Tag: politics

The anti-BDS movement attacking American First Amendment rights appears to have gone seriously awry, as MoveOn has publicly thrown down a gauntlet in the face of AIPAC.

No Democratic presidential candidates committed to AIPAC conference as liberal group calls for boycott. With some Democrats advocating a re-evaluation of the U.S relationship with Israel, the progressive political advocacy group MoveOn is calling on 2020 candidates to boycott this year’s conference of prominent pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC.

It’s not clear yet which 2020 Democratic candidates — if any — were planning to attend this year. But in the past three presidential cycles, the eventual nominees for both parties spoke at the conference the year of the election.

Iram Ali, MoveOn’s campaign director, told NBC News that the boycott only applies to this year’s conference. That could leave the door open for candidates to attend next year, when the Democratic presidential primary will be in full swing. But she described alignment with AIPAC as anti-progressive.

“It’s important that the next Democratic nominee has progressive values, not only in their domestic policies, but also in their foreign policies,” Ali said. “You cannot be a progressive and support AIPAC because of the policies that they’ve supported.”

It’s mildly amusing to see the shock being expressed by conventional conservatives. Apparently their civnattery prevented them from ever thinking through the obvious implications of the changing Democratic Party demographics. Of course, they’re more inclined to piously denounce anti-semitism – DRRA – than they are to take advantage of the situation.

The Trumpslide 2020 just got that much bigger. It’s not that Jews will vote for Republicans no matter what bones Trump throws Israel, but at least they’ll probably be less enthusiastic about funding his opponents.

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump
After 52 years it is time for the United States to fully recognize Israel’s Sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which is of critical strategic and security importance to the State of Israel and Regional Stability!
9:50 AM – 21 Mar 2019

I’d prefer the United States fully recognize its sovereignty over its own southern border myself. Does President Trump really believe any American gives a flying rat’s ass about what is of critical strategic and security importance to the State of Israel in light of the complete lack of their own security?

I suspect this is primarily about trying to keep Netanyahu in office. Even so, whatever happened to America First?

The push for a re-vote on staying in the EU is voted down by the British Parliament:

MPs tonight voted against a second referendum on Brexit for the first time as Remain MPs prepare to seize control of the agenda to push Britain to a soft Brexit.

A proposal by the Independent Group to demand a new public vote on Brexit has failed after Labour and even the official People’s Vote campaign deserted the move.

The bid for a second referendum was crushed 334 to 85 in a blow to the hopes of campaigners who want a new vote.

Apparently no MP is eager to face the voters after telling them they have to vote until they vote for rule by Brussels.

This doesn’t surprise me in the least; I’ve been criticizing the uniparty since at least 2004. But I expect this Senatorial betrayal will anger more than a few Republicans:

The Republican-led Senate is set to deal President Donald Trump a rebuke on his declaration of a national emergency at the Mexican border, with the only remaining question how many GOP senators will join Democrats in defying him.

Republicans are predicting that Thursday’s showdown vote will result in Congress sending Trump a resolution blocking the border emergency he proclaimed last month to steer an extra $3.6 billion to building border barriers.

Since the Democratic-controlled House approved the measure last month, the Senate vote would force Trump to use a veto to protect his presidential campaign’s “Build the Wall” mantra over objections from his own party….

With Republicans controlling the Senate 53-47, just four GOP defections would be enough to approve the resolution canceling Trump’s border emergency.

Lee became the fifth Republican to say they’d back the resolution after Trump called him during a private lunch of GOP senators to say he opposed Lee’s compromise bill. The call was described by two officials who weren’t authorized to discuss the matter publicly and described it on condition of anonymity.

Soon afterward, Lee issued a statement saying he’d support the resolution blocking the border emergency. “Congress has been giving far too much legislative power to the executive branch,” Lee said. He said he’d vote to block Trump’s emergency because his own bill “does not have an immediate path forward.”

The other GOP senators who have said they will vote to block Trump’s border emergency are Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Kentucky’s Rand Paul.

This is a perfect example of the uselessness of so-called “representative democracy”. The Founding Fathers were wrong. Mob rule would be vastly preferable.

The British Prime Minister’s utterly predictable fake dramatic gesture “winning an important concession from the EU at the last minute” appears to have gone down in legal flames:

The Attorney General today delivered a fatal blow to Theresa May’s hopes of winning her ‘last chance’ Brexit vote tonight by admitting the 11th hour deal struck in Strasbourg last night failed to change his legal advice.

Geoffrey Cox has admitted the legal risk of Britain being trapped forever into EU rules through the Irish backstop ‘remains unchanged’ and that new concessions only ‘reduce’ this risk.

The DUP and Tory Brexiteers are now likely to reject the Prime Minister’s deal tonight having suggested they would only change their minds if the Attorney General changed his advice. 

Mr Cox’s bombshell dropped after Jeremy Corbyn has demanded MPs kill-off Theresa May’s renegotiated Brexit deal as the Prime Minister prepares to make a last-ditch plea to her own MPs to vote through her deal tonight.

She will warn them that Britain may never leave the EU if they refuse to back her tonight.

Tory Brexiteers and Northern Ireland’s DUP had been waiting to see if Geoffrey Cox tweaked his legal advice before deciding to vote for it.

Mr Cox earlier spoke out on Twitter to blast claims he was ‘told to find a way’ to change his mind as ‘b*****ks’.

Rebel Tory Brexiteers and the DUP are today combing over the detail after the Prime Minister last night announced ‘legally binding changes’ to the controversial Irish border backstop after a dramatic dash to Strasbourg yesterday and last-minute talks with Jean-Claude Juncker.

Former Brexit Secretary David Davis tweeted: ‘This all now depends on the Attorney General’s legal advice. It is critical that he confirms we can escape this backstop.’

Theresa May will make a direct pitch to MPs at 11.30am and hopes the changes to her deal will be enough to win backing for her plan from rebel Tory Brexiteers and the DUP in the meaningful vote tonight and secure Britain’s exit from the EU on March 29.

No deal is the best deal. The British MPs don’t need to vote for May’s ridiculous plan in order to “secure Brexit”. Britain will leave the EU regardless of whether the Parliament backs the Prime Minister or not. All of these Parliamentary shenanigans are merely meant to provide cover to the elite’s obvious desire to abandon democracy and overturn the will of the people.  But I doubt these efforts will work because if the current British elite had the confidence to openly declare that democracy is dead and they will rule as they see fit no matter what people want, we wouldn’t be subjected to these embarrassingly stupid theatrics in the first place.

The Democrat-controlled House publicly backs down:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in an interview that she opposes moving to impeach President Trump even though she believes he is “unfit” for office — her first definitive statement on the subject and one that stands to alienate members of her own Democratic Party who are intent on ousting the president.

“I’m not for impeachment,” she said in a March 6 interview conducted for a future issue of The Washington Post Magazine.

“This is news,” she added. “I haven’t said this to any press person before. But since you asked, and I’ve been thinking about this, impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.”

Interesting. I wonder what’s going on behind the scenes that inspired this sudden lack of appetite for direct conflict with the God-Emperor? Other than the fact that the Special Investigator has turned up nothing despite two years of digging for dirty laundry, of course.

Does this investigation explain why Hilary Clinton uncharacteristically decided not to run in 2020?

After it claimed no such document existed, the Justice Department just unearthed a letter Matt Whitaker delivered to the Utah U.S. attorney directing a review of how the department handled the Clinton Foundation and the Uranium One issues.

Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions wrote the letter on Nov. 22, 2017 for Utah U.S. Attorney John Huber. Matt Whitaker, who was Sessions’ chief of staff at the time, emailed the letter to Huber that day, writing, “As we discussed.” He also sent Huber a copy of a letter the Justice Department’s Congressional affairs chief sent to the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee on Nov. 13 of that year.

The existence of a letter documenting Sessions’ directive that the DOJ revisit probes of Trump’s top political foe is a surprise because a department lawyer said in court last year that senior officials insisted it didn’t exist. The liberal nonprofit American Oversight obtained the letter through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request they filed on Nov. 22, 2017––the same day Whitaker emailed Sessions’ letter to Huber.

The request asked for documentation of the directions Sessions gave Huber about the review of the Clinton investigations. After DOJ failed to produce any written directions, American Oversight sued.

And on Nov. 16, 2018, Senior Counsel in the Office of Information Policy Vanessa Brinkmann, who handles FOIA Requests, said a lawyer in Sessions’ office told her no such letter existed. That lawyer spoke with Huber and Whitaker, she said in a declaration filed in federal court, and then told her that “when the Attorney General directed Mr. Huber to evaluate these matters, no written guidance or directives were issued to Mr. Huber in connection with this directive, either by the Attorney General, or by other senior leadership office staff.”

That wasn’t correct. On Wednesday of this week, a DOJ lawyer told American Oversight that they had found the document that kicked off Huber’s work.

The letter, which American Oversight provided to The Daily Beast, is consistent with what the DOJ’s chief of legislative affairs has told Congress: that Huber is scrutinizing the sale of a Canadian uranium mining company with interests in the United States to Rosatom, a Russian state-owned company. Republicans have long alleged that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declined to oppose the deal because of contributions to the Clinton Foundation.

Whether you believe anything that Q says or not, never forget that there is always an awful lot going on beneath the surface of the mainstream Official Story, and even the most confirmed media skeptic has no idea what most of it could possibly be.

Why on Earth is the God-Emperor attacking Ann Coulter?

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump
Wacky Nut Job @AnnCoulter, who still hasn’t figured out that, despite all odds and an entire Democrat Party of Far Left Radicals against me (not to mention certain Republicans who are sadly unwilling to fight), I am winning on the Border. Major sections of Wall are being built and renovated, with MUCH MORE to follow shortly. Tens of thousands of illegals are being apprehended (captured) at the Border and NOT allowed into our Country. With another President, millions would be pouring in. I am stopping an invasion as the Wall gets built. #MAGA

I think the president’s response is better understood via the socio-sexual hierarchy than through politics. Trump knows better than anyone else that he’s failing to deliver. He can sense his support crumbling; alphas are very sensitive to these things. And alphas highly value female opinion, as it is female approval of them that most clearly highlights their distinction from men lower in the hierarchy.

So, Coulter’s brutal appraisal of the president’s near-complete failure on the most important issue of his campaign stings him to his core. Coulter, by the way, almost certainly knows this and she is not attempting to tear the president down, but rather to motivate him to stop listening to the cucks and foreigners and bad economists around him and start living up to his promises.

The challenges are manifold, even though Trump is genuinely doing more to address the problem than any president since Eisenhower and he is meeting staunch and formidable opposition. But he is betrayed by his own preference for negotiated settlements and expectations of rational behavior on the part of his opponents, and by his own civic nationalism. Unless he is willing to declare no-quarter, go scorched earth on the issue, and actually behave as if he is facing a genuine national emergency of existential proportions – which he legitimately is, whether he is able to grasp that or not – he is going to fail on all three of the primary issues upon which he was elected.

That doesn’t mean he has been a failure. Far from it! He has been an excellent president and he will be justifiably re-elected in 2020. The problem is that after more than 50 years of relentless foreign invasion, the situation is so dire that mere excellence will not suffice.

Powerline makes it official: Neo-Palestinians have lost control of both the Labour Party in the UK and the Democratic Party in the USA:

I think we have crossed a Rubicon of sorts. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and the Congressional Black Caucus–which supported Omar unanimously, as best one can tell from news reports–are in the driver’s seat. Anti-Semitism is now accepted by the Democratic Party.

Never mind lame attempts to change the subject like the multiple tweets from presidential candidates to the effect that it is not anti-Semitic to criticize the policies of the government of Israel. Of course not, but that is not what Omar did, and not what she got into trouble for doing. She has criticized, rather, American supporters of Israel who she says were bought off by “Benjamins” and are loyal to a foreign power. And she has tried to bring about the destruction of Israel, an important American ally, by supporting the BDS movement, which seeks Israel’s obliteration.

The Democratic Party is not the first to embrace anti-Semitism. A number of European parties did so in the early decades of the 20th century. The political calculus is straightforward: there are only a few Jews, a slow-growing (if growing at all) demographic, while there are lots of anti-Semites, especially among our fast-growing Islamic population. That is, of course, Omar’s base.

We witnessed today the birth of a new Democratic Party. And so far, I haven’t seen a single Democratic officeholder complain about it.

“American supporters of Israel” is an amusingly dishonest bit of rhetoric. If 400 years of residence didn’t make transform them into Egyptians, how could less than 100 years of residence possibly have transmogrified them into the Constitutional Posterity of the American revolutionaries?

Anyhow, Neo-Palestinians still effectively control the Conservative Party in the UK and the Republican Party in the USA, even though very few of them actually vote for the latter. But that influence will rapidly decline over the course of the next 15 years, at which point the UK and the USA will almost certainly be added to the long list of no-good, very-bad places that the nomadic Neo-Palestinians used to reside and from which they have been encouraged to move on for absolutely no fault of their own.

You may recall that I predicted this very division in the Democratic Party years ago. It’s the same political dynamic, writ large, that Omar rode into the Minnesota state legislature.

House Democrats erupted in protest over plans to vote this week on a resolution condemning anti-Semitism – an indirect sanction on freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) in response to the suggestion that supporters of Israel have “allegiance to a foreign country.”

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said on Wednesday that there may not be a vote this week on the measure, saying “We’re discussing what is the best way to address it,” according to the Washington Post.

Walking into them meeting, a confident Pelosi told the media that the Omar situation “would be resolved,” adding “I think you make more of it than there is . . . to be very honest with you — the press loves to foment unease in the Democratic Party but we are very united” regarding the Democratic House agenda.

Moments later, all hell broke loose:

Inside the meeting, according to multiple people present, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) tried to keep her caucus focused on a planned Friday vote on a sweeping campaign and elections reform bill. She acknowledged “internal issues,” according to notes taken by a Democratic aide present, and urged members not to “question the motivations of our colleagues.”

But moments later, multiple House members stood up to challenge the decision — endorsed by Pelosi and the rest of the House Democratic leadership — to move forward with a resolution condemning religious hatred. Initially the measure targeted only anti-Semitism, with some Democrats pushing for a direct rebuke of Omar, but by Tuesday night — facing backlash from members not on board with the plan — leaders decided to expand it to include anti-Muslim bias. -Washington Post

Several Democrats those who took issue with the measure were members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who opposed even an indirect rebuke of Rep. Omar when they should be focusing on how to attack President Trump.

“I think there’s a big rise in anti-Semitism and racism, and that’s a bigger conversation we need to be having.” said Rep. Cedric L. Richmond (D-LA). “But it starts at 1600 Pennsylvania. It doesn’t start with one member out of 435 members of Congress.”

“Why are we doing this?” asked Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ), who said that a resolution would be “redundant and unnecessary,” likely referring to the January 11 rebuke of Omar after she accused the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) of contributing to pro-Israel politicians.

“We’ve individually and collectively already responded to the fact that we oppose all ‘-isms’ that do not treat people in this country fairly and justly,” said Coleman. “To continue to engage in this discussion is simply an opportunity to give both the media and Republicans distractions from our agenda. We’ve got important work to do.”

Other members, including Richmond, said it was unfair that the caucus would take action against one of its own members while other GOP lawmakers have uttered offensive remarks with no retribution. This week, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) accused Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) of anti-Semitism for a tweet referring to Tom Steyer, a Democratic donor of Jewish descent as “Tom $teyer,” and Richmond and several other members mentioned Trump. -Washington Post

“We need to have equity in our outrage,” said Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) who said after the meeting that she was focused on “the occupant of this White House who is seeding every form of hate, emboldening it with racist rhetoric and policies. That is who we all need to be focused on, and this is a distraction.”

According to those present, Omar attended the meeting but did not speak.

Jewish lawmakers, meanwhile, insist that the House needs to pass the resolution condemning anti-Semitism in response to Omar’s remarks.

What we’re learning here is that the concepts of 4GW apply to rhetoric as well as war. “Racism” is effective because it is based on a perception of societally punching down. But Jews can no longer effectively play the victim game in a multiethnic empire where they are the most powerful identity group among the ruling elite. That is why the accusations of “anti-semitism” are still effective with white Baby Boomers but have no effect whatsoever on rival immigrant populations and younger US citizens.

Also, the best rhetoric points towards the truth. And call it what you will, claiming that supporters of Israel cannot possibly have any allegiance to Israel is not only untruthful, it is downright incoherent.