Perhaps the need to get nominated causes those in pursuit to swing far in a particular direction and once nominated they become more rational in the hope voters will forget their radicalism.
The current crowd of Democrats support:
a) criminals in jail allowed to vote regardless of the reason they were sentenced (See 1 below.)
b) free health care
c) free education
d) have the wealthy pay off education debt
e) reject anything Trump proposes
f) do nothing about illegal immigration
g) support sanctuary cities
h) reject Mueller's decision there was no collusion and focus on obstruction
i) impeach Trump
j) raise taxes
k) no border barriers
l) abolish ICE
m) reintroduce rules and regulations that crippled our economy
n) defend those members who support and spout anti-semitic remarks
o) persist in character assassination and stall nominations
p) go green at any cost
q) reject pipeline construction so we remain dependent upon foreign energy sources
r) continue to support failed policies that enslave black citizens who are kept dependent upon government
s) further the embrace of socialism but call it something less threatening.
t) oppose the investigation of the participants in the Steele Dossier and illegal FISA Warrants
u) Reinstate Obama's Un-constitutional Iran Deal (See 2 below.)
Democrats are now up to 19 candidates and on Thursday, Biden will make it 20. Then the fun begins as they eventually go after each other.
When one or two get nominated they will campaign as rational in the hope you will elect them so they can return to being radical. That is what Democrats have been doing since Wilson and that is why our Republic is crumbling, why the American character has turned into snowflakes and why most conservatives no longer recognize our country. China, not Russia, is our greatest external adversary and internally it is the Democrat Party and the "despicables" who run it by the name of Schumer, Walters, Schiff, Pelosi , Sanders, Harris. OCA and Nadler for starts.
Hold onto your MAGA Hats it is going to be one hell of a slippery slope kind of ride.
Tom Fitton's group is worth supporting as Dee's SPLC goes down in flames (Edited see 3 and 3a below.)
)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) Bernie Sanders: All Felons, Including Boston Marathon Bomber, Should Be Able to Vote In Prison By Jack Crowe
Posted ByRuth King
Senator Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) said Monday that all felons, including terrorists and rapists, should be able to vote while serving out their prison sentences.
Asked during a CNN town hall in New Hampshire whether he believed people like the Boston marathon bomber should be disenfranchised, Sanders said no, and suggested that all restrictions on voting rights erode American democracy.
“If somebody commits a serious crime, sexual assault, murder, they’re going to be punished,” he said. “They may be in jail for 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, their whole lives. That’s what happens when you commit a serious crime. But I think the right to vote is inherent to our democracy. Yes, even for terrible people.”
“Because once you start chipping away and you say, ‘well that guy committed a terrible crime, not going to let him vote,’ or ‘that person did that, not going to let that person vote,’ you’re running down a slippery slope,” he continued. “So, I believe that people commit crimes, they pay the price. They get out of jail, I believe they certainly should have the right to vote. But I believe even if they’re in jail, they’re paying their price to society, but that should not take away their inherent American right to participate in our democracy.”
Sanders, who is polling second only to Joe Biden, effectively split the Democratic candidates attending the town hall on the question of voting rights for felons in prison. Senator Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) said she was open to having a “conversation” about whether terrorists and sexual offenders should be able to vote, while Southbend, Ind. mayor Pete Buttigieg said definitively that he supports the restoration of voting rights after prison but not while someone is still serving their sentence.Will Democrats revive the appeasement of Iran?
++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) Promises by 2020 candidates to reinstate the nuclear agreement just at the moment that pressure is starting to work requires Jewish Democrats to speak up.
Jewish and pro-Israel Democrats were put to the test in 2015, most of them failed. Faced with the dilemma of whether to stick with the positions they had articulated for years about the need to confront and stop Iran or to support President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal, the overwhelming majority did the latter. The question now is: What will they do when they are given a similar choice in the coming year?
Most Democrats had hoped the debate over Iran ended when Obama slipped approval of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCOPA) through a legislative back door rather than being confirmed as a treaty by constitutional means (which, since it would have required a two-thirds vote of approval, would not have been possible). They accepted the notion that the deal couldn’t be overturned by unilateral action by the United States even if a future administration withdrew from it.
But it turns out that they were wrong. President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the nuclear deal last year, and much to the surprise of the foreign-policy establishment, the reimposition of sanctions on Iran is succeeding. As I wrote last month, unilateral American economic sanctions are working. Tehran has been forced to cut back on its funding to terrorists, like its Hezbollah auxiliaries. Their economy is faltering, and criticism of the regime from a restive Iranian population that is chafing under the tyrannical rule of the ayatollahs has increased.
Tehran’s European trading partners, who have prioritized their profits over the security of the West, have also failed to find a way around Trump’s sanctions that would bar access to financial transactions in the United States if they also did business with Iran.
This week, Trump took the next step by ending the waivers the United States had granted to eight nations to continue to buy Iranian oil. Though Iran is vowing vengeance, few believe their bluffs. And though their Chinese customers are also squawking, Trump is right to believe that he can weather that storm, as well as the blowback from a further increase in gas prices this summer in the United States. With Saudi Arabia and other oil exporters willing to increase production to make up for shutting down Iran’s exports (as well as those of the equally problematic Maduro regime in Venezuela), there has never been a more opportune moment for the West to confront Iran over its terrorism, illegal missile production and quest for regional hegemony, as well as to force it to renegotiate the nuclear deal in order to ensure that it never gets a bomb (something Obama failed to do).
But the Iranians are comforted by one thought. If a Democrat defeats Trump next year, the odds are that the next administration will reinstate the Iran deal, and Tehran will be back in business.
Former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has already confessed that he is advising the Iranians to simply wait until Trump is out of office. For him to collude in that fashion with a hostile power is an outrage and perhaps runs counter to the seldom-enforced Logan Act, which prohibits such activity.
But what’s worse is that several leading Democratic presidential candidates are now vowing to return the United States to the deal. Sens. Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar have already made that promise. It’s a given that former Vice President Joe Biden would do the same.
This puts pro-Israel Democrats in the same bind that they faced in 2015, leaving them with a decision whether or not to publicly oppose their own party, even if means making common cause with Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Their reasons for ditching Israel and backing Obama on Iran in 2015 varied, but mostly it boiled down to partisan loyalty.
Many had misgivings about a pact that left Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and advanced capabilities intact, and which expired within a decade, making the regime’s possession of a weapon only a matter of time. Some may have genuinely believed that Obama’s appeasement of Iran was the best of a number of bad options available to the West. They accepted the false choice promoted by the administration’s media “echo chamber”—to use the apt phrase coined by former Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes to describe the way he brazenly manipulated a press corps willing to act as an Obama cheering section—that the only alternative to the deal was war.
They knew that Obama was so desperate for a deal that he was willing to accept virtually anything to get an agreement he could tout as his foreign-policy legacy. They didn’t question Kerry’s decision to abandon virtually every one of the West’s demands in the negotiations simply because the Iranians kept saying no.
But when Obama made it clear to Democrats that he viewed a vote on the Iran deal to be a partisan litmus test on which no deviation would be tolerated, almost all of them bowed to his wishes. Even a dissenter like current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer had to promise not to try to influence his colleagues in opposing Obama to get away with voting against the deal. Democrats towed the party line and accepted the sort of terrible pact with Iran that most had previously vowed they would never accept.
Most Democrats hate Trump so much that they will never acknowledge when he is right or if any of his policies succeeds. And no matter what you think of the president that is true of his stand on Iran. But for Democrats to advocate retreat on Tehran just at the point when Trump’s efforts are cornering its leaders is unconscionable. It’s up to pro-Israel elements in the party to push back against those seeking to defend a return to appeasement of Iran. If not, they should abandon the pretense that their concern for the Jewish state—or for the fight against international terrorism and nuclear proliferation—is anything but lip service.
Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS—Jewish News Syndicate. Follow him on Twitter at: @jonathans_tobin.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)
|
And on top of that…
We got a senior FBI official to admit, in writing and under oath, that the agency found Clinton email records in the Obama White House, specifically, the Executive Office of the President.
I’m counting on you to help again now because the Left (aided and abetted by the Deep State) is on a lawless full-scale attack against not only President Trump and his team, but also against honest elections and our federal laws against illegal immigration.
That’s why our nation urgently needs Judicial Watch’s nonpartisan, independent commitment to supporting government transparency, full accountability and the rule of law.
And I can tell you right now that there are many Leftist challenges to the rule of law that only Judicial Watch has the expertise and proven track record to confront.
I know you share our commitment to holding corrupt politicians in both parties accountable under the law, and I know you want us to help “drain the swamp” in Washington. That’s why I sincerely hope you will renew your support of Judicial Watch now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Tom Fitton
President
http://www.judicialwatch.org/
E.W. (Bill) Priestap, assistant director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division, made the disclosure to Judicial Watch as part of court-ordered discovery into the Clinton email issue.
U.S District Court Judge Royce Lamberth ordered Obama administration senior State Department officials, lawyers, and Clinton aides, as well as Priestap, to be deposed or answer written questions under oath. The court ruled, 06 December, 2018, that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.” .....
.....“This astonishing confirmation, made under oath by the FBI, shows that the Obama FBI had to go to President Obama’s White House office to find emails that Hillary Clinton tried to destroy or hide from the American people.” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “No wonder Hillary Clinton has thus far skated – Barack Obama is implicated in her email scheme.” .....
.....Priestap testified in a separate lawsuit that Clinton was the subject of a grand jury investigation related to her BlackBerry email accounts. .....
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment