The US government is beyond massive and exists, any more, to grow beyond any logical or reasonable measure. Both sides of the aisle wish to have this trend continue and so, to an extent, do many American voters.
To bandy a word utilized by Leftists but applicable here: that is unsustainable.
Donald Trump, now president, ran on the platform of reducing government and restoring power to our military — gutted like a bad fish as it was by Barack Hussein Obama.
President Trump already crafted an executive order stating that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
You can imagine the howls of outrage by control freaks, bilaterally, who witnessed an action by Trump to diminish their power, their cash and their dominant authority.
It’s what we elected President Trump to do. He means to accomplish that goal.
For example, what agencies does the Trump budget aim to eliminate wholesale — most you never knew existed?
The African Development Foundation;
The Appalachian Regional Commission;
The Chemical Safety Board;
The Corporation for National and Community Service;
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting;
The Delta Regional Authority;
The Denali Commission;
The Institute of Museum and Library Services;
The Inter-American Foundation;
The U.S. Trade and Development Agency;
The Legal Services Corporation;
The National Endowment for the Arts;
The National Endowment for the Humanities;
The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation;
The Northern Border Regional Commission;
The Overseas Private Investment Corporation;
The United States Institute of Peace;
The United States Interagency Council on Homelessness;
The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Trump Budget Would Abolish 19 Agencies, Cut Thousands of Federal Jobs
by Charles S. Clark
With the aim of “making government work again,” the Trump White House on Thursday unveiled a $1.1 trillion budget blueprint for discretionary spending in fiscal 2017 and 2018 that would abolish 19 agencies and eliminate thousands of agency jobs.
The 54-page “America First” document, focused primarily on fiscal 2018, would boost the Defense Department and related programs at Energy by $54 billion, and Homeland Security by $2.8 billion. It would offset such increases by cutting the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development by $10.1 billion (28 percent) and the Environmental Protection Agency by $2.6 billion (31 percent). The latter cut would eliminate approximately 3,200 positions, according to the document.
The agency-by-agency plans include eliminating dozens of grant programs at the Education and Commerce departments—many of them related to climate change.
Little considered is the US debt. Please see the “live” debt clock here, if you wish to be personally gobsmacked in real time, as the national debt stands at $19.9 trillion dollars.
“The defense and public safety spending increases in this budget blueprint are offset and paid for by finding greater savings and efficiencies across the federal government,” Trump wrote in his introduction. “We are going to do more with less, and make the government lean and accountable to the people. This includes deep cuts to foreign aid,” he added. “Many other government agencies and departments will also experience cuts. These cuts are sensible and rational. Every agency and department will be driven to achieve greater efficiency and to eliminate wasteful spending in carrying out their honorable service to the American people.”
Anything wrong with “deep cuts to foreign aid”? Not in my book, though Leftists, Demorats and the like bleat that foreign aid “accounts for little of our debt.” So what? Why should people who want us dead benefit from American dollars?
Anything wrong with “doing more with less”? It’s what private businesses and much smaller governments nationally have had to contend with for years.
Anything wrong with “greater efficiency” and eliminating “wasteful spending”? After all, it’s your money, the American Taxpayer.
The Office of Management and Budget also implicitly criticized the Obama administration’s management approach for focusing too much on unproductive “compliance activities” that fail to give managers sufficient freedom.
Right. Because when, in recent memory, do you recall the federal government expanding your freedoms instead of stealing your freedoms and then selling some of them back to you at a profit for them and a loss for you?
The Trump team vowed to improve procurement and other support functions by using “available data to develop targeted solutions to problems federal managers face, and begin fixing them directly by sharing and adopting leading practices from the private and public sectors.”
Aha. Are you starting to glean a common thread here?
Who didn’t like President Trump’s budget proposal? The GOP EstabliHacks.
Again with the GOP EstabliHacks, it’s all about the loss of power, control and money. Tucker Carlson interviews Demorat Eric Swalwell. Does anyone ask: “can we afford it?”
Then there was this — anticipated by me and most all other conservatives, of course.
Patricia Harrison, president and CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, said in a statement, “The elimination of federal funding to CPB would initially devastate and ultimately destroy public media’s role in early childhood education, public safety, connecting citizens to our history, and promoting civil discussions for Americans in rural and urban communities alike.”
Here’s what Leftists know about the CPB, the NEA and PBS but will never verbalize: absent federal dollars they won’t/can’t be supported by Leftists only.
Remember Air America, the Leftist network answer to right-wing radio? It stood up and found itself remarkably unsupported by its Leftist base and other radio listeners. Why? Because it actually had to compete in an open, capitalistic marketplace and found itself lacking in two serious areas: content, and messenger. It’s content — like most everything having to do with the Left — was hyperbolic, oppressive, negative. Its hosts were predominantly unlikable. A wonderful combination if you wish to be successful.
We already know that the words “compete” and “success” are inherently offensive to Leftists of all stripes, in any event.
So we defund the NEA, CPB and PBS. Let them finally stand or fall on the basis of their content, their attractiveness and appeal — just like every other private site, channel or show that must compete in an open market.
Again, are you starting to glean a common thread here?
In other words (massive intake of breath by political EstabliHacks, drones and deep staters everywhere), President Donald Trump intends to treat the United States government much like a business.
FBI Director James Comey spoke publicly in DC on Monday in front of the House Intelligence Committee, stating there were in fact investigations occurring with regard to Russia’s meddling in the presidential election and also between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.
It was clear to me, from the outset, that it was politics, politics, politics. Something of which Director Comey has become quite adroit in at least the past year.
The line was drawn in this fashion: Demorats wanted President Trump’s wiretap allegation smashed and derided, whilst Republicans were primarily concerned with the leaking of classified information.
Trey Gowdy begins the interaction with Director Comey and sets the foundation for his line of questioning involving FISA and safeguards.
Please note that Congressman Gowdy specifically utilizes the term “wiretap” to describe the acquisition of communications belonging to an “unnamed US citizen.” Again, Comey outs the Trump investigation but refuses to discuss anything to do with the leaks at all. Do you see my point and my resulting frustration?
FBI Director Comey refuses to deny he briefed President Obama on calls made by Michael Flynn to Russia. pic.twitter.com/cUZ5KgBSYP
I highlight this portion because of its incredible importance. Do you see?
GOWDY: Admiral Rogers said there are 20 people within the NSA that are part of the unmasking process. How many people within the FBI are part of the unmasking process?
COMEY: I don’t know for sure. As I sit here, surely more, given the nature the FBI’s work. We come into contact with U.S. persons a whole lot more than the NSA does because we may be conducting — we only conduct our operations in the United States to collect electronic surveillance — to conduct electronic surveillance, so I don’t — I can find out the exact number, I don’t know it as I sit here.
GOWDY: Well, I think, Director Comey, given the fact that you and I agree this is critical, vital, indispensable, a similar program is coming up for reauthorization this fall with a pretty strong head wind right now. It would be nice to know the universe of people who have the power to unmask a U.S. citizen’s name. Because that might provide something of a roadmap to investigate who might’ve actually disseminated a masked U.S. citizen’s name.
COMEY: Sure. The number is relevant but what I hope the U.S. — the American people realize is the number’s important, but the culture behind it is in fact even more important. The training, the rigor, the discipline. We are obsessive about FISA in the FBI for reasons I hope make sense to this committee but we are — everything that’s FISA has to be labeled in such a way to warn people this is FISA, we treat this in a special way.
So we can get you the number, but I want to assure you the culture of the FBI and the NSA around how we treat U.S. person information is obsessive and I mean that in a good way.
GOWDY: Director Comey, I am not arguing with you and I do agree that culture is important, but if there are 100 people who have the ability to unmask and the knowledge of a previously masked name, then that’s 100 different potential sources of investigation and the smaller the number is, the easier your investigation is.
So the number is relevant. I can see the culture is relevant. NSA, FBI, what other U.S. government agencies have the authority to unmask a U.S. citizen’s name?
COMEY: I think all agencies that collect information pursuant to FISA have what are called standard minimization procedures, which are approved by the FISA court that govern how they will treat U.S. person information. So I know the NSA does, I know the CIA does, obviously the FBI does. I don’t know for sure beyond that.
GOWDY: How about the department of — how about Main Justice?
COMEY: Main Justice, I think does have standard minimization procedures.
GOWDY: All right, so that’s four. The NSA, FBI, CIA, Main Justice. Does the White House have the authority to unmask a U.S. citizen’s name?
COMEY: I think other elements of the government that are consumers of our products can ask the collectors to unmask. The unmasking resides with those who collected the information.
And so if Mike Rogers’s folks collected something and they sent it to me in a report and it says U.S. person number one and it’s important for the FBI to know who that is, our request will go back to them. The White House can make similar requests of the FBI or of NSA but they can’t on their — they don’t own their own collect and so they can’t on their own unmask. I got that about right?
ROGERS: No, that’s correct.
GOWDY: I guess what I’m getting at, Director Comey, is you say it’s vital, you say it’s critical, you say it’s indispensable. We both know it’s a threat to the reauthorization of 702 later on this fall. And by the way, it’s also a felony punishable by up to 10 years.
So how would you begin your investigation, assuming for the sake of argument that a U.S. citizen’s name appeared in the Washington Post and the New York Times unlawfully. Where would you begin that investigation?
COMEY: Well, I’m not gonna talk about any particular investigation…
GOWDY: That’s why I said in theory.
COMEY: You would start by figuring out, so who are the suspects? Who touched the information that you’ve concluded ended up unlawfully in the newspaper and start with that universe and then use investigative tools and techniques to see if you can eliminate people, or include people as more serious suspects.
GOWDY: Do you know whether Director Clapper knew the name of the U.S. citizen that appeared in the New York Times and Washington Post?
COMEY: I can’t say in this forum because again, I don’t wanna confirm that there was classified information in the newspaper.
GOWDY: Would he have access to an unmasked name?
COMEY: In — in some circumstances, sure, he was the director of national intelligence. But I’m not talking about the particular.
GOWDY: Would Director Brennan have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen’s name?
COMEY: In some circumstances, yes.
GOWDY: Would National Security Adviser Susan Rice have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen’s name?
COMEY: I think any — yes, in general, and any other national security adviser would, I think, as a matter of their ordinary course of their business.
GOWDY: Would former White House Advisor Ben Rhodes have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen’s name?
COMEY: I don’t know the answer to that.
GOWDY: Would former Attorney General Loretta Lynch have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen’s name? COMEY: In general, yes, as would any attorney general.
GOWDY: So that would also include Acting AG Sally Yates?
COMEY: Same answer.
GOWDY: Did you brief President Obama on — well, I’ll just ask you. Did you brief President Obama on any calls involving Michael Flynn?
COMEY: I’m not gonna get into either that particular case that matter, or any conversations I had with the president. So I can’t answer that.
But wait. I have what I consider to be an obvious question but one I’ve not yet heard people ask. Director Comey stated the investigation has been ongoing since July of 2016. If so, wouldn’t an integral part of such an investigation be surveillance of the Trump campaign and others aligned or linked therein?
Yet Mr Comey says there was no surveillance going on. How can that be? Was the FBI conducting half an investigation? A fraction of an investigation? How otherwise can one explain the information collected regarding General Michael Flynn? How was it gathered? How was it distributed? How did it get leaked and by whom? How does one acquire telephone conversation content — on Michael Flynn or Trump’s conversations with Australia’s PM Turnbull or Mexican President Nieto for example — absent wiretapping or surveillance in the first place?
In the process of conducting said highly important investigations wouldn’t you want to use all the tools at your disposal and, furthermore, collect as much pertinent evidence as possible? Of course you would. The statement makes no sense.
Where was James Comey with regard to Obama’s aides improperly accessing the names of Americans swept up in foreign surveillance or whether they leaked classified documents to the US press? Director Comey could confirm that, well, yes, we’re closely examining President Trump’s Russian “collusion” but otherwise could not confirm there was any sort of investigation on the matters of felonious leaking by government officials (Who else could have done so?) and would not talk about it. Why not? What’s the difference?
Another very important question. By the FBI’s own account and everyone else’s, including the Russians, it was believed with certainty that Hillary Clinton was a shoe-in for the presidency. Why, then, did the Russians magically decide to assist Donald Trump — as James Comey alleges — when people were convinced Trump would lose in a spectacular manner?
It doesn’t make sense. Neither the investigation nor the assumption about the Russians.
Perhaps the biggest question is this: will the leakers be identified and, if so, will they be arrested? Or is it in the best interest of the deep state to obfuscate the matter to the point that the leakers are never found?
Because, trust me, if the leakers are prosecuted and there is federal penitentiary time attached, you’ll hear sphincters slamming shut all around DC and the warm breezes will turn cold. That’s called a chilling effect.
FBI’s Russian-influence probe includes a look at far-right news sites
by Peter Stone & Greg Gordon
WASHINGTON – Federal investigators are examining whether far-right news sites played any role last year in a Russian cyber operation that dramatically widened the reach of news stories — some fictional — that favored Donald Trump’s presidential bid, two people familiar with the inquiry say.
Operatives for Russia appear to have strategically timed the computer commands, known as “bots,” to blitz social media with links to the pro-Trump stories at times when the billionaire businessman was on the defensive in his race against Democrat Hillary Clinton, these sources said.
In other words, the FBI under Comey is investigating “fake news.” What is fake news?
The bots’ end products were largely millions of Twitter and Facebook posts carrying links to stories on conservative internet sites such as Breitbart News and InfoWars, as well as on the Kremlin-backed RT News and Sputnik News, the sources said. Some of the stories were false or mixed fact and fiction, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the bot attacks are part of an FBI-led investigation into a multifaceted Russian operation to influence last year’s elections.
For every individual arguing that InfoWars or Breitbart is fake news, I can provide a great deal of documentation indicating, over numerous years, that what people term the mainstream media such as ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and many others are equally or more fake than those two named above, and have been specifically colluding with the Democrats and Leftist-themed ideologues for a lengthy period of time.
The FBI investigating “fake news” is indeed disturbing. It is no less true now than any time prior that one must be an enlightened consumer of news and, as an adult, know enough about your country, your surroundings and your world in order to make the best informed decision regarding the portrayal of information to you by various news organizations. In other words, it blows to be stupid and there are penalties for being so, though we know that a “sucker is born every minute.”
Perhaps we should ask what there was to learn from the hearing today with FBI Director James Comey. I conclude below with the real lesson to be intuited from the hearing, but in terms of hard facts we discovered there are, well, no real hard facts. There is still no evidence that Russia hacked the election or somehow influenced the presidential election despite what the American Media Maggots emphatically say. There is still no evidence that Russia colluded with the Trump campaign or his staffers. We learned that James Comey is rather selective in terms of the political topics he’s willing to address.
We learned that no evidence was provided that indicated Obama wiretapped Trump. But if that were true, then why has Fox News summarily fired Judge Napolitano for saying this?
House Intel Chair Devin Nunes weighed in, and he wasn’t terribly happy.
Did you notice Director Comey was a bit nonplussed at her direct first question? I did. She has taken Comey aback. He did not anticipate such pointed and informed questions from a neophyte. When Comey said he didn’t have a DNI, that was bullshit. He did. It was James Clapper. The lying James Clapper. The lying under oath James Clapper. You know. That guy.
Did you also hear James Comey admit to Rep. Stefanik that, along with the Demorats and DNC, the Republicans were tapped as well? He stated so. But what was the difference between the GOP being tapped and the DNC being tapped? That’s right. The lack of corruption in the content of the emails and information.
But let me say this. Elise Stefanik has a great career ahead of her because she appears fearless, resolute, and unimpressed by dark, carved wood. You get my drift. “When did you notify the White House?” Boom. Done. Owned.
Let us transition.
“I am a faithful servant to the Constitution.” So said Judge Neal Gorsuch in his opening statement with regard to his SCOTUS nomination, on Monday. The actual flames and grilling begin Tuesday morning at 9:30. First, here’s the Demorat take on Gorsuch, from CBS.
Then there are the actual words of Judge Gorsuch himself as he makes his opening statement.
Bottom line regarding Neil Gorsuch? He will be confirmed. I also predict the Demorats will not choose to use their filibuster against him. You’re dealing with an individual who
Presided over 2,750 case on the 10th Circuit;
Wrote 175 majority opinions;
Wrote 65 concurrences or dissents;
Had 72 in-person meetings with US Senators
Charles Krauthammer may have jinxed things when, on Monday, he said: “Too stupid. Even the Democrats won’t do it.”
But never minimize the ability of Demorats and Leftists to see racists and sexists everywhere. Joe Dinkin, National Communications Director for the Working Families Party (yes, that is a party) states that Neil Gorsuch is a white supremacist and nationalist because Gorsuch hasn’t overtly and publicly disavowed President Trump’s travel ban. It’s a Muslim ban, you see. So Gorsuch wears a white robe and a pointy hat. Insanity.
In conclusion, do not doubt that there is a message to be acquired from Comey’s hearing today, and the message to President Trump as well as his advisors, staff and assistants comes from not just Director James Comey, the Demorats and a portion of the GOP, but much of the embedded deep state as well.
The message is: back off. Leave the DC swamp as it is. Undrained. The creatures prefer it unmolested. If you fail to heed our warning, we’ll destroy you at all costs and by any means necessary.
If you were President Trump you’d have to be asking yourself: whom can you trust?
That potential pool is dwindling by the day.
You should now be asking yourself: is FBI Director James Comey the source of the leaks?
John McCain predicts ‘there’s a lot more shoes to drop’ on Trump-Russia connection
by Ben Wolfgang
Sen. John McCain predicted Sunday that “there’s a lot more shoes to drop” regarding President Trump’s connections to Russia, and said he believes top Trump associates should be called before Congress to testify.
Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union,” the Arizona Republican said the American people need more information and need it quickly.
It was the latest in a string of revelations involving figures close to Mr. Trump meeting or speaking with individuals or groups connected to Russia. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, for example, recently was forced to admit he met several times with the Russian ambassador last year at the same time he was acting as a top surrogate for the Trump campaign.
“Obviously I think [Mr. Stone] and others need to be questioned,” Mr. McCain said.
Good old John McCain, doing the heavy lifting for the Demorat Party as much as he possibly can, slicing and dicing on innuendo and repetition because that’s all he and his fellow Demorats, American Media Maggots, anarchists and Leftists possess.
This is McCain at his obstructionist, feckless best, throwing all the smegma he can at President Trump for any number of reasons, most of them highly personal. First and foremost: McCain lost the presidential bid against George Bush in 2000 and lost against Obama in 2008. He has been cheated twice. Second, it’s always about John McCain and no one else. He vacillates for the same of convenience.
People seem to have forgotten McCain’s 2001 considerations of leaving the Republican Party in general, as well as his 2004 talks with presidential candidate John Kerry about becoming his running mate as Vice President.
This has created the phrase: “Bitter, table for one, please.”
Bitter with George Bush from 2000. Bitter to the point where the NYTimes.com wrote in 2008:
Still, Democrats were stunned one Saturday in late March when, by their account, John Weaver, Mr. McCain’s longtime political strategist, reached out to Thomas J. Downey, a former Democratic congressman from Long Island who had become a lobbyist with powerful connections on Capitol Hill. In Mr. Downey’s telling, Mr. Weaver posed a question to him over lunch that left him stunned.
“He says, ‘John McCain is wondering why nobody’s ever approached him about switching parties, or becoming an independent and allying himself with the Democrats,’ ” Mr. Downey said in a recent interview. “My reaction was, ‘When I leave this lunch, your boss will be called by anybody you want him to be called by in the United States Senate.’ ”
As I wrote and reviewed in detail on my radio show, BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon, John McCain clearly aided Buzzfeed and others in a naked attempt to take down Donald Trump with, well, unmitigated and specious bullshit regarding “Trump’s ties with Russia” and a “dossier.” From my January 16th post:
A still-unidentified wealthy GOP donor — clearly not a good pal of Donald Trump — hired a firm in 2015 called Fusion GPS to assemble opposition research on Donald Trump. Fusion ended up hiring a former British MI-6 operative named Christopher Steele, in the spring of 2016, who wrote the 35-page report on Trump. Please let me point out that the DC firm Fusion GPS is the same one hired by Planned Parenthood to put a positive spin on videos showing the sale of baby parts. This is “good to know” information.
Because the meme was “in the air,” Steele was to dig up smegma on Trump’s “obvious” ties to Russia. Steele talked to some Russians and the gossip was included in the report later compiled.
The information somehow “found its way” to the FBI. That was not magic, of course. It was purposeful, by way of Arizona Senator John McCain.
Yes, John McCain — clearly not a good pal of Donald Trump — got this hot mess started. He sent one of his own operatives across the Atlantic in order to acquire Trump’s dossier from Steele. McCain discovered the dossier’s existence when he was at a Canadian meeting with Sir Andrew Wood, a former associate of UK’s Tony Blair who is, also, not a good pal of Donald Trump, and subsequently sent an aide to acquire the report, in August of 2016.
An interesting aside. Very few persons have dared to mention the direct involvement of Senator John McCain, even that stalwart “the spin stops here” Fox News guy, Bill O’Reilly, who purposely avoided mentioning the involvement of McCain in his Thursday, January 12th Talking Points Commentary broadcast.
John McCain turned the dossier over to the FBI, saying he did “what any citizen would do.”
Retired US Army Lt Col Tony Shaffer said, on USA Radio Network’s Rusty Humphries’ show:
“This could be the first time a former president could be indicted for a felony,” Shaffer answered. “Because I think it is very possible that he acted outside of the scope of his duties, responsibilities and authorities to turn the resources of a nation-state on a candidate.”
“This is, as I’ve said before, soviet-dictator level wrongdoing,” he added.
Sean Hannity had some insight regarding John McCain and Lindsey Graham and their incessant attacks on President Trump. Got that? President Trump. Not President McCain or President Graham. President Trump.
Further, John McCain goes, well, just a bit unhinged over Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. From the DailyBeast.com:
John McCain: Rand Paul ‘Is Now Working for Vladimir Putin’
by Andrew Kirell
After the Kentucky senator objected to a bill advancing Montenegro’s push for NATO membership, McCain lost his cool and accused his colleague of being a Putin operative.
The long-simmering war between Sens. John McCain and Rand Paul boiled over on Wednesday when the Arizona lawmaker directly accused his colleague of working for Russian President Vladimir Putin.
While speaking from the Senate floor in support of a bill advancing Montenegro’s bid to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), McCain noted objection from his Kentucky colleague, saying that if you oppose the measure, “You are achieving the objectives of Vladimir Putin… trying to dismember this small country which has already been the subject an attempted coup.”
McCain continued: “If they object, they are now carrying out the desires and ambitions of Vladimir Putin and I do not say that lightly.”
Rand Paul had a measured and rational response in the face of McCain’s overblown rhetoric.
“Currently, the United States has troops in dozens of countries and is actively fighting in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen (with the occasional drone strike in Pakistan),” he told The Daily Beast.
“In addition, the United States is pledged to defend 28 countries in NATO. It is unwise to expand the monetary and military obligations of the United States given the burden of our $20 trillion debt.”
I cannot pass up Rand Paul’s summary of John McCain two weeks ago when he states “we’re very lucky John McCain is not in charge.”
I also cannot pass up Keith Ellison, rampant and unadulterated Leftist Supreme, concluding that “there is no there there” with regard to Trump and the Russians.
Keith Ellison seems convinced. John McCain — who loves the spotlight he acquires at CNN and MSNBC — not so much.
I have said numerous times before and continue to say now: John McCain should simply be truthful. I admire honesty and clarity.
John McCain should simply change his (R) to a (D) and be done with it.
THE LATEST: SENATE CONFIRMS SESSIONS AS ATTORNEY GENERAL
The Senate has confirmed Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions to be attorney general in the Trump administration.
The 52-47 vote broke largely along party lines and capped weeks of divisive battles over Sessions, an early supporter of Donald Trump and one of the Senate’s most conservative Republicans.
No surprise there. It’s fairly well known that Senator Jeff Sessions will actually enforce the law and abide by the rule of law, as opposed to the two prior racist occupants who could only see cases through the lenses of race and sex.
Democrats laced into Sessions over his ties to Trump and his record on civil rights and immigration. Republicans lauded his four decades in public service and his commitment to fairness and the rule of law.
The nomination drew wide attention after an imbroglio in which Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren earned a rare rebuke for quoting Coretta Scott King, widow of the late civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., criticizing Sessions in 1986.
In reference to that incident, please see my very prior post. Then watch this — completely skewering the notion that Sessions is some kind of racist — as the niece of Martin Luther King Jr, Dr Alveda King, remarks:
Senator Sessions had to endure this kind of questioning from one of the largest and most officious bozos in the senate, Al Franken.
As my college professors used to say, “compare and contrast” the above interrogation by Franken to the interview by Senator Ted Cruz, below.
The proper thing has been done, the Department of Justice will be clean again, and actual investigations into corruption and various violations of the law — by anyone — may be instigated. My confidence level in the DOJ has increased geometrically. I would suspect that the IRS, the State Department, other governmental entities, national organizations, cities, counties and states — as well as persons — are on official notice.
The rule of law has returned to the Justice Department.
Warren barred from speaking on Senate floor for rest of Sessions debate
by Samuel Chamberlain
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., was prohibited Tuesday night from speaking on the Senate floor for the rest of the debate over Sen. Jeff Sessions’ nomination to be attorney general.
The drama began when Warren, quoting a 30-year-old letter by civil rights leader Coretta Scott King, referred to the Alabama Republican as a “disgrace.” King’s letter was written in 1986, when Sessions was nominated to the federal bench but was never confirmed.
King, the widow of Martin Luther King Jr., also wrote that when acting as a federal prosecutor, Sessions used his power to “chill the free exercise of the vote by black citizens.”
Warren’s reference drew the ire of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who said that Warren had “impugned the motives of our colleague from Alabama.”
The truth? Senator Jeff Sessions has sponsored and supported legislation attacking racism. That matters not to Warren.
Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont. advised Warren that she was out of order under Rule XIX of the Senate, which states that “no Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.”
After a few parliamentary moves, McConnell called for a vote to affirm Daines’ ruling that Warren was out of order. The GOP-controlled Senate backed him up, 49-43, before defeating a Democratic effort to restore Warren’s speaking privileges, 50-43.
“She was warned, she was given an explanation,” McConnell said of Warren. “Nevertheless, she persisted.”
Senator Fauxcahontas said:
“To put Senator Sessions in charge of the Department of Justice is an insult to African-Americans.”
With no proof of his alleged “racism.” An accusation is as good as a nod to a blind horse.
The Senate backed its majority leader. By a party line vote of 49-43, it found Warren in violation of Senate rules. She is now barred from speaking on the subject of the Sessions nomination.
That is called “harnessing power,” Republicans, and actually learning how to wield it — something with which you are entirely unfamiliar.
What you won’t hear or see on other forms of media is this: Marco Rubio’s address with regard to Elizabeth Warren.
“Elections have consequences,” said Barack Hussein Obama. And with that he and other Demorats proceeded to rub the noses of DC Republicans into the political shite. You should expect no less in return, Demorats.
That said, some people suggest the GOP has made a martyr out of Fauxcahontas.
I say: she has been made to revisit her political vulnerability.