
"It gave the impression that the attorney general was looking to align the way we talked about our work with the way a political campaign was describing the same activity, which was inaccurate.
"We had a criminal investigation open with -- as I said before, the Federal Bureau of Investigation. We had an investigation open at the time, and so that gave me a queasy feeling."What we have here in this case is a guy willing to look the other way on the FBI's own rules and policies, and when he knows he is being manipulated by a political operative (Lynch) disguised as his boss, he says nothing of her actions, but uses it as an excuse for his horribly ill-advised non-indictment of Hillary Clinton.
"And my judgment was, I needed to get that out into the public square. And so I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. Didn't do it myself, for a variety of reasons. But I asked him to, because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel. And so I asked a close friend of mine to do it."This guy had plenty of opportunities to do something different. Just as in the Clinton affair, he looked askance at an AG openly obstructing justice, and decided to take matters in his own hands, this time, he decided that he'd not discuss this with the current AG (or the Deputy AG), but he'd leak these memos, which belong to us, to the NYT through a third party.
BURR: Do you have any doubt that Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 elections?
BURR: Do you have any doubt that the Russian government was behind the intrusions in the DNC and the DCCC systems, and the subsequent leaks of that information?
COMEY: No, no doubt
BURR: Do you have any doubt that the Russian government was behind the cyber intrusion in the state voter files?
BURR: Do you have any doubt that officials of the Russian government were fully aware of these activities?
COMEY: No doubt.
BURR: Are you confident that no votes cast in the 2016 presidential election were altered?
COMEY: I'm confident. By the time -- when I left as director, I had seen no indication of that whatsoever.
BURR: Director Comey, did the president at any time ask you to stop the FBI investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. elections?
COMEY: Not to my understanding, no.
BURR: Did any individual working for this administration, including the Justice Department, ask you to stop the Russian investigation?
RUBIO: Director Comey, the meeting in the Oval Office where he made the request about Mike Flynn -- was that the only time he asked you to hopefully let it go?
RUBIO: And in that meeting, as you understood it, that was -- he was asking not about the general Russia investigation, he was asking very specifically about the jeopardy that Flynn was in himself?
COMEY: That's how I understood it, yes, sir.
RUBIO: And as you perceived it, while it was a request that -- he hoped you did away with it, you perceived it as an order, given his position, the setting and the like, and some of the circumstances?
RUBIO: At the time, did you say anything to the president about -- that is not an appropriate request, or did you tell the White House counsel, that is not an appropriate request, someone needs to go tell the president that he can't do these things?
COMEY: I didn't, no.
RUBIO: OK. Why?
COMEY: I don't know. I think the -- as I said earlier, I think the circumstances were such that it was -- I was a bit stunned, and didn't have the presence of mind.
And I don't know -- you know, I don't want to make you -- sound like I'm Captain Courageous. I don't know whether, even if I had the presence of mind, I would have said to the president, "Sir, that's wrong." I don't know whether I would have.
COMEY: But in the moment, it -- it didn't -- it didn't come to my mind. What came to my mind is, be careful what you say. And so I said, "I agree Flynn is a good guy.”
RUBIO: So, on the cloud -- we keep talking about this cloud -- you perceived the cloud to be the Russian investigation in general, correct?
COMEY: Yes, sir.
RUBIO: But the specific ask was that you would tell the American people what you had already told him, what you had already told the leaders of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans: that he was not personally under investigation.
COMEY: Yes, sir, that's how I...
RUBIO: In fact , he was asking you to do what you have done here today.
COMEY: ... correct. Yes, sir.
RUBIO: OK. And again, at that setting, did you say to the president that it would be inappropriate for you to do so, and then talk to the White House counsel or anybody so hopefully they would talk to him and tell him that he couldn't do this?
COMEY: First time, I said, "I'll see what we can do." Second time, I explained how it should work, that the White House counsel should contact the deputy attorney general.
RUBIO: You told him that?
COMEY: The president said, OK, then I think that's what I'll do.
RUBIO: And just to be clear, for you to make a public statement that he was not under investigation would not have been illegal, but you felt it made no sense because it could potentially create a duty to correct, if circumstances changed?
COMEY: Yes, sir. We wrestled with it before my testimony where I confirmed that there was an investigation. And there were two primary concerns. One was it creates a duty to correct, which I've lived before, and you want to be very careful about doing that.
And second, it's a slippery slope, because if we say the president and the vice president aren't under investigation, what's the principled basis for -- for stopping?
RUBIO: Now, on a number of occasions here, you bring up -- let's talk now about the general Russia investigation, OK? In page 6 of your testimony, you say -- the first thing you say is, he asked what we could do to, quote/unquote, "lift the cloud," the general Russia investigation.
And you responded that we were investigating the matter as quickly as we could and that there would be great benefit, if we didn't find anything, to having done the work well. And he agreed. He reemphasized the problems it was causing him, but he agreed.
So, in essence, the president agreed with your statement that it would be great if we could have an investigation, all the facts came out and we found nothing. So he agreed that that would be ideal, but this cloud is still messing up my ability to do the rest of my agenda. Is that an accurate assessment of...
COMEY: Yes, sir. He actually went farther than that. He -- he said, "And if some of my satellites did something wrong, it'd be good to find that out."
RUBIO: Well, that's the second part, and that is the satellites. He said, "If one of my satellites" -- I imagine, by that, he meant some of the other people surrounding his campaign -- "did something wrong, it would be great to know that, as well"?
COMEY: Yes, sir. That's what he said.
RUBIO: So are those the other -- are those the only two instances in which that sort of back-and-forth happened, where the president was basically saying, and I'm paraphrasing here, it's OK, do the Russia investigation. I hope it all comes out. I have nothing to do with anything Russia. It'd be great if it all came out, if people around me were doing things that were wrong.
COMEY: Yes. As I -- I recorded it accurately there. That was the sentiment he was expressing. Yes, sir.We have a president who at one time requested leniency for his friend, Michael Flynn, and at another, requested that the investigation continue and that any of his people involved be outed.
“a permanent designated space on central campus for Black students and students of color to organize and do social justice work.”Over in Northampton, NH, we have a school board who cancelled a police outreach program because:
“Concerns were shared that some kids might respond negatively to a group of uniformed officers at their school,” the police department said in a post on its Facebook page last week. "People were specifically concerned about kids of color, undocumented children, or any children who may have had negative experiences with the police."So, our little Prog SJWs celebrate and push for diversity by self-segregating, and we can't encourage better relations between the police and minority communities because we don't have better relations between the police and minority communities.
"Reporters’ phone logs and e-mails were secretly subpoenaed and seized by the Justice Department in two of the investigations, and a Fox News reporter was accused in an affidavit for one of those subpoenas of being “an aider, abettor and/or conspirator” of an indicted leak defendant, exposing him to possible prosecution for doing his job as a journalist. In another leak case, a New York Times reporter has been ordered to testify against a defendant or go to jail."
Said New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan wrote earlier this year, “it’s turning out to be the administration of unprecedented secrecy and unprecedented attacks on a free press.”
“President Obama had said that default should be disclosure,” Times reporter Shane told me. “The culture they’ve created is not one that favors disclosure.”ration spokesmen are often unresponsive or hostile to press inquiries, even when reporters have been sent to them by officials who won’t talk on their own. Despite President Barack Obama’s repeated promise that his administration would be the most open and transparent in American history, reporters and government transparency advocates said they are disappointed by its performance in improving access to the information they need."
“This is the most closed, control freak administration I’ve ever covered,” said David E. Sanger, veteran chief Washington correspondent of The New York Times
No, it wasn’t all “fake news” (man, am I exhausted by the ridiculous misuse of that term), at least not most of the time [insert outrage over Duranty’s Pulitzer, Janet Cooke’s and Steve Glass’s fabulations, and of course that time Dan Rather climbed the jackass tree only to hurl himself down, hitting every branch].On Liberal Journalists, Jonah falls where many are, that they mean well, but they truly live in a bubble. This doesn't impact us on the right so much, because we live in much the same cultural bubble as the Left. We read their newspapers, we hear their "news," we watch their TV and movies. We're ensconsed in that bubble. On the contrary, they have never set foot in our churches, or attend the same sporting events as us, or know who Sean Hannity is (I am not saying that last thing is a good thing). Jonah:
Still, the more you get to know elite “objective” journalists, the more you can appreciate that they are trying to do it right. But it also becomes all the more obvious that they live in a social milieu where the borders between the Democratic party, liberal activism, and liberal experts are very, very fuzzy.He adds, talking about reporters seeking verification of "facts" and opinions they agree with:
Reporters routinely call experts they already agree with knowing that their “takes” will line up with what the reporter believes. Sometimes this is lazy or deadline-driven hackery. But more often, it’s not. And that shouldn’t surprise us. Smart liberal reporters are probably inclined to think that smart liberal experts are right when they say things the smart liberal reporters already agree with.On the right, we know Vox to be an excuse for the Left to have an echo chamber. But I love how Jonah puts this:
Think of editors like security guards at a military base. They tend to wave through the people they know and the folks with right ID badges. But when a stranger shows up, or if someone lacks the right credential, then the guards feel like they have to do their job. This is the basic modus operandi for places like Vox, which seek to explain not the facts or the news, but why liberals are right about the facts and the news. [emphasis mine]I linked on Facebook to The Atlantic's ridiculous "sciency" article on the Right-to-Life's use of ultrasound technology and abortion. This ridiculous article deserved the ridicule it received. Like Jonah, I am happy that this extremely long piece has now been equalled by the length of the retractions and corrections The Atlantic has had to issue.
But if you actually watch the news side of Fox News, or read National Review, the Weekly Standard, Commentary (not to mention the more responsible conservative websites: The Federalist, Hot Air, etc.), you’ll find that we tend not to be swept up in the hysteria of the Left or the Right. There’s a diversity of writers and opinions to be sure, but on the whole we have praised some of what Trump has done and criticized other things. Fox reports inconvenient facts for the Democrats and inconvenient facts for the Trump administration. It’s not always easy to draw the lines — again, mixed bags and all — but so far I’m proud of the way most of my colleagues and peers have handled all of this weirdness.YOU, on the other hand, should read the entire piece.
Jesse Crammer, 19, can’t wait for Friday, and all he wants to see during the inauguration is President Trump’s remarks about the moment. “He is all of the celebrity I need,” said the high-school sophomore from the Keystone State.
“This night is about him; it is about us. It would be really cool if he opened up his remarks and asked people attending one of the balls, in particular the ball that will have our military, police and first responders in attendance, and ask them to talk about their lives.
“[Trump’s] message about ‘making America great’ was aspirational; it was about something bigger than ourselves, and perhaps that is what Hollywood does not get. They cannot imagine something bigger than themselves.”
If everyone who thinks CO2 is a pollutant would hold their breath for twenty minutes the problem would solve itself.— CSM (@usacsmret) December 21, 2016
'Today, when we talk about Americans boldly going where no man has gone before, we mean the ladies' bathroom. Progress."
The French State Council recently ruled that a video featuring children with Down syndrome will not be permitted to air on French television because the children’s smiles would “disturb the conscience of women who had lawfully made different personal life choices”—in other words, seeing these children happy would upset women who had aborted children suspected of having the syndrome. The award-winning “Dear Future Mom” video shows young people with Down syndrome from around the world speaking in a variety of languages about being able to learn to write and to ride a bike, hug their mothers and go to school, earn money and live on their own. In France, 86 percent of babies who receive a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome are aborted. Why should anyone’s conscience be at risk of being disturbed over this?Why, indeed, in a culture of death, should we disturb anyone for their "choices."
"Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”Personally, if that were backed up by some actual reporting that would shed light on it, I would find it much more damning. As it is, it sounds like so much of Trumpland, bluster, probably for the specific audience.
"I want to appoint Supreme Court justices who understand the way the world really works, who have real-life experience, who have not just been in a big law firm and maybe clerked for a judge and then gotten on the bench, but, you know, maybe they tried some more cases, they actually understand what people are up against."In other words, the judges will use as their basis for examining law "the way the world works." Or, more accurately the way Hillary Clinton and her friends on the Progressive Left think the world works.
"Because I think the current court has gone in the wrong direction. And so I would want to see the Supreme Court reverse Citizens United and get dark, unaccountable money out of our politics. Donald doesn’t agree with that."She wants to remove the right of people to freely assemble and gut the First Amendment. Citizens United was correctly decided and some may recall it was a case about a film that was about HILLARY CLINTON. Basically, this bitch wants to throw out the First Amendment due to spite.
"I would like the Supreme Court to understand that voting rights are still a big problem in many parts of our country, that we don’t always do everything we can to make it possible for people of color and older people and young people to be able to exercise their franchise."Voting Rights are NOT a big problem. States that have tough ID laws for voting have little fraud, and they all provide state-issued IDs for free, and in many cases, allow provisional ballots to be cast even to those without IDs. Fair elections without fraud are fundamental to the integrity of our system. Requiring voters to produce an ID that proves who they are is not too much to ask. But, it prevents voter fraud that Democrats like to practice, so it must be cast as racist and enshrined into law by Jurists in Robes, since no state legislature will allow such shenanigans.
"I want a Supreme Court that will stick with Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose, and I want a Supreme Court that will stick with marriage equality."It's ok for a Liberal to have an abortion litmus test, but God forbid a conservative have one. If you get Hillary Clinton, you get abortion on demand. Forever. You'll also get further erosion in religious liberty. Liberals dream of the only day you get the chance to practice your religion as being Sunday between 9:30-11. They'll further gut the First Amendment to get it.