[Hot Air] Go figure that a man known as a skilled appellate defense attorney might have an animus against the idea of a roving prosecutor, but don’t let that keep people from hearing Alan Dershowitz out. He writes in The Hill that Congress should have seized the moment after the 2016 election by creating a bipartisan special commission to get to the truth of Russian interference and how to defend against it instead of demanding recusals and special counsels.
The Mueller probe, Dershowitz argues, compounded the damage that Russia intended to create in the first place:
Doesn't matter. It's emotional. They were very deeply hurt by Trump, and now it's payback time. They will pursue him to the ends of the Earth and if it hurts America, then America is a horrible country which deserves it.
Posted by: Herb McCoy7309 ||
03/23/2018 3:33 Comments ||
It showed the American People (the rest of us knew it already) what their elites are really like.
Not that I'm all that sympathetic to Zuckerberg but I think Senator Kennedy's approach is all wrong. I don't believe FB rises to the level of a public utility that needs regulating and it's not a health or safety problem like food or drugs or cars.
Nobody is twisting your arm to use FB or any of these social media so if you don't like the way they're doing it you are free to opt out. If you're afraid somebody's gonna find out your likes and dislikes don't post them on the Internet. Is that too hard to understand?
But I guess grandstanding is what senators do. They sure as hell can't seem to do much of anything else.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
03/23/2018 10:31 Comments ||
They sure as hell can't seem to do much of anything else.
Oh, they have that spending that would make a drunk sailor queasy pretty well mastered...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
03/23/2018 12:33 Comments ||
At least drunk sailors are spending their own money...
Anyone who didn't think there info was being mined by Facebook is a fool. Having said that it seems to me the Onion post is more about defusing the anger against a reliable liberal than anything else.
[YouTube] In this speech to a meeting of Swinton Circle in London on 31 July 2015, Liberty GB leader Paul Weston exposes the Left's relentless assault on British culture, identity and tradition. About the Author:
Paul Martin Laurence Weston (born 1965) is a British far-right politician and a member of the Pegida UK leadership team. An activist and blogger, Weston joined the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in 2010 and stood as a Parliamentary candidate for Cities of London and Westminster. In 2011, Weston left UKIP and joined the now-defunct British Freedom Party with members of the English Defence League (EDL) and former members of the British National Party (BNP). He was the chairman of Liberty GB before the party was dissolved in December 2017, recommending its members to join For Britain.
For Liberty GB, he was a candidate for South East England in the 2014 European election and for Luton South in the 2015 general election. He obtained 158 votes (0.4%).
He was married to a Romanian after meeting her in Romania. He was the President of the English branch of the International Free Press Society founded in 2009. Wikipedia
[Hot Air] If this post fails to appear or, once published, suddenly disappears, a majority of Americans will know whom to blame: The Deep State.
According to a new Monmouth University Poll, a substantial majority of Americans believes that an unelected, shadowy portion of government and the military secretly manipulates federal policy to its own ends.
Here’s what’s so intriguing about this finding: It’s bipartisan, one of the few things in these hyper-partisan days that members of both parties as well as independents share a fervent belief in.
"This is a worrisome finding," says Patrick Murphy, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute. "The strength of our government relies on public faith in protecting our freedoms, which is not particularly robust. And it’s not a Democratic or Republican issue. These concerns span the political spectrum."
Perhaps out of conviction, President Trump has stoked belief in the Deep State, suggesting faceless opponents in Washington maliciously use an antagonistic and willing media to undermine his policies and programs in the eyes of unwitting citizens.
Clearly, Trump’s professed suspicions have found a believing audience.
Fully 64 percent of the 803 adults polled said they believe the Deep State definitely or probably exists. Sixteen percent think it "probably" does not exist. Only five percent are certain it does not exist.
Sixty percent feel unelected or appointed officials have too much power and influence determining federal policies, for instance, writing regulations from vaguely-worded legislation.
"We usually expect opinions on the operation of government to shift depending on which party is in charge," Murphy adds. "But there’s an ominous feeling by Democrats and Republicans alike that a ’Deep State’ of unelected operatives are pulling the levers of power."
[Townhall] "This is just a truly astonishing moment coming from the White House podium," tweeted MSNBC's Kasie Hunt. Like the rest of the media pack-animals she hunts with, Ms. Hunt had been fuming over President Trump's telephone call to Vladimir Putin, congratulating him on winning another term as Russian president.
Reliably opposed to a truce were party heavies on both sides. Sen. John McCain joined the chorus: "An American president does not lead the Free World by congratulating dictators on winning sham elections," he intoned.
Another Republican, Sen. Chuck Grassley, told a reporter testily that he "wouldn't have a conversation with a criminal. I think Putin's a criminal." "When I look at a Russian election, what I see is a lack of credibility in tallying the results," sermonized Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. "I'm always reminded of the elections they have in almost every communist country."
Actually, what the International Election Observation Mission found in Russia's presidential election of March 18 was far more nuanced. Why, in some ways the Russian elections were very American: In the difficulty dissident candidates have in getting on the ballot, for example.
Ask Ron Paul or all those anonymous, aspiring, independent, third-party candidates about the US's "restrictive ballot access laws and the other barriers erected" by the duopoly to protect their "de facto monopoly in America," to paraphrase Forbes.com.
That is one opinion, certainly. Another might be that the Obama pull out was the mistake. Or allowing the State Department to take over administering post-invasion Iraq instead of leaving it in the hands of the Army. As for me, I’d rather the bad guys were fighting and dying in their homeland than in mine.
[Task & Purpose] Just days after the 15th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March, 2003, I wonder why it’s still difficult for one of our nation’s most-respected commanders of the war, Gen. David Petraeus, to admit what many already know: Going into Iraq was a mistake.
Petraeus was asked recently by Task & Purpose whether the Iraq War was worth it. Here’s how he responded:
"I think everybody who was in Iraq, who served there, who knows the sacrifice it entails, who knows the cost in blood and in treasure... has been frustrated to see how the country slid back after we left in late 2011," Petraeus said in an exclusive interview with T&P’s Jeff Schogol. "But at the end of the day, I think we also have a degree of quiet pride that when our country needed us, we answered the call."
My colleague Jeff Schogol didn’t ask Petraeus whether the troops who fought there served honorably, or whether they were frustrated by Iraq’s slide into chaos after withdrawal. But the retired general offered a classic example of deflection. It’s a politician’s answer ‐ instead of addressing the actual question, you just answer the question you prefer to be asked.
Petraeus was offered a simple question: Was it all worth it? Given all that we know now, should we have invaded in 2003? And yet, he dodged it. Why?
Admitting it was a mistake isn’t controversial among most in the national security field, or even the public writ large.
Americans were told of a possible "mushroom cloud" brought on by Saddam Hussein’s (non-existent) nukes and other weapons of mass destruction ‐ claims all based on faulty intelligence that former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz later admitted was just a convenient excuse for war.
Posted by: Herb McCoy7309 ||
03/23/2018 1:50 Comments ||
Going in wasn't the mistake. Leaving too soon was the mistake. Anything else is a bullshit lie.
Playing the "with what you know now" game is absolute horseshit and deserves no answer. We did not know then with any certainty, and we did have indicators that pointed toward WMD there, especially with the game-playing with UN inspectors and so on. So we had to act or risk a mass destruction attack on the US. The September 11th attacks showed that we cannot remain complacent, nor can we wait for "perfect" intelligence.
Anything to the contrary is just a bunch of crap by people trying to rewrite history and play "gotcha". Screw them.
This is the second time I've seen a story from "Task & Purpose". Folks, it claims it's for US servicemen, but it has a regular column titled "The Long March". Caveat emptor.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
03/23/2018 7:58 Comments ||
WMD = chemical, biological, nuclear.
Reminder of all the chemical weapons seized and destroyed since occupying Iraq. Stuff that was suppose to have been gone well before we went back in. Remember the freak out when ISIS occupied one of the site were the material was being processed out of weapon status?
People in my old company in the 82nd died from those non-existent WMD's. Trapped and exposed in a WMD chemical storage bunker with no gear. Buried info now.
This "Task and Purpose" org is just another one to hate. And Mueller was involved in the finding? Find a link between him and Jamie Gorelick. Oh wait, another traitor from Hale and Dorr, now Wilmer Pickering Hale and Dorr. A nest of traitors since the '50's. Maybe earlier, I can't tell. But commies all.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
03/23/2018 11:09 Comments ||
Sorry got the commie bastards company name wrong. It is now Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
03/23/2018 11:15 Comments ||
I wanted to believe that Bush knew what he was doing in Iraq. Now we know better. Live and learn. These days I believe the best revenge against Arabs is to leave them to their own devices.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
03/23/2018 11:44 Comments ||
[USDefenseWatch] The road to total military disaster is being paved by feminists, Obama holdouts and cultural Marxists who have infiltrated the armed forces at the highest levels in the last decade, while warriors have become an endangered species in the Pentagon.
The Hour of the Clusterfu*k approaches and yet across the world, the US military marches on, like martinets suffering from cognitive dissonance, not committed to warfighting anymore, but to a much higher calling, diversity.
Meanwhile, our enemies are dying with laughter. Our enemies know that the US military in 2018 is a feminized, PC weakling. Our enemies know that as every day passes and new politically correct orders are generated, the US military is one step closer to total annihilation in the next war, against foes that will coming to the field with navies, armies and air forces.
As our enemies train for war, we train for social justice. Continues.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.