Tag: politics

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.

And why Identity has replaced Ideology:

It seems that there is not much left of the Left and what remains has nothing to do with ‘Left.’

Contemporary ‘Left’ politics is detached from its natural constituency, working people. The so called ‘Left’ is basically a symbolic identifier for ‘Guardian readers’ a critical expression attributed to middle class people who, for some reason, claim to know what is good for the working class. How did this happen to the Left? Why was it derailed and by whom?

The British Labour party is a prime example of this. It is deaf to the cry of the lower classes. It claims to care ‘for the many’ but in practice is only attentive to a few voices within the intrusive Israeli Lobby. As Britain is struggling with the crucial debate over Brexit, British Labour has been focused instead on spurious allegations of ‘antisemitsm.’ It is hard to see how any Left political body in the West even plans to bring more work to the people. The Left offers nothing in the way of a vision of a better society for all. It is impossible to find the Left within the contemporary ‘Left.’

Why has this happened to the Left, why has it become irrelevant? Because by now the Left is a non-hierarchical system. It is an amalgam of uniquely ungifted people who made politics into their ‘career.’ Most Left politicians have never worked at a proper job where money is exchanged for merit, achievements or results. The vast majority of Left politicians have never faced the economic challenges associated with the experience of being adults. Tragically such people can’t lead a country, a city, a borough or even a village.

The Left had a mostly positive run for about 150 years. But its role has come to an end as the condition of being in the world has been radically transformed. The Left failed to adapt. It removed itself from the universal ethos.

In the same way the Left no longer represents the native working class, the “conservatives” of the West no longer conserve. We now live in a post-ideological multinational societies where competing interest groups struggle for the reins of imperial power in order to best benefit their self-perceived interests.

This is nothing new. This is the way that Man has lived for most of his history. The sooner the Right accepts the new/old reality and adapts to it, the more successful it will be. Because there are a lot of people practicing identity politics who are working very hard at trying to steer the Right away from defending national interests.

The Republican Party and I think conservatism in general is also going through a lot of internal debates about what — what it should be, right, what it should be—the sort of position of the party. And I think that’s one that we should be involved in because we, I think, probably want to steer conservatives and Republicans more towards a message of liberty and freedom and away from the more nationalistic incendiary nativist comments and things like that.
—Adam Kovacevic, Head of U.S. public policy, Google

The Democratic Party is rapidly approaching its final destiny as the Diversity Party:

Of the nine candidates officially running in the Democratic presidential primary, only one is a heterosexual white man. And that guy, former Rep. John Delaney, generally polls somewhere between zero and 1 percent.

But of the 17 Democrats reportedly still pondering a presidential bid, all but one is a straight white man. It’s hard to chalk that up to coincidence. Clearly, the women and minority candidates sensed that the water is warm for them, and the straight white men appear to be worried that this is just not their year.

CNN’s demographic number cruncher Ron Brownstein noted recently that the percentage of the Democratic primary electorate who are women, nonwhite voters and—“the most liberal component” of the party—college-educated white voters are all on the rise. The 2016 Democratic primary electorate was 58 percent women, 38 percent nonwhite voters and 37 percent college-educated white voters, all numbers that could be bigger in 2020, and strongly suggest a hospitable environment for candidates who embody a diverse America.

The problem, of course, is that the Republican Party is actively resisting embracing what logic, game theory, and simple arithmetic dictate is the correct strategy: become the White Party, stop trying to win diversity votes, and focus solely on advancing white interests. Even the cucks and virtue signalers will be won over in time, once they finally grasp their only choice is between flush toilets and full refrigerators versus fleeing unarmed from starving socialists who are desperate to rape, kill, and eat them.

Historian Victor Davis Hanson summarizes the failed Deep State coup directed at President Donald Trump and calls for prosecuting those who staged it:

Weaponizing the Deep State

During the 2016 election, the Obama Department of Justice warped the Clinton email scandal investigation, from Bill Clinton’s secret meeting on an airport tarmac with Attorney General Loretta Lynch, to unethical immunity given to the unveracious Clinton aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, to James Comey’s convoluted predetermined treatment of “likely winner” Clinton, and to DOJ’s Bruce Ohr’s flagrant conflict of interests in relation to Fusion GPS.

About a dozen FBI and DOJ grandees have now resigned, retired, been fired, or reassigned for unethical and likely illegal behavior—and yet have not faced criminal indictments. The reputation of the FBI as venerable agency is all but wrecked. Its administrators variously have libeled the Trump voters, expressed hatred for Trump, talked of “insurance policies” in ending the Trump candidacy, and inserted informants into the Trump campaign.

The former Obama directors of the CIA and National Intelligence, with security clearances intact, hit the television airways as paid “consultants” and almost daily accused the sitting president of Russian collusion and treason—without cross-examination or notice that both previously had lied under oath to Congress (and did so without subsequent legal exposure), and both were likely knee-deep in the dissemination of the Steele dossier among Obama administration officials.

John Brennan’s CIA likely helped to spread the Fusion GPS dossier among elected and administrative state officials. Some in the NSC in massive and unprecedented fashion requested the unmasking of surveilled names of Trump subordinates, and then illegally leaked them to the press.

The FISA courts, fairly or not, are now mostly discredited, given they either were willingly or naively hoodwinked by FBI and DOJ officials who submitted as chief evidence for surveillance on American citizens, an unverified dossier—without disclosure that the bought campaign hit-piece was paid for by Hillary Clinton, authored by a discredited has-been British agent, relied on murky purchased Russian sources, and used in circular fashion to seed news accounts of supposed Trump misbehavior.

What is strange, however, is that despite being at the height of his popularity and all-but-cleared of the false charges of the failed Deep State coup, Trump appears – appears – to be submitting to the neocons. Is it possible that this submission is what brought the attempted coup to a close? Or is he simply playing rope-a-dope again prior to throwing a few knockout punches?

Always be cautious about concluding that anyone is finished, be it the creatures of the Deep State or the God-Emperor.