Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.BLOGSPOT. COM
Sun. Mar. 10, 2019
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
Thanks Frank…..
Jussie Smollett Indicted on 16 Felony Counts in Hate Hoax Attack
Empire actor Jussie Smollett on Friday was indicted by a grand jury in Chicago on 16 counts of felony disorderly conduct in connection to filing a false report about an alleged hate crime against himself.
The development comes after the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office approved a felony disorderly conduct charge against Smollett last month for allegedly filing a false police report on the January 29th incident. Smollett, who is African-American and gay, told police that he was assaulted while walking home from a downtown Chicago Subway sandwich shop. The actor claimed two masked individuals beat him, hurled racist and homophobic slurs, and doused him with an unknown chemical substance. Further, he alleged his assailants looped a thin rope around his neck and shouted “This is MAGA country” before fleeing the scene.
According to a four-page court filing detailing the allegations against Smollett, prosecutors charge the actor hired brothers Abimbola “Abel” Osundairo and Olabinjo “Ola” Osundairo to help carry out the attack, directing them to buy masks and a rope at a hardware store. The court documents said Smollet instructed Abel Osundairo to “not hurt him too badly and give him a chance to appear to fight back.”
Smollett staged the attack against himself due to unhappiness with his salary and as a ploy to boost his career, prosecutors said. The actor reportedly earns over $100,000 per episode. He is also believed to have sent a threatening and racist letter to himself days before the staged assault.
Empire’s executive producers cut Smollett from the program’s final episodes this season in the wake of the actor’s legal woes. “While these allegations are very disturbing, we are placing our trust in the legal system as the process plays,” Empire producers Lee Daniels, Danny Strong, Brett Mahoney, Brian Grazer, Sanaa Hamri, Francie Calfo, and Dennis Hammer said of the decision. “We are also aware of the effects of this process on the cast and crew members who work on our show and to avoid further disruption on set, we have decided to remove the role of ‘Jamal’ from the final two episodes of the season.”
Meanwhile, Smollett’s legal team has vigorously defended their client against the allegations, even accusing police of denying him the presumption of innocence. In a statement, Smollett’s attorneys described the actor as “a man of impeccable character and integrity who fiercely and solemnly maintains his innocence.” The attorneys also called Chicago Police Supt. Eddie Johnson’s press conference laying out Smollett’s case “an organized law enforcement spectacle.”
15 Things Conservatives Say Democrats’ Election Bill Would Do
“It is full of bad and unwise provisions that will restrict free speech and grassroots political activity,” a Heritage Foundation legal fellow says of the bill championed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. (Photo: Win McNamee/ Staff/Getty Images)
House Democrats tentatively have set a vote this week on election legislation that conservatives say would inhibit states’ powers to set qualifications for voters, remove safeguards on voter registration rolls, and undermine the integrity of elections.
“HR 1 is one of the worst bills introduced in Congress in recent memory,” Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, said, referring to the number of the House’s first bill of the new session.
“Many parts of it are unconstitutional and it is full of bad and unwise provisions that will restrict free speech and grassroots political activity, as well as hamper the ability of state government to ensure the security and integrity of the election process,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal in an email.
In Jan. 29 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, von Spakovsky called House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s priority legislation, dubbed the “For the People Act,” an “attempt to federalize and micromanage the election process and impose unnecessary, unwise, and in some cases unconstitutional mandates on the states.”
The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>
In a Facebook Live interview with the conservative advocacy group FreedomWorks, Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., said the Democrats’ bill is an attack on Americans’ freedoms.
In a Facebook Live interview with the conservative advocacy group FreedomWorks, Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., said the Democrats’ bill is an attack on Americans’ freedoms.
“There’s a reason why there’s a lot of people in one party who are voting for this, and I don’t know whether they believe in the Constitution or not. But what it means is they know what this is going to help them irrigate more power to them and continue to try to stomp down on the power of the people,” Biggs said of the legislation.
Rep. Denver Riggleman, R-Va., who joined Biggs in the Facebook Live video, said the Democrats’ bill would harm states’ rights as well as voting rights.
“Now they are not only taking away any ability of the states to draw their own [voting] districts and create their own election law, they are also ensuring that the taxpayers are footing the bill for politicians, who probably should be raising their own money for this,” Riggleman said.
Democrats say the legislation would fight corruption and promote democracy.
“We heard loud and clear from the American people,” Rep. John Sarbanes, D-Md., the bill’s sponsor, told reporters Jan. 4, NPR reported. “They feel left out and locked out from their own democracy.”
Should the legislation pass the Democrat-controlled House, it likely would face significant obstacles in the Senate, where Republicans hold a majority of 53 seats.
Jessica Anderson, vice president of Heritage Action for America, the lobbying arm of The Heritage Foundation, said HR 1 is a political tool Democrats are using to further their agenda:
Although Democrats are promoting HR 1 as a bill that would ‘strengthen our democracy and return political power to the people,’ it is an anti-democratic bill that would wreak havoc on our election system by manipulating election rules in favor of Democrats. It is nothing but a progressive power grab, and all Republicans in Congress should vote against it.
Here are 15 things conservative opponents say you should know about the proposed legislation, highlighted from a fact sheetcreated by The Heritage Foundation. Analysts with Heritage say the bill would:
Here are 15 things conservative opponents say you should know about the proposed legislation, highlighted from a fact sheetcreated by The Heritage Foundation. Analysts with Heritage say the bill would:
1. Seize the authority of states to regulate voter registration and the voting process by forcing states to implement early voting, automatic voter registration, same-day registration, online voter registration, and no-fault absentee balloting.
2. Make it easier to commit voter fraud and promote chaos at the polls through same-day registration, as election officials have no time to verify the accuracy of voter registration information and cannot anticipate the number of voters, ballots, and precinct workers that will be needed.
3. Hurt voter turnout through early voting by diffusing the intensity of get-out-the-vote efforts while raising the cost of campaigns. Voters who vote early don’t have the same information as those who vote on Election Day, missing late-breaking developments that could affect their choices.
4. Degrade the accuracy of registration lists by automatically registering individuals from state databases, such as DMV and welfare offices, by registering large numbers of ineligible voters, including aliens as well as multiple or duplicate registrations of the same individuals.
5. Constitute a recipe for massive voter registration fraud by hackers and cybercriminals through online voter registration not tied to an existing state record such as a driver’s license.
6. Require states to count ballots cast by voters outside of their assigned precinct, overriding the precinct system used by almost all states that allows election officials to monitor votes, staff polling places, provide enough ballots, and prevent election fraud. Mandates no-fault absentee ballots, which are the tool of choice for vote thieves.
7. Prevent election officials from checking the eligibility and qualifications of voters and removing ineligible voters. It would restrict officials from using the U.S. Postal Service’s national change-of-address system to verify the address of registered voters; participating in state programs that compare voter registration lists to detect individuals registered in multiple states; or ever removing registrants due to a failure to vote, no matter how much time has gone by.
8. Cripple the effectiveness of state voter ID laws by allowing individuals to vote without photo identification and merely sign a statement in which they claim they are who they say they are.
9. Violate the First Amendment and perhaps cover a vast range of legal activity. Voter intimidation or coercion that prevents someone from registering or voting is already a federal crime under the Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act. But HR 1 adds an additional provision to prevent interference with registering or voting that is so vague that it could easily interfere with free speech and other lawful activity.
10. Expand government regulation and censorship of election campaigns and political activity and speech, including online and policy-related speech. HR 1 imposes onerous legal and administrative compliance burdens and costs on candidates, citizens, civic groups, unions, corporations, and nonprofit organizations. Many of these provisions violate the First Amendment, protect incumbents, and reduce the accountability of politicians to the public.
11. Reduce the number of Federal Election Commission members from six to five, allowing the political party with three commission seats to control the commission and engage in partisan enforcement activities.
12. Prohibit state election officials from participating in federal elections and impose numerous other “ethics” rules that are unconstitutional or unfairly restrict political activity.
13. Require states to restore the ability of felons to vote the moment they are out of prison. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment gives states the constitutional authority to decide when felons who committed crimes against their fellow citizens may vote again. Congress cannot override a constitutional amendment with a statute.
14. Transfer the power to draw congressional districts from state legislatures to “independent” commissions whose members are unaccountable to voters. HR 1 makes it a violation of federal law to engage in “partisan” redistricting and mandates inclusion of alien populations, both legal and illegal, in all redistricting. This is an anti-democratic, unconstitutional measure that takes away the ability of the citizens of a state to make their own decision about redistricting.
15. Violate separation of powers and directly interfere with the president’s constitutional duties. HR 1 bans the president’s political appointees, such as the attorney general, from participating in, directing the defense of, or assisting in any matter (including lawsuits against a president’s policies, programs, executive orders, or his enforcement of the law) in which the president is named as a party.
Adam Schiff Proven A Liar As The Bruce Ohr Transcript Is Released
One of the weapons the ‘deep state’ has been using to protect itself and its allies is the use of classification and redaction to prevent the public from learning exactly what transpired in the process whereby an opposition research document paid for by the Clinton campaign and compiled by a man with deep ties to officials in Putin’s Russia was repackaged and deodorized and pawned off on the intelligence community, the FBI, and feckless, credulous judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as legitimate intelligence product.
Former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes has made the case time and again that redactions are being used to obscure wrongdoing and not to protect sources and methods.
Shocker! Nunes memo accurate...LOL!...media/Dems go on wild rants...TIME TO ELIMINATE REDACTIONS...PLEASE RT https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fisa-warrant-application-supports-nunes-memo …
Nunes has expressed frustration with redactions in the past. The report the House Intelligence Committee released earlier this year on Russian interference in the 2016 election contained “page after page” of redactions,” Nunes lamented last week on Fox News. Without those blackouts, made at the behest of the U.S. intelligence community, Nunes claimed special counsel Robert Mueller’s recent indictment of 12 Russian officials on charges of hacking Democrats’ computers during the 2016 campaign would look “ridiculous” because it left out Republicans who were also targeted.
This morning, a crack appeared in the dam of cover-your-ass-redactions as Georgia Republican Doug Collins, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, unilaterally released the testimony Bruce Ohr gave before that committee back in August.
“Out of an abundance of caution, we gave DOJ an opportunity to review them for information that would endanger national security, but after many months and little progress, our patience has grown thin,” Collins said.
“The proposed redactions have nothing to do with national security and are anathema to our goal of government transparency,” he continued, adding that “I am, therefore, today making one of these transcripts public.”
“I intend to make other transcripts public soon,” he said. “I’m willing to consider any reasonable redactions DOJ makes in a timely manner, but won’t allow these transcripts to remain shrouded in secrecy.”
This may be close to unprecedented but, as the Mueller investigation winds down, it is imperative that this information be made public so that evaluations can be made on exactly how the Russia collusion story got started and how it went from a Clinton campaign product to creating Robert Mueller as the tool of a slow-motion coup.
Democrats To Jews: You Don’t Know An Anti-Semite When You Hear One
By Melissa Langsam Braunstein
The political party that’s long attracted the support of 75 percent of American Jews has shown this week that their leaders won’t stand up for the community when it matters.
There’s a revolution underway. American Jews, who have been an integral part of the Democratic coalition for more than a century, are currently being made uncomfortable in their political home. And the whole thing is being live-tweeted.
What’s shocking isn’t that there are anti-Semites (and those willing to tolerate them) on the political left. There are Democratic members of Congress with ties to Louis Farrakhan, after all. But leftist anti-Semitism, which has continuously bubbled just below the surface for many years — and too often been blithely ignored — has burst into full view this year.
First there was the Women’s March subsumed by anti-Semitism, then the whole brouhaha over Sen. Marco Rubio’s anti-boycott, divestment, and sanctions bill, and now there’s Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, who simply can’t stop slandering American Jews and Zionists, two overlapping but not identical groups.
The Democratic National Committee felt compelled to pull their partnership with the Women’s March because it had become so toxic. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also managed to quickly formulate a leadership response condemning anti-Semitism when Omar created a stir with her hateful words just last month. But now something has clearly shifted.
Pelosi’s attempt to lead her caucus in a symbolic vote condemning anti-Semitism, which should have been a gimme, became a political football. Rather than rally to support long-time Jewish colleagues, who have expressed serious concerns about Omar’s anti-Semitism, members are mutinying in support of Omar.
Pelosi was recently lauded for her discipline and leadership. Yet she seems to have lost control of her own members. So she can’t enforce Rep. Eliot Engel’s demand for an apology after Omar’s latest “vile anti-Semitic slur,” accusing American Jews of dual loyalty, let alone strip Omar of her seat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. House Republicans would support Omar’s removal, but it’s increasingly clear that many Democrats do not. Just like Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, Omar isn’t going anywhere.
From the outside, it appears we are watching a revolution in real-time. Pelosi and other long-time leaders are attempting to maintain power amidst a storm started by a freshman who’s been in office for two short months. (Doesn’t it feel longer?)
There have always been members of Congress who’ve taken a tough line on Israel. What Omar wants is different, though. She wants to make Congress a safe space for expressing Jew hatred, and based on the outpouring of support for her this week, there’s Democratic support for that. Omar has also had back-up from powerful progressive allies outside Congress like Linda Sarsour, who took to Facebook to blast Pelosi as “a typical white feminist upholding the patriarchy doing the dirty work of powerful white men.”
Those Democrats who want to uphold traditional norms, including the marginalization of anti-Semitism, are fighting an uphill battle. But is that battle still raging off-camera, or have Democratic leaders already surrendered?
It’s concerning that in less than one week, Pelosi has been reduced to pretending that Omar’s tweets were not “intentionally anti-Semitic,” while Majority Leader Steny Hoyerstrained credulity, saying that Omar’s not an anti-Semite. That they lack the support of their members to speak truthfully on this issue, let alone take any decisive action, is a glaring problem.
And to be clear, the problem is not the use of “tropes.” Words are not violence, but hateful speech, especially from people in positions of authority, can lead to harmful real-world actions.
Democrats like to remind us of that link in other settings, but not here. Consider Sen. Kamala Harris’ statement: “I am concerned that the spotlight being put on Congresswoman Omar may put her at risk.” Omar is a public figure, so fair game for criticism, as Harris should know. It is striking, though, that Harris expresses zero concern about American Jews’ safety, a mere four months after 11 American Jews were massacred while praying in Pittsburgh.
This fight has been a long time in the making, but things are changing quickly. It’s been only two years since Jewish women felt the need to publicly make the case that one could be both a Zionist and a feminist. Is it now time for a debate about whether one can be both a Jew (who believes in Israel’s right to exist) and a Democrat?
The political party that’s long attracted the support of 75 percent of American Jews has shown this week that their leaders won’t stand up for the community when it matters. It’s quite breathtaking, really. It’s not only bipartisan support for Israel that’s being debunked as much weaker than advertised, but also, quite troublingly, an acceptance of Jew hatred directed at fellow Americans. For the record, that hatred is not only being tolerated but embraced by congressional Democrats.
The “allyship” progressives always cheer is proving to be a one-way street. Jews, who have traditionally voted for Democrats, are feeling betrayed, abandoned, and even politically homeless.
This path leads toward disaster. For Jews to truly have a home in America, anti-Semitism must be marginalized by both major political parties. And if the Democrats succumb to Omar’s anti-Semitism, the only winners will be bigots.
Melissa Langsam Braunstein, a former U.S. Department of State speechwriter, is an independent writer in Washington DC and a senior contributor to The Federalist. Her work has appeared in The New York Times, National Review Online, and RealClearPolitics, among others. She has appeared on EWTN and WMAL. Melissa shares all of her writing on her website and tweets as @slowhoneybee.
The Democratic Party Has Normalized Anti-Semitism
Yes, Ilhan Omar is a problem. The fact that Democrats refuse to condemn her rhetoric is a disaster.
This week, the Democratic Party was unable to pass a watered-down, platitudinous resolution condemning anti-Semitism, due to “fierce backlash” from presidential candidates, the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), and the now-powerful progressive base. Rather than censuring Rep. Ilhan Omar, the intellectually frivolous, Hamas-supporting freshman representative from Minnesota, she was rewarded and inoculated from party criticism.
More consequently, the Democrats deemed Protocols of Zion-style attacks a legitimate form of debate. That’s because Omar, despite what you hear, has repeatedly attacked Jews, not only Israel supporters, and certainly not only specific Israeli policies.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who would finally bring an “All Lives Matter” resolution to the floor, told reporters she didn’t believe the congresswoman’s comments were “intentionally anti-Semitic.” No educated human believes Omar inadvertently accused “Benjamin”-grubbing Rootless Cosmopolitans of hypnotizing the world for their evil. These are long-standing, conspiratorial attacks on the Jewish people, used by anti-Semites on right and left, and popular throughout the Islamic world.
Even the Democratic Party activist groups that typically cover for the Israel-haters, like the Anti- Defamation League, have condemned Omar. Yet it was the lie that coursed through the Democratic Party’s defense of Omar.
Presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren claimed that “branding criticism of Israel as automatically anti-Semitic has had a chilling effect on our public discourse and makes it harder to achieve a peaceful solution between Israelis and Palestinians.” Either Warren believes that accusing Jews and their supporters of dual loyalty and sedition is a legitimate criticism of Israel, or she is deliberately mischaracterizing Omar’s comments to gain favor with the growing faction of anti-Semites in her party.
“We must not,” the socialist Bernie Sanders argued, “equate anti-Semitism and legitimate criticism of the right-wing, Netanyahu government in Israel” because such a thing would be “stifling” debate. Does anyone believe that if left-of-center Kahol Lavan were running Israel, Omar would be less inclined to smear the bipartisan squishes at AIPAC?
Omar has mentioned Benjamin Netanyahu (who, incidentally, is in every way more of a genuine liberal than either Sanders or Omar) once in her Twitter feed, and then only to use this very talking point to defend her comments. As a political matter, no major party in Israel is going allow an independent Palestinian state run by theocrats and terrorists to exist, so Omar and her allies will never be appeased.
Of course, no one argues that Omar’s speech should be curtailed or stifled. The same can’t be said of her defenders, however, who not only falsely claim criticism of her tropes is “chilling speech,” but also decided to transform this 38-year-old firebrand into a helpless, childlike victim.
“We all have a responsibility to speak out against anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, racism, and all forms of hatred and bigotry, especially as we see a spike in hate crimes in America,” said Sen. Kamala Harris, who, like many Democrats, tried to dilute criticism of anti-Semitism in a torrent of phobias. “But like some of my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, I am concerned that the spotlight being put on Congresswoman Omar may put her at risk.”
We shouldn’t exaggerate the prevalence of hate crimes in America, which is low, but it’s certainly worth pointing out that Jews are the target of 60 percent of those crimes—a far larger percentage than anyone else. In New York City, there have been at least 36 hate crimes against Jews so far this year so far. Shouldn’t Harris be more concerned about Omar’s rhetoric?
As Gad Saad noted yesterday, Omar’s brand of Israel criticism “is almost ALWAYS a cover of existential and definitional Jew-hatred.” This anti-Israel sentiment—opposition to the idea of a national Jewish state—is the most consequential form of anti-Semitism that exists in the world today. It has done more to undermine Jewish safety than all the dog whistles and white nationalist marches combined. Yet, many Democrats have now seemingly joined Corbynites and leftists around the world perpetuating this radicalism.
The normalization of Omarism is a long time coming. Omar’s defenders have been praising and participating in the Women’s March, led by Louis Farrakhan acolytes who believe Jewish people bear a special collective responsibility “as exploiters of black and brown people,” since Trump was elected. But it goes even further back.
When leaving the CBC meeting, “members formed a circle around Omar and Marcia Fudge literally stuck her arm out to prevent reporters from asking her questions. Then a few members hugged Omar, including Al Lawson.” It is unsurprising that Omar, who has great trouble answering simple questions, has the CBC running interference for her hatred. At least seven members of the CBC—a group seemingly immune from criticism—have coordinated and worked with Farrakhan, the anti-Semite preacher who believes “satanic” Jews are “termites” who “deserve to die.” Liberals keep telling me Farrakhan is just a conservative boogeyman, and yet his contingent is growing as Omar and allies like Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez join the ranks.
Democrats’ allies in media quickly came to Omar’s rescue, as well. The Washington Post ran three articles after Omar’s initial comments this week. All three defended her. “Want to combat hate? Stop the hazing of Ilhan Omar and start listening” wrote Wajahat Ali and Rabia Chaudry. Not only shouldn’t Jews censure Omar, the authors argued, they should shut up and listen to her wisdom. In the progressive worldview, Jews, who are successful and predominately white, should put up with a little bigotry for the common good.
As Rep James Clyburn (D-SC), who once also shared a stage with Farrakhan, noted, Omar should be given a free pass because she fled Somalia. “There are people who tell me, ‘Well, my parents are Holocaust survivors.’ ‘My parents did this.’ It’s more personal with her,” he explained. It’s personal to hate Jews when you fled Somalia? The number of people defending Omar on the risible grounds that Muslims should be immune from criticism isn’t surprising when you realize that identity politics demands strict adherence to the hierarchy of victimhood.
When New York Times reporters Sheryl Gay Stolberg (whose article in the aftermath of Omar’s dual loyalty remarks asked if Jewish people had too much power in Washington) and Glenn Thrush (who may or may not be taking diction from the Democratic National Committee) authored a piece about the resolution fight, they spent a large chunk of their space letting everyone know that President Donald Trump—whose daughter converted to Judaism and who moved the American embassy to Jerusalem and who stopped coddling the world’s most dangerous anti-Jewish terror-state—had also used anti-Semitic tropes.
While it’s not worth again debunking the fact that Trump never said neo-Nazis were “very fine people” or pointing out that most of the Jews at the Republican Jewish Coalition laughed at his jokes, it is worth mentioning that Democrats have embraced the worst kind of “whataboutism.”
NBC’s News’ Chuck Todd, in his “I’m obsessed with” segment, offered a jaw-droppingly misleading lecture accusing both parties of having an anti-Semitism problem by comparing elected officials like Omar and Tlaib — who have been embraced by their party, take part in policy making, and now widely defended on the mainstream left — to a fringe Nazi murderer who shot up a Pittsburgh synagogue, whom not a single Republican supports and has nothing to do with the GOP. The very fact that Todd was forced to shoehorn these comparisons is revealing.
In truth, Pelosi’s first watered-down resolution would have passed with most Republicans voting for it, and a number of Democrats defecting. This would have been embarrassing. So she promised to dilute it, and even that wasn’t enough for Democrats. Now, leadership is poised to pass some pointless resolution condemning all hatred.
Omar, an intellectual lightweight, is certainly a problem for America. But the fact that Democrats apparently believe what she says is fine is an absolute disaster.
Ciao…..G’Day…….Helen & Moe Lauzier
Thus articles
that is all articles
This time, hopefully can provide benefits to you all. Okay, see you in another article post.
You are now reading the article the link address https://fairyforreference.blogspot.com/2019/03/www_9.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment