The Inevitable New The Inevitable Trump Mocking Thread

JULY 23, 2019
Tlaib isn't 'of color'
By Frank Friday
Racist. As the definition goes, that’s what they call somebody who wins an argument with a liberal. Sounds like a lot of liberals are losing the argument to President Trump this last week, as the media and the Democrats have rocked the heavens with cries of “racist”, for Trump suggesting that certain far-left congresswomen might be happier in another country.

Trump’s rhetoric may be ham-fisted, but his timing, as always, is spot on. The walls are closing in on Ilhan Omar, the most enthusiastically hateful member of Congress. Evidence of her immigration fraud is overwhelming and will only intensify as more media outlets have to cover the story. She will be an enormous lingering embarrassment to her party. The only question is, how will the U.S. Attorney in the Twin Cities, Erica McDonald, proceed? She is definitely plugged into the GOP establishment of that state and is well aware of the need for a grand jury to look into this. But will she have the guts to follow the law, or just wimp out, in another case of Minnesota nice? I am not hopeful.

Perhaps, we can be more optimistic about another guy screaming the loudest about racist Trump; Rep. Elijah Cummings, whose wife’s charity received millions in a pay-to-play scheme. Baltimore Democrats are not only corrupt, but so sloppy they often leave the feds no choice but to prosecute.

212384_5_.png
Anyway, it strikes me as odd that no one has yet pointed out the most glaring fact about the Squad of Four “women of color” running amok in the Congress: one of them is obviously a white woman. Which rather makes calling their critics racist even more absurd. Rashida Tlaib was born in Detroit of Palestinian Arab ancestry. Arabs from the Near East are white, and always have been, as far as the U.S. Census Bureau and American society at large is concerned.

In the supercharged race hustle of today’s left-wing politics, though, everyone wants super-victim racial status. Not many American politicos are actually full descendants of black American slaves, so we have a lot them scrambling to fit under the title “brown” or “of color.” So far, none of the many white ethnic groups of the Near East -- Greek, Jew, Arab, Turk, Kurd, Armenian, etc. -- have been able to achieve this transformation and make it stick. But left-wing Arabs and Persians are fighting to make it so, and Tlaib takes every opportunity to tell Speaker Pelosi that she and her gal pals are all women of color.(Never mind that ethnic groups from the Near East are relative newcomers to America and have no history of mistreatment in this country.)

You know this has got to be killing Dems like Pelosi and her allies, who would love to play the “of color” trope themselves -- ancestry South Italy or Jewish -- but would get clobbered worse than Rachel Dolezal, if they actually crossed that line.

For Palestinian Arabs though, fantasy politics, is a way of life and they are good at it. Palestinian wingnut Linda Sarsour admits everyone considered her white growing up in New York City, so she started wearing a hijab and insisting she was “of color” as a basic element of her political schtick. This play-pretend has some really determined hucksters pushing it.

Still, what I am hoping is one of these phony women of color could follow Elizabeth Warren, and out herself with a classic entry in an ethnic cookbook. Warren’s “Pow Wow Chow” recipe for that old Cherokee favorite -- Crab Omelet with Mayonnaise -- pretty much put the kibosh on her nonwhite bona fides. Perhaps there is another cookbook out there somewhere; say “Gaza Goodies,” where Ms. Tlaib tells us exactly how much mayo you put on your Wonder Bread when making a falafel sandwich. Until then, the Arab minstrel show may go on.
 
JULY 22, 2019
Trump was right all along about Puerto Rico, with protests blowing apart Democrats' hurricane narrative
By Monica Showalter
Democrats have cynically dined out for years on the false narrative that President Trump was always trying to hold down Puerto Rico.

Taking a page from the number they did on President Bush in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, they claimed that the U.S. territory, ravaged as it was by Hurricane Maria in 2017, was intentionally not getting the aid it needed, all because Trump was a racist who hated them. Remember this dreck from Democratic Party standard-bearer, Hillary Clinton, who said she wasn't sure President Trump actually knew that Puerto Ricans are citizens? This is an actual narrative from Democrats.com themselves, and it snapped into place the moment the hurricane touched down in 2017.

Clinton's actually still at it:

It can't be emphasized too much how Democrats have tried to push this narrative. Remember this? The big Democrat shindig that took place in Puerto Rico to highlight Trump's supposed badness about helping the island — which happened at a time when the government was in a shutdown?

SAN JUAN, P.R. — It had been planned for months: the largest-ever congressional delegation to Puerto Rico. It would start with briefings on the continuing effects of Hurricane Maria, end with a charity performance of "Hamilton" and include a little down time on the beach.

And then the government shut down.

As they returned to Washington for Monday night votes, the 39 members of Congress who traveled to Puerto Rico over the weekend were taking fire from Fox News, President Trump's communications team and the president himself.

The White House seized on the idea of Democrats "partying on the beach instead of negotiating," as polls have found most voters blaming Trump for the 24-day impasse over funding the federal government, the longest shutdown in history.

Trump tried to highlight that the local Puerto Rican government, loaded as it was with Trump-hating leftists, was the reason the aid wasn't getting through. Trump sent aid swiftly and was angry that it sat on the docks as Puerto Rican leftist pols postured for the press. Remember how San Juan's leftist mayor cried all those crocodile tears against Trump as the press fawned and Democrats claimed her as their own? Yet Trump said the aid was there, and it generally just went to waste, all because Puerto Rican officials — with weird ties to the Clinton machine, by the way — couldn't lay off the corruption for just a few weeks.
 
The Washington Examiner, a newspaper of sorts usually having its nose firmly planted between t's buttcheeks, has just published an article critical of his wall-building effort titled "Trump has not built a single mile of new border fence after 30 months in office". The WH press office is not pleased.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...of-new-border-fence-after-30-months-in-office


In a statement last week, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the federal agency overseeing border barrier construction, confirmed that all the fencing completed since Trump took office is "in place of dilapidated designs" because the existing fence was in need of replacement.

The agency said that it had built 51 miles of steel bollard fence with funding that was set aside during fiscal 2017 and 2018. But while the funding was meant both to replace outdated walls and to place barriers where there previously had been none, the government has only completed the replacement projects. The projects to secure areas with no fence are still in the works.​
 
Jerry Nadler is Going to Have a Meltdown When He Finds Out Mueller Requested Barr Limit His Testimony
Katie Pavlich | Jul 23, 2019 7:25 PM
d8e7c156-de94-4b08-8532-9187c6240598.png


Yesterday the Department of Justicesent a letter to Special Counsel Robert Mueller informing him it is appropriate to stay within the boundaries of his 448 page report during testimony on Capitol Hill Wednesday morning.

"Please note that there should be no testimony concerning the redacted portions of the public version of the report, which may not be disclosed because of applicable laws, court rules and orders," the letter states. "Any testimony must remain within the boundaries of your public report because matters within the scope of your investigation were covered by executive privilege, including information protected by law enforcement, deliberative process, attorney work product, and presidential communications privileges. These privileges would include discussion about investigative steps or decisions made during your investigation not otherwise descried in the public version of your report. Consistent with standard practice, Department witnesses should decline to address potentially privileged matters, thus affording the Department the full opportunity at a later date to consider particular questions and possible accomodations that may fulfill the committees' legitimate need for information while protecting Executive Branch confidentiality interests."

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler accused the Department of Justice of trying to limit Mueller's remarks and argued the letter should be ignored

Attorney General Bill Barr told Fox News on Tuesday that it was former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team who asked the Justice Department to send Mueller a letter telling him to keep his upcoming testimony to House lawmakers "within the boundaries" of the public version of his Russia probe report.

The letter provoked criticism from Democrats ahead of Wednesday’s highly anticipated hearing, with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler calling it “incredibly arrogant.” Asked by Fox News why the Monday letter was sent, Barr said Mueller’s staff asked the department for guidance ahead of the hearing.

Mueller's testimony starts Wednesday morning at 8:30 am.
 
2015 Rashida Tlaib on Donald Trump After Travel Ban Rollout: ‘Deport This Asshole!’
Rashida-Tlaib-Asshole-640x480.jpg

Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images
MATTHEW BOYLE23 Jul 2019Washington, D.C.5,741
3:00
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), in 2015, called for the deportation of then-presidential candidate Donald Trump.

In response to Trump rolling out his travel ban idea in December 2015, a version of which he would later successfully implement as president despite legal challenges, Tlaib said on Twitter: “Deport this asshole!”
 
Jerry Nadler is Going to Have a Meltdown When He Finds Out Mueller Requested Barr Limit His Testimony
Katie Pavlich | Jul 23, 2019 7:25 PM
d8e7c156-de94-4b08-8532-9187c6240598.png


Yesterday the Department of Justicesent a letter to Special Counsel Robert Mueller informing him it is appropriate to stay within the boundaries of his 448 page report during testimony on Capitol Hill Wednesday morning.

"Please note that there should be no testimony concerning the redacted portions of the public version of the report, which may not be disclosed because of applicable laws, court rules and orders," the letter states. "Any testimony must remain within the boundaries of your public report because matters within the scope of your investigation were covered by executive privilege, including information protected by law enforcement, deliberative process, attorney work product, and presidential communications privileges. These privileges would include discussion about investigative steps or decisions made during your investigation not otherwise descried in the public version of your report. Consistent with standard practice, Department witnesses should decline to address potentially privileged matters, thus affording the Department the full opportunity at a later date to consider particular questions and possible accomodations that may fulfill the committees' legitimate need for information while protecting Executive Branch confidentiality interests."

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler accused the Department of Justice of trying to limit Mueller's remarks and argued the letter should be ignored

Attorney General Bill Barr told Fox News on Tuesday that it was former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team who asked the Justice Department to send Mueller a letter telling him to keep his upcoming testimony to House lawmakers "within the boundaries" of the public version of his Russia probe report.

The letter provoked criticism from Democrats ahead of Wednesday’s highly anticipated hearing, with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler calling it “incredibly arrogant.” Asked by Fox News why the Monday letter was sent, Barr said Mueller’s staff asked the department for guidance ahead of the hearing.

Mueller's testimony starts Wednesday morning at 8:30 am.
Mueller already seems a bit annoyed. Lol! Nadlerʻs obsequiousness is.......
 
2015 Rashida Tlaib on Donald Trump After Travel Ban Rollout: ‘Deport This Asshole!’
Rashida-Tlaib-Asshole-640x480.jpg

Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images
MATTHEW BOYLE23 Jul 2019Washington, D.C.5,741
3:00
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), in 2015, called for the deportation of then-presidential candidate Donald Trump.

In response to Trump rolling out his travel ban idea in December 2015, a version of which he would later successfully implement as president despite legal challenges, Tlaib said on Twitter: “Deport this asshole!”
Canʻt wait to see the Russian video montage of the 4 horsewomen leading the dems.
 
The current system favors the adversarial behavior between two strong parties. In many states, R and D have conspired together to eliminate or limit the power of any upstart third parties or independent candidates.

My personal plan would require Constitutional amendments. One change would be to elect the President and Vice President separately - the current system occurred more or less by accident when the 12th Amendment revised the original method wherein the President was the man who got the most electoral votes and the VP he who got the second most, with unsatisfactory behavior in the event of ties or non-majority close calls. That's not too radical an idea - many states already elect Governor and Lieutenant Governor separately and often the results are split.

Another change would eliminate the winner-take-all practice in which one candidate for President gets all of that state's electoral votes (in principle, at least - there have been some "rogue" electors in the past). Two states, Maine and Nebraska, already have a clumsy system where a candidate could lose in the whole state but still win in one or more Congressional districts and thus get one electoral vote. It wouldn't take too much of a computer programmer to come up with a way to split California's 55 voters among all candidates who met a certain minimal level of support. Note that I am not in favor of a nationwide popular-vote election, since preserving each state's electoral votes limits electoral fraud in any state to that state's electors.

In larger states, say for those with 5 or more Congressmen, candidates would run either on a state-wide at-large ticket, or through a system of electoral lists in which each party or list wins a number of seats proportional to its votes statewide. That one needs some further thought, since it might eliminate or reduce the "localness" of your local Congressman.

Another idea - eliminate any office or financial advantage that Representatives or Senators get by party membership. They could still organize themselves as Majority or Minority/Opposition parties, but we taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for a fancier office and expanded staff budget for the Majority Leader.

Neither R nor D will support these ideas, since finishing second with some hope for the next election is better than just fading away.

I forgot to mention that another facet of my plan to reduce partisan control of our government would be to create a class of Life Senat0rs, people with a demonstrated commitment to public service that would not have to worry about running for office anymore and could thus dedicate their time to running the government. Included would be all retired Presidents and Vice Presidents (unless impeached out of office), and Senators and Congressman with a combined service time of 30 years. Also possible would be a way for other notable persons (retired military officers, for example) to have a single chance put themselves up as candidates for Life Senator in a Presidential election year, where they would have to show nationwide support by a supermajority of the American people, something like majority approval in at least three-fourths of the states.
 
Back
Top