When a woman and her children are attacked at night by progressive radicals you would think the Me Too girls would be upset. Since those attacked wee a conservative family who cares.
And:
We also are learning that a lot of shenanigans are going on in Florida, possibly Arizona when it comes to vote counting. The two women who are in charge of Florida counties have been around for a long time and seem to be habitually involved in this kind of activity.
One women has been charged by a judge she is acting in an un-constitutional manner.
I don't make this stuff up though I am never surprised because these are normal strategies of the radical left. If they cannot win at the box they know they can stuff it until they do win.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Stacey Abrams has done what progressive radicals are starting to do. Lose a close election and make all kind of fraudulent claims in order to raise doubts among the unwashed about the validity of the election process. One of our most sacred entitlements as American citizens..
It is evident to me, the idea of being a good sport, congratulating the winner and licking your wounds is no longer part of their DNA. Hillary showed the way and it is another propaganda technique that has proven effective.
These is something foul happening in America but then what do I know.
When radicals cannot win in a particular district or state progressive radials do not look at the campaigner they chose or the message sent. It always must be because of "racism."
In Georgia, Adams chose to offer ideas that were not embraced and she lost, not because she was black. There could be resentment over the fact that outside money poured in to impose on Georgians bad ideas from California and Russia. It could also be, lies spread about Kemp,eventually turned off a lot of Georgians who are sick and tired of the mass media's garbage. It could be that Adams is unattractive and her size reflects an inability to be disciplined. I can think of a lot of reasons why she lost and that is something candidates,who run for public office, must accept, unless they have another agenda. That of stealing.
Her inability to be graceful sends a message that she is a sore loser and is seeking to sneak in through intimidation. which is another technique progressives have perfected.
In a broader sense radicals have begun to employ an entire number of ploys to undercut American's faith in elections, in government, in everything American from patriotism to how we treat fellow citizens. These ploys build upon each other and, in my humble opinion, began in Wilson's presidency, accelerated in the '60's and reflect themselves today in the radicalization of an entire class of students taught by liberal faculties in the social science departments of universities.
Obviously the burgeoning of welfare encouraged the demand for more and more entitlements Programs like affirmative action were enacted to give those who had been disadvantages a leg up but turned from a hand up into a hammock. It is the silver platter approach but it also meant embracing reverse discrimination as public policy. Harvard is in a law suit now because they seemingly embraced it as the basis of their admission policy.
Unpopular wars we either chose not to win or could not also made their contribution to why many have lost faith in government thereby, allowing those who hate America, and all it stands for, to find various reasons to spread distrust.
Finally, we come to Trump's victory, his quirky mannerisms, his rough and tumble crude way of conducting himself and this, has now become an umbrella under which all the grievances of the anti-Trump haters rally.
I know many who read these memos and are liberally oriented think I am an extreme nut case. Bless their hearts.
I have been writing about what I saw coming beginning in `1960 when Mary Penuel, my beloved secretary, would type them up and send them to clients. Now I type myself, do not own a cell phone, continue to march to my own drum beat because what I feared and predicted has come to pass - American prosperity provided nourishment for our rejecting what made us great. I have years of writings, which another beloved associate, Judy Hartley, put together, in a binder as a gift for one of my milestone birthdays. I have my thoughts in a pamphlet entitled: "Street Person" I wrote for my grandchildren and finally a pamphlet on how to raise a conservative child which I published to help raise funds for "The Wounded Warrior Project" and is still available on Amazon.
I site these not because I am proud to have been mostly correct in a predictive sense, because others have done a better job and been more prescient, but simply because these are my strongly held beliefs, I love to express myself in writing and hope they may provide currency to others who are concerned about these pernicious trends in America.
Trump cannot make America Great again. Only informed participating Americans can do that because freedom allows us the opportunity. That said, as we throw away our freedoms, as we allow government to intrude and crush these freedoms, and as we ignore the efforts of those who no longer believe in freedom we surely will lose our freedoms because a republic rests on a fragile foundation which needs constant nurturing. That means those capable of rational reasoning must be willing to overcome a powerful crowd who are ready to spend billions and resort to any tactic to impose their philosophy that is anathema to free choice, capitalism and our Constitutional precepts.
Frankly, I am no longer sure we will because far too many embraced the "Hope and Change" nonsense of our former president whose ideas about America were certainly not mine but had an appeal because it brought false hope at a time when we were desperate.
Now, we have a president who accomplishes but does so in a manner that turns off many who might otherwise willingly support him. Thus, giving the Trump haters more leverage.
Time will tell whether my pessimism is justified. Meanwhile, it is evident Democrats could teach Russie something bout stealing elections.(See 1 below.)
https://www.washingtontimes.
Keith Ellison won the Atty. General slot in Wisconsin. He is the first Muslim to capture this high level state office and he received a lot of money from Soros and needs to thank him for his victory. Soros is focusing on Atty.General positions throughout the land as the best way to bring about radical change in our nation. Ground root approaches take time but are effective. It is the camel with it's nose under the tent approach.. Sharia law will eventually be meshed with our Common Law. Just a matter of time. Drip Drip Drip.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I believe Trump will regret firing Sessions . Sessions should have told his intentions to Trump before accepting and discussing the matter. (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
Biggest Loser: Elizabeth Warren
By
Outside deep-blue districts, the election proves a wipeout for progressives.
Tuesday’s midterms served up mixed results, handing both parties big wins and big losses. It will take some time to sort out what it means. Yet the evening did nonetheless provide one total, complete, unalloyed loser: Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
For a decade Ms. Warren, 69, has been busy trying to remake Washington in her progressive image. Her role in creating a new financial regulatory apparatus gave her outsize influence over the bureaucracy. Her successful 2012 Senate bid gave her a megaphone to rail against “billionaires, bigots and Wall Street bankers”—and Donald Trump. The left begged her to challenge Hillary Clinton in 2016 and rebrand the Democratic Party as a populist, progressive force. Ms. Warren demurred, leaving the field to Bernie Sanders.
She instead carefully designed this year’s midterms as her launchpad to the presidency. Ms. Warren seeded into key races several handpicked progressive protégés, in particular Richard Cordray, former director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (who ran for Ohio governor), and a former law student, Katie Porter (who ran in a California House district). Ms. Warren geared up a shadow war room, built ties with some 150 campaigns, directed millions of fundraising dollars to select candidates, and thereby earned chits. She dispersed staffers to early primary states and crisscrossed the country herself. A week ago she was dominating Ohio headlines at rallies for Mr. Cordray. If Mr. Trump was on the ballot nationally, Ms. Warren was on it in the Buckeye State.
The lead-up to Tuesday had already been brutal for her. Hoping to elbow her way back into the headlines after Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation, Ms. Warren chose in mid-October to release a five-minute video and piles of documentation aimed at proving she really is at least 1/1,024th Native American. The ridicule was ruthless, matched only by the anger Democrats directed at her for distracting from the election.
But Tuesday compounded the disaster. Ms. Porter—who campaigned in Orange County on single-payer health care, expanded Social Security and debt-free college—flamed out to two-term Rep. Mimi Walters. In Ohio, Mr. Cordray lost to Attorney General Mike DeWine. And in Indiana, in what many claimed was the closest of that state’s House races going into the midterm, Republican Rep. Trey Hollingsworth blew out Warren-endorsed Liz Watson, 59% to 41%.
These results reflected a national collapse by progressive candidates. National Journal’s Josh Kraushaar put together a list of nine progressive candidates as a “test” of “lefty strength.” They included gubernatorial candidates Andrew Gillum of Florida and Ben Jealous of Maryland and Leslie Cockburn, who ran in one of Virginia’s most vulnerable Republican congressional districts. They went 0 for 9. Indeed, outside safe Democratic districts, the left-wing movement took a complete bath—including in House races in Nebraska’s Second, New York’s 24th and Pennsylvania’s First districts. Progressive candidates were Democrats’ biggest gift to Republicans Tuesday night.
But by far the biggest repudiation of Ms. Warren was in her own liberal state. She endorsed a ballot initiative that would have mandated nurse-to-patient ratios in hospitals; voters destroyed it, 70% to 30%. She rallied for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jay Gonzalez, who lost to Republican Gov. Charlie Baker by 34 points. And while Ms. Warren dispatched her own Senate challenger on Tuesday, she underperformed the state’s top Republican. Some 1.7 million voters went for Mr. Baker; 1.6 for Ms. Warren.
She put on a brave face Wednesday, when she told a crowd at Brown University that many Democrats coming to Washington ran “on a very progressive agenda that government is an important part of our lives.” She failed to mention that nearly all of them won in deep-blue districts that would have voted for a ferret with a D next to its name. These are not areas that win the presidency. The center-left think tank Third Way reports its team watched “every one of the 967 ads that Democrats ran in competitive House districts since Labor Day, and just two candidates mentioned either Medicare-for-all or single payer.” Both lost.
Elections have a way of clearing the board, bringing forth new faces that eclipse those from prior cycles. That—along with Ms. Warren’s terrible night—is what should concern her. Democrats didn’t get the blue wave they wanted, but they are still fired up to beat Mr. Trump in 2020. And they showed a thirst for new names and personalities that might get them there. The Democratic bench has over this past year become wider and deeper—Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Andrew Cuomo, Eric Holder, Kirsten Gillibrand, Deval Patrick, Michael Bloomberg.
Ms. Warren? She is looking more like old news.
The departing attorney general leaves as gracious as ever, and doesn’t regret his controversial recusal.
By
Jeff Sessions says he is “confident” that Robert Mueller’s probe of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election will be handled “appropriately and with justification.” In his only interview as he was leaving the Justice Department Wednesday, the former attorney general tells me if he had it to do over, he would still follow the advice of the department’s career ethics officers and recuse himself from supervising the Mueller inquiry—the decision that infuriated President Trump. “No one is above supervision,” he says. He hadn’t expected the investigation to last so long, he said, and called the duration “unhealthy.” But he says “the country is committed to this course.”
The discreet, disciplined and courteous Mr. Sessions, 71, declines to comment on his discussions with White House officials about his dismissal. He says he hasn’t decided on his future plans: “I want some family time and to let my head clear.” Although he says he is now drawn more to executive than legislative public service, there’s been speculation he may run in 2020 for his old Senate seat, which Democrat Doug Jones won in a special election a year ago. Mr. Trump may live to regret the cavalier way he treated his still-loyal former adviser and cabinet member.
On what turned out to be the last day of his 21-month tenure, Mr. Sessions arrived in his office on the fifth floor of the Justice Department shortly after 7 a.m., a bit later than his usual 6:15. He had stayed up late watching election returns.
Just before 8, his senior staff meeting got under way. He signed an order setting forth principles the federal government must follow before it can sue a local police force, school or other government entity and manage or oversee its operations. At 9:30, he met in a secure room with officials from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, for one of his thrice-weekly briefings on terrorist threats and counter terror operations.
Then, shortly before Mr. Trump’s post election press conference, Mr. Sessions took the first of two unscheduled calls from White House chief of staff John Kelly. The president wanted Mr. Sessions to resign—immediately.
I spent the past 10 days with Mr. Sessions, interviewing other officials, friends and advisers. These conversations exposed an irony: No cabinet member has been subjected to more sustained abuse from the president, yet arguably not one has done as much to advance Mr. Trump’s agenda.
That leads to some mixed verdicts on Mr. Sessions’s tenure. Democrats and liberals applaud him for protecting Mr. Mueller by recusing himself from the probe, and for defending his department and its personnel. They also criticize his longstanding support for the administration’s immigration and “law and order” policies, not to mention his threats to cut federal funds for so-called sanctuary cities and his “zero tolerance” policy toward aliens illegally crossing the southern border.
Mr. Sessions has conservative critics too. Passionate Trump supporters argue that he should have prosecuted Hillary Clinton and investigated misuse of surveillance warrants to spy on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. Defenders counter that Mr. Sessions was scrupulous in enforcing the law impartially, and loyal to the text of the Constitution. He made a priority of fighting crime and protecting religious liberty.
Small gestures—such as ensuring that the family of every police officer killed or badly wounded in the line of duty gets a personally signed letter of condolence within 48 hours—helped make Mr. Sessions “the most pro-law enforcement attorney general in years,” says Associate Deputy Attorney General Steven H. Cook. His decision to end predecessor Eric Holder’s restrictions on civil forfeiture—the seizing of assets from criminal suspects—wins praise from former prosecutor Reeve Swainston: “Sessions lifted the constraints that so frustrated those of us battling drug cartels.”
He pushed back hard against “judicial activism,” particularly the practice of issuing nationwide injunctions. “A single federal district court’s ruling should not bind the entire nation,” he says in an interview last week. District courts have issued more such orders in Mr. Trump’s first two years than in Barack Obama’s two terms.
Several Justice Department lawyers say uncertainty about Mr. Sessions’s future was stressful and depressing. “Political limbo is the worst,” as one puts it. But another says Mr. Trump’s relentless attacks had helped Mr. Sessions restore the department’s sense of independence.
If Mr. Sessions was troubled, he hid it well. The department’s “Energizer Bunny,” as one lawyer calls him, maintained a full schedule of meetings, travel, speeches and visits with law-enforcement officers and prosecutors until Mr. Trump announced his dismissal in a Wednesday tweet. Neither Mr. Trump nor Vice President Mike Pence called him to thank him for his service.
Some of Mr. Sessions’s contribution defies measurement. By defending free speech on university campuses, he made intellectual freedom a departmental priority. In his reserved, courtly way, he brought focus, discipline and predictability to a sprawling empire with 115,000 employees. He also encouraged department officials beyond “main Justice” to experiment with what works best in their towns, cities and states. “Perhaps because he was a U.S. attorney for a dozen years, U.S. attorneys have enjoyed more independence than we did before,” says Andrew Lelling, the U.S. attorney for Massachusetts.
Several lawyers called reports of low morale exaggerated. Stan Pottinger, who served as an assistant attorney general for civil rights in the Nixon administration, says such fluctuations of bureaucratic mood aren’t unusual—but because officials at the Justice Department focus on enforcing the law, “morale rarely plummets or soars as it does in other agencies.”
There was little sign of hostility to Mr. Sessions among the 200 or so officials who gathered, and offered sustained applause, when he said goodbye Wednesday. The outpouring was so warm that the normally reserved Mr. Sessions was moved nearly to tears. “It was heartwarming,” he says. “I told them that we were all part of the executive branch and served at the pleasure of the president, that we had protected the legal process which was vital to our work, and that we should all feel proud.”
Mr. Sessions was the first senator to endorse Candidate Trump. He gave up a safe Senate seat after two decades to join the administration. He would have every right to be bitter about being demeaned for months by his boss as a “traitor,” an “idiot” and a “dumb Southerner.” But if he is, Mr. Sessions is too gracious and loyal to say so. “We’ve had a good run,” he says. “It’s been an adventure.”
Ms. Miller is a contributing editor of City Journal and a Fox News contributor.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment