Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for March, 2019

Political Arrogance And Stupidity Go Hand In Hand


Written by Bill Thomas on March 19, 2019

Albert Einstein once said, ‘Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.’ There have been so many stupid acts and comments made in the past week in the world of politics, that it makes you wonder about the future of humanity.

Leen Dweik, a college student at NYU, and NYU senior Rose Asaf confronted Chelsea Clinton at a vigil for the fifty Muslims killed in an attack on a New Zealand mosque and accused her of being a cause of the massacre because she criticized an anti-Semitic tweet by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN).

In an essay in BuzzFeed published March 16, 2019, the two of them wrote, ‘Just weeks before this tragedy, we bore witness to a bigoted, anti-Muslim mob coming after Rep. Ilhan Omar for speaking the truth about the massive influence of the Israel lobby in this country.’

So, let’s not misunderstand. The two college students have a 100% monopoly on what’s right. Rep. Omar’s remarks were ‘truth’ and Clinton’s comments ‘fanned the flames of bigotry.’ I’m rarely a defender of Chelsea Clinton, but this arrogance is mind-blowing. This is the method, though, of the new Democrat party. They are all about intimidation, bullying and believing that they are one hundred percent right and the rest of us are just ignorant and wrong.

We see it with former Vice President Joe Biden. On February 28, 2019, in Omaha, NE, Biden referred to current Vice President Mike Pence as a ‘decent guy’ in a speech. The thought police on the Left rained down mercilessly on the former vice-president. Among them was actress and activist, Cynthia Nixon, who tweeted, ‘.@JoeBiden you’ve just called America’s most anti-LGBT elected leader ‘a decent guy.’ Please consider how this fall on the ears of our community.’

What did Joe do? He did what all good Democrats today do. He apologized. ‘You’re right, Cynthia… there is nothing decent about being anti-LGBTQ rights, and that includes the Vice President.’ Biden has to repent at the altar of the new Democrats. There’s no room for a variety of opinions. You must hate those you’re told to hate.

Not to be outdone in the arrogance and intimidation department, we see Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI). In an interview that aired on March 10, 2019, she said, ‘I know this will be somewhat shocking for some, but I think Islamophobia is very much among the Democratic Party as well as the Republican Party.’

Rep. Tlaib believes that the Democrats and Republicans are bigoted against Muslims. It’s hard for me to wrap my mind around the gall that it takes to accuse both major parties in the freest land in the world to be bigoted against a group of people.

It wasn’t the United States that detained the Muslim population. That was China. It isn’t the United States that is at the bottom of nations who mistreat women. According to USA Today, November 29, 2014, that would be the Islamic nation of Yemen. In what country can three Muslim individuals be elected to represent constituencies in the most powerful halls of debate and ideas? Only in the United States.

Just to refresh your memory, Tlaib is the freshman congresswoman who, hours upon being sworn in, vowed to impeach the president using vile curse words. She is not so much interested in fairness or equality. She is part of the new Democrat party whose motto is ‘my way or no way.’ She believes her ideas are right and, if you disagree, you’re wrong.

Not wanting to be left out, the deep state decided to unveil some arrogant stupidity as well. Quin Hillyer, in the Washington Examiner on March 13, 2019, reported, ‘Newly released testimony by disgraced FBI attorney Lisa Page makes former U.S. attorney general Loretta Lynch look blatantly dishonest and makes her infamous ‘tarmac meeting’ with former president Bill Clinton look even sleazier than it already had.’

Hillyer continues, Specifically, despite sworn assurances to the contrary from Lynch, Page testified that Department of Justice officials repeatedly dissuaded the FBI from building a criminal case against Clinton for ‘gross negligence’ in her handling of classified information.’

Let’s understand here. The Obama Department of Justice prevented the FBI from a criminal case against Hillary Clinton, is that right? Even before it was popular, the Obama administration Democrats practiced the art of ‘we’re never wrong.’

The New Democrats are signaling clearly who they are. They are about bullying into submission those that disagree with them. They are convinced that they, and they alone, are one hundred percent right. If you disagree, you’re a bigot or just stupid. They are about hating the right people and they never, ever admit to doing wrong. They believe they’re above it.

That’s who’s opposing us in 2020.

Bill Thomas

Bill Thomas lives in Washington, Missouri and has been in local church ministry for over twenty-five years. He is also an adjunct instructor in history, Bible and education for two different Christian colleges. He’s authored two novellas, From the Ashes and The Sixty-first Minute published by White Feather Press of MI and three Bible studies, Surrounded by Grace, The Critical Questions and More and The Road to Victory published by CSS Publishing of OH.

Breaking: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Trump on Illegal Immigrant Detention


Reported By Randy DeSoto | Published March 19, 2019 at 10:47am | Modified March 19, 2019 at 10:52am

The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration, ruling that immigrants with criminal records can be detained and held indefinitely while they await deportation proceedings.

In the 5-4 decision, the high court overruled the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which decided in 2016 that immigrants with criminal records can only be detained by federal authorities if the detention occurs soon after he or she is released from jail, The Hill reported.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh in the ruling.

“In these cases, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that this mandatory-detention requirement applies only if a covered alien is arrested by immigration officials as soon as he is released from jail,” Alito wrote.

“If the alien evades arrest for some short period of time — according to respondents, even 24 hours is too long — the mandatory-detention requirement is inapplicable, and the alien must have an opportunity to apply for release on bond or parole,”  he continued.  “Four other circuits have rejected this interpretation of the statute, and we agree that the 9th Circuit’s interpretation is wrong.”

The case centers around the interpretation of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

“The law states the government can detain convicted immigrants ‘when the alien is released’ from criminal detention,” according to Reuters.

“Civil rights lawyers argued that the language of the law shows that it applies only immediately after immigrants are released. The Trump administration said the government should have the power to detain such immigrants anytime,” the news outlet added.

Mony Preap, one of the lead plaintiffs in the class action suit against the government, is a lawful permanent resident who had two drug convictions, which were deportable offenses. He completed his jail time for these crimes in 2006 but was detained by federal authorities in 2013 after being released from jail for non-deportable offenses.

Justice Stephen Breyer said in the dissent — in which he was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — that the Constitution did not intend for people who have already served their sentence for crimes committed to be deprived of their liberty indefinitely.

“I would have thought that Congress meant to adhere to these values and did not intend to allow the Government to apprehend persons years after their release from prison and hold them indefinitely without a bail hearing,” he said reading his dissent from the bench, the Washington Examiner reported.

Breyer warned the “greater importance in the case lies in the power that the majority’s interpretation grants to the government.”

“It is a power to detain persons who committed a minor crime many years before. And it is a power to hold those persons, perhaps for many months, without any opportunity to obtain bail,” he said.

Cecilia Wang, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer, who argued the case for the immigrants, said, “the Supreme Court has endorsed the most extreme interpretation of immigration detention statutes, allowing mass incarceration of people without any hearing, simply because they are defending themselves against a deportation charge.”

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton applauded the decision, saying the Supreme Court upheld the rule of law.

He tweeted, “U.S. Supreme Court gives @RealDonaldTrump victory on immigration detention. Actually, court upholds rule of law on immigration in case dating back to Obama administration.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Randy DeSoto is a graduate of West Point and Regent University School of Law. He is the author of the book “We Hold These Truths” and screenwriter of the political documentary “I Want Your Money.”

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – CAIR-ful

Because Jeanine Pirro had the courage criticized Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitic views, she’s been silenced by FOX News.

Judge Jeanine Silenced on FoxPolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2019

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report Monday, March 18, 2019


Top Stories

WATCH: Beto O’Rourke on Abortions Up to Birth: “That Should be a Decision a Woman Makes, I Trust Her”
Hulu Show’s Character Says She Feels “Very F—— Powerful” After Aborting Her Baby
91 Babies Saved From Abortion During 40 Days for Life Prayer Campaign, So Far
Kentucky Judge Blocks Law Banning Abortions When Unborn Baby’s Heart Begins Beating

More Pro-Life News
Arkansas Governor Signs Bill to Ban Abortions on Unborn Babies After 18 Weeks
City Votes to Make Itself a “Sanctuary City” for Unborn Babies
Georgia Senate Committee Passes Bill Banning Abortions After Unborn Baby’s Heart Starts Beating
Beto O’Rourke Raises More Than Any Other 2020 Democrat, Supports Abortions Up to Birth

Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories

 

WATCH: Beto O’Rourke on Abortions Up to Birth: “That Should be a Decision a Woman Makes, I Trust Her”

Former Texas congressman and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke was captured on camera at a campaign event in Cleveland responding to a question about third-trimester abortions.Click to Read at LifeNews.com


MSNBC Praises Justice Sandra Day O’Connor: “She Kept Abortion Alive”

8 Democrats Joined Republicans to Stop New Mexico From Legalizing Abortions Up to Birth

Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.

Abortion Activist Punches Pro-Lifer in the Face While He Protests Outside Abortion Clinic

Court Upholds Indiana Law Banning Sales of Aborted Baby Parts

LISTEN: Abortion Clinic Tries to Cover Up Botched Abortion “We’re an Abortion Clinic, It Will be Posted on the Internet”

Democrats Demand Right to Life for Kittens, But Block Bills to Stop Infanticide

Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com.
Copyright 2003-2019 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved.

Nat’l Guard Helped Arrest 23,000 Illegals Dems Want in America … They Had 35k Lbs of Drugs Too


Reported By C. Douglas Golden | Published March 15, 2019 at 8:33am

When President Trump deployed the National Guard to the border in April of last year to stop “the flow of deadly drugs and other contraband, gang members and other criminals, and illegal aliens into this country,” the reaction was similar to that of this headline from Foreign Policy: “Both Sides Are Overselling Trump’s Troop Deployment to the Border.”

Writing for Foreign Policy, Lara Seligman said that “the actual facts of the deployment do not live up to the hype from either side. The move — coming right before crucial midterms while the caravan is more than a month away from reaching the U.S. border on foot — is arguably a political ploy.”

“More important, once they arrive, the troops’ mission will be relatively benign. Since they are legally prohibited from performing domestic law enforcement, the troops will spend their time putting up razor wire and offering logistical support to border patrol agents, rather than making arrests themselves.”

However, a new report indicates that “benign” mission made a serious dent in illegal cross-border traffic.

National Guard troops helped with the arrest of 23,034 illegal immigrants and the seizure of more than 35,000 pounds of drugs in the roughly six months they were deployed to the border in fiscal 2018, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection,” the Washington Examiner reported on Tuesday.

“The more than 23,000 people arrested were ‘deportable’ noncitizens, DHS said. The operation, dubbed ‘Guardian Support,’ also led federal law enforcement to more than 6,100 people who were later turned back, the data said.”

And yes, they did all of this without apprehending anybody. It turns out that razor wire and logistical support was fairly effective.

“Troops are providing support from the air, surveillance backup, and assistance with infrastructure projects such as vegetation clearing and road maintenance, not including border wall construction. Guardsmen can also be used to free up agents to leave their desks and get back out to the field,” the Examiner reported.

“The troops monitoring remote video surveillance systems have then been able to report sightings to a greater field of agents, and thus the number of apprehensions has increased, officials have said.”

This, in other words, is far from benign.

According to Pew Research, there were almost 467,000 apprehensions at the southern border in 2018. Roughly 5 percent of apprehensions, in other words, had something to do with the National Guard. That points to a fairly effective record. So, why are certain governors withdrawing their National Guard troops from the border?

California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced that he would be withdrawing the Guard from the border with Mexico, calling “the border ‘emergency’” a “manufactured crisis.”

“California will not be part of this political theater, which is why I have given the National Guard a new mission. They will refocus on the real threats facing our state,” Newsom’s prepared remarks for his State of the State speech in February read, according to Fortune.

This was days after New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, citing a “charade of border fear-mongering,” also ordered most of the National Guardsmen to withdraw.

“I reject the federal contention that there exists an overwhelming national security crisis at the southern border,” she said, according to NPR.

Yet, the deployment of the Guard to the border during this “manufactured crisis” managed to apprehend more than 23,000 illegal immigrants in a year that saw the most apprehensions at the border since 2012 and an explosion in the number of family units apprehended.

So, are these troops benign? Or too effective? After all, the Democrats have made it clear they don’t particularly want any form of serious border security. They don’t believe there’s any sort of border crisis and don’t seem to care if illegal immigration levels are at their highest in six years.

They simply don’t care — and that’s why they don’t want the National Guard at the border. It has nothing to do with ineffectuality. Quite the opposite, actually.

For the most cynical of reasons, they want illegal immigration to continue. Whatever externalities it may cause are worth the benefits for them.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between America and Southeast Asia and believes in free speech and the Second Amendment.

Sickening: Senator Who Voted Against Protecting Babies Sponsors Bill To Save Kittens


Reported By C. Douglas Golden | Published March 16, 2019 at 8:44am

Please don’t get me wrong. I like kittens. Cats, well, maybe not so much; I don’t see why you would keep and feed something that won’t even come when you call it and whose only trick is the ability to go to the bathroom in a pile of sand. But kittens, they’re adorable. I think we can all agree on that. I think we can also agree on the fact that kittens are less important than babies. No matter how cute the kitten, no matter how meme-worthy it is, human babies take precedence.

So, why is it that Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon introduced a bill that would save the lives of kittens used in research less than a month after helping Democrats successfully block legislation that would protect babies born alive during abortions?

According to NBC News, Merkley’s law was designed “to prevent the Department of Agriculture from continuing deadly experiments on kittens.”

“The agency has been breeding kittens in Beltsville, Maryland, and infecting them with a parasite that can cause toxoplasmosis, a foodborne illness. Scientists harvest the parasites from their stool for two to three weeks, and then euthanize and incinerate the cats,” they reported.

“The USDA’s decision to slaughter kittens after they are used in research is an archaic practice and horrific treatment, and we need to end it,” Merkley said in a statement.

There were plenty of great soundbites from advocates of the bill, including one individual from a watchdog group who called it “taxpayer-funded kitten slaughter.” (If there’s some sort of award for political blurb of the year, I would urge the judges to please consider that one seriously.)

“The USDA’s archaic kitten experiments are out of step with 21st-century research practices and animal welfare recommendations,” Hannah Shaw, founder of animal advocacy group Kitten Lady, said.

“Continuing to breed and kill perfectly healthy kittens for toxoplasmosis research is unethical and unnecessary, and I’m grateful to Senator Merkley for introducing the KITTEN Act to stop it once and for all.”

When it comes to animal welfare, however, Merkley is a bit less concerned about Homo sapiens.

The Oregon senator, as TheBlaze noted, was just one of the Democrats who blocked the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. The bill would have extended protections for babies born alive during an abortion procedure, something that’s increasingly important now that we’ve seen states such as New York and Vermont pass bills which allows greater latitude when it comes to late-term abortions. (Oh, and there was that whole Ralph Northam kerfuffle we’ve all seemingly forgot about, too.)

In a statement, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins discussed the cruel paradox in Merkley’s votes.

“What do cats have that newborn babies don’t? Democrats’ support,” he wrote.

“In one of the sickest ironies no one is talking about, Senate liberals picked this moment — 17 days after they voted to kill America’s perfectly healthy infants — to fight for the humane treatment of kittens. Maybe the DNC’s strategists are out to lunch, or maybe the Left really is this shameless, but I can’t wait to see some of these politicians standing on debate platforms next year telling the American people that when it comes to protecting living things: We chose cats over kids.”

“‘The KITTEN Act will protect these innocent animals from being needlessly euthanized in government testing,’Merkley told reporters, ‘and make sure that they can be adopted by loving families instead.’Does he even hear himself? They should be treated and adopted? That’s exactly what Americans have requested for living, breathing babies. Democrats said no. Killing a child is a ‘personal decision,’ they said, and Congress shouldn’t get in the way.”

But then, the Democrats have decided to plant their flag upon abortion rights: Any sort of restriction upon the ability of a woman to get an abortion on demand and for the baby to be killed — no matter what — is automatically an interference in a decision that should only be made by a woman and her doctor.

Felines, however, are another story. They need protection. So goes the modern, tone-deaf Democrat Party, unwilling to protect babies born alive during an abortion but ready to expend political capital upon kittens.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between America and Southeast Asia and believes in free speech and the Second Amendment.

Reuters Drops Bombshell Beto Story, Makes Shock Admission Why They Held onto Story for over a Year


Reported By C. Douglas Golden | Published March 17, 2019 at 5:58am | Modified March 17, 2019 at 6:23am

Picture this: A wire-service newshound finds out that a Republican congressman, now a candidate for Senate, was a member of a notorious hacking group. When asked about it, the congressman confirms that information on the condition that it not be released until after the election. What are the odds that this information somehow “leaks” to the media beforehand? One hundred percent? Two hundred percent? Eleventy-billion percent?

Reverse that and make it a Democrat. What are the odds that it doesn’t get shared?

Well, now we know the answer, thanks to the fact that a Reuters reporter knew Beto O’Rourke was a member of the hacking group the Cult of the Dead Cow and didn’t share that knowledge publicly despite the fact that he knew it in late 2017.

“While a teenager, O’Rourke acknowledged in an exclusive interview, he belonged to the oldest group of computer hackers in U.S. history,” Reuters‘ Joseph Menn reported on Friday. “Members of the hugely influential Cult of the Dead Cow, jokingly named after an abandoned Texas slaughterhouse, have protected his secret for decades, reluctant to compromise his political viability.

“O’Rourke’s membership in the group — notorious for releasing tools that allowed ordinary people to hack computers running Microsoft’s Windows, and also known for inventing the word ‘hacktivism’ to describe human-rights-driven security work — could explain his approach to politics better than anything on his resume,” Menn continued. “His background in hacking circles has repeatedly informed his strategy as he explored and subverted established procedures in technology, the media and government.”

The story went through O’Rourke’s early days of hacking, back when he used his Apple IIe to find “cracked” games — games that you could pirate free of any digital rights protections — on electronic bulletin boards. It also talked about his time running a board of his own, called “TacoLand.”

Part of TacoLand involved O’Rourke publishing his own writings, which Menn was able to uncover.

Here was one snippet from a 15-year-old Beto: “One day, as I was driving home from work, I noticed two children crossing the street. They were happy, happy to be free from their troubles…. This happiness was mine by right. I had earned it in my dreams.

“As I neared the young ones, I put all my weight on my right foot, keeping the accelerator pedal on the floor until I heard the crashing of the two children on the hood, and then the sharp cry of pain from one of the two. I was so fascinated for a moment, that when after I had stopped my vehicle, I just sat in a daze, sweet visions filling my head.”

Lovely. The story also noted that O’Rourke “pilfered long-distance service ‘so I wouldn’t run up the phone bill’” when he was connecting to bulletin boards, something that could have been a felony in Texas if O’Rourke pilfered over $1,500 of service. (The statute of limitations has long since expired, obviously.)

On a busy news day where the Christchurch massacre dominated the headlines, the story managed to get an enormous amount of traction, with Reuters noting that “(w)ithin minutes, (Menn’s) special report was the most popular story on Reuters.com here and was picked up by other news outlets.”

However, one thing that wasn’t so clear in the special report was that Menn had had the story since 2017.

“I decided to write a book about the Cult of the Dead Cow because they were the most interesting and influential hacking group in history. They illustrated a lot of the things that I think are fascinating about hacking and security work,” Menn said in an “interview” with his own wire service. (Wonder how they scored that navel-gazing bit of self-promotion?

“While I was looking into the Cult of the Dead Cow, I found out that they had a member who was sitting in Congress. I didn’t know which one. But I knew that they had a member of Congress.

“And then I figured out which one it was. And the members of the group wouldn’t talk to me about who it was. They wouldn’t confirm that it was this person unless I promised that I wouldn’t write about it until after the November election. That’s because the member of Congress had decided to run for Senate. Beto O’Rourke is who it was,” he continued.

“I met Beto O’Rourke. I said ‘I’m writing a book about Cult of the Dead Cow, I think it’s really interesting. I know you were in this group. This book is going to publish after November and your Senate race is over. And he said, ‘OK.’

“And he told me about his time in the Cult of the Dead Cow.”

And we didn’t find out about it until O’Rourke the Senate candidate became O’Rourke the presidential contender — and with considerable spin from Menn, who seems to put forth the argument that O’Rourke’s youthful indiscretions could actually help him in the 2020 presidential race.

“Arguably, there has been no better time to be an American politician rebelling against business as usual,” he wrote in the piece published Friday. “There is no indication that O’Rourke himself ever engaged in the edgiest sorts of hacking activity — breaking into computers or writing code that enabled others to do so. Still, it’s unclear whether the United States is ready for a presidential contender who, as a teenager, stole long-distance phone service for his dial-up modem, wrote a murder fantasy in which the narrator drives over children on the street, and mused about a society without money.”

Well, that’s certainly a pleasant way of putting things.

If Texas voters had known any of this before they went to the polls in November, we arguably wouldn’t be talking about this at all. O’Rourke’s appeal to liberals is that he came kinda sorta close to unseating a Republican in a red state during a race in which the media treated him as a skateboarding, livestreaming rock star.

An acknowledged membership in the Cult of the Dead Cow — once the Cult of the Dead Cow was properly explicated to voters — likely would have significantly curtailed the momentum O’Rourke enjoyed at the time. In fact, had it been revealed in 2017, when Menn first knew of his membership, it’s questionable whether Beto would have even been the nominee for the seat.

Now that the moral victory of the 2018 Texas senatorial election is under his belt (a belt no doubt replete with a belt buckle and holding up some worn denim just to prove how very Texan he is), O’Rourke and his supporters can try and file this one under the “cool Beto” heading.

See, he doesn’t just skateboard! He was a l33t hacker all the way back in the Apple IIe days! He used bulletin board systems! And now he livestreams his dental appointments! Please just don’t look at that stuff he wrote when he was 15 about running over kids, OK? Thanks.

I’m not certain that we should judge candidates based on what they did during their teenage years, but these are still facts voters should know in order to make a decision on their own. This isn’t just minor delinquency here. O’Rourke was a member of a notorious hacking group that not infrequently compromised an operating system. He may have committed a felony through theft of phone service.

The media loves to inform of us of just how important they are to us. To hear reporters tell it, they make sure we know the facts necessary to maintain a functioning democracy.

Yet, in what was arguably the biggest Senate race of 2018, a Reuters reporter sat on very pertinent information for roughly a year before the election because, well, why? Because he got an interview out of O’Rourke for his book? Because it would have compromised Beto’s chances? Because it would have compromised his book? There are many examples of media bias favoring Democrats in American politics, but not many are as sickening.

If only Beto had been a Republican. We would have all become privy to this fact the moment it became known to Menn.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between America and Southeast Asia and believes in free speech and the Second Amendment.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: