Who Compelled Sally Yates To Act? Republican Senators Want To Know

You’ll be hearing a lot from the lefty social media sphere about how former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates DESTROYED Texas Senator Ted Cruz in her appearance before the Senate Subcommittee today as they investigate Russian involvement in the last election. Let me go ahead and show that to you now, to get it out of the way. It was a good exchange, and she held her own; which is impressive given Cruz’s abilities as a hard-charging attorney. Pay attention to what Cruz says at the end about suspecting partisanship, because that’s the general theme of today’s hearings, at least on the Republican side.

Sally Yates Senate Subcommittee Hearing

I would note that, that might be the case if there’s reason to suspect partisanship- SEN. TED CRUZ

Cruz, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa were particularly open in their assertion that Yates, in “warning” the White House back in January that now ex-National Security Advisor Michael Flynn has associations with Russian contacts that compromised his ability to do his job, may have had a partisan motive for her actions.

Yates was also grilled pretty heavily by GOP members about why she refused to enforce President Donald Trump’s travel ban, a move which led to her termination at the Department of Justice. Yates contends she found the ban unconstitutional and would have been violating her oath to enforce it. The very shrewd litigator, when questioned about the travel ban, turned into something of an activist, using expressions about “truth” and mentioning that she saw the ban as a religious test (hence the unconstitutional part) intended to discriminate against Muslims.

Cruz reminded her that the Executive Order issuing the travel ban was declared legal as it related to its constitutionality. Louisiana Senator John Kennedy even went so far as to ask Yates when she became a member of the Supreme Court, since deciding the constitutionality of orders was their purview alone.

For her part, Yates came across as a person of integrity and conviction. She was most believable when she was insisting that one of her primary reasons for taking her concerns about Flynn to the White House was that Vice President Mike Pence was being sent out with inaccurate information and was “unknowingly lying” to the American public. But she did leave a nagging feeling she must have been encouraged to “take a stand,” particularly as it relates to Flynn.

She was clear that she never requested Flynn be unmasked, but could never answer — partly due to the fact that she couldn’t answer questions related to an ongoing investigation – how Flynn came to be unmasked. Who ordered the unmasking and why was particularly interesting to Graham, and he made sure to mention at the close of the hearing that he would be seeking answers to those questions.

The insinuation is, of course, that Flynn’s associations were a witch hunt to harm the new administration, prompting Kennedy to wonder why Flynn was given “double secret” security clearance that allowed him to serve in the White House if his phone call with the Russian ambassador was known about during the transition period between the election and the inauguration.

So many questions. The Dems, for their part, kept mentioning a special committee and a special prosecutor to investigate the ties of the new administration to Russia. GOP members want further investigation as to how and why Flynn was unmasked — not to mention who in the intelligence community leaked his name to the Washington Post that allowed them to break the story.

Former head of the Department of National Intelligence James Clapper, who also testified today, had a third agenda for his appearance: he simply, he said, wants the electorate to be aware of how hard Russia is working to undermine the US democratic system.

Advertisements

The French Presidential Election and the Press

If you thought the American press was unfair, unbiased, and stupid in the way it covers our political system, wait until you see how it’s handling the French elections. The reporters are not even pretending any more, consider this quote from the Associated Press from a story about the French presidential run off election (which is scheduled for this Sunday):

“France is about to have a president like no other: either Marine Le Pen, a far-right populist or Emmanuel Macron, a brainy upstart who’s daring the French to gamble on a startup-style new political construction.”

In other words, it’s a contest between a fascist and an innovative, fresh voice of change. Keep in mind, the AP isn’t taking sides, they’re just bashing one candidate and celebrating the other.

And it’s not just the AP, every American news outlet does the same. On television and in print, Le Pen is always in everywhere described as “far-right”, her name rarely appears without that term attached; but it is never defined in any way. That’s because “far-right” is not a description, but instead an attack or slur meant to invoke images of goose-stepping soldiers and violence. It’s a way to make someone unacceptable in a single phrase; it’s an attempt to shut down the conversation, rather than starting one. 

But is Le Pen actually “far-right”? Well not in economics or social policy either. She wants to keep religion out of public life in France. In America, she might be called center-left, except for one thing: Le Pen is skeptical of France’s current immigration and refugee policies. For that one thing, she’s attacked as a dangerous fascist, where none of her critics actually debate the topic with her. It would take facts and preparation, and they very well might lose that argument. Instead they call her names and hope that’s enough to kill her candidacy. 

And with the help of a mindless and compliant press (here and there), it might be enough this time, but not forever because at some point voters in France will demand a voice in the matter as they will here too someday. Sooner rather than later. 

May Day Protests in Portland Turned Into Riots

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

This was a monologue from Greg Gutfeld on the FoxNewsChannel’s “The Five”:

May Day protests ended with violent rioting in Portland, Oregon. You know Portland, the city that last week canceled a local parade because of violent threats made by leftists. So as speeches and parades disappear because the left promises violence, days later leftists still violently run rampant.

The lesson: once when the threat of violence suppresses speech, actual violence can replace it. There were twenty five arrests of the anarchists; that started fires, property damage, and throwing home-made bombs at police officers.

Anarchists? Is that what we call them? What a fake word. It’s just shorthand for wannabe terrorists; they’re ISIS, but without the goats.

Continue reading “May Day Protests in Portland Turned Into Riots”

The Donald Trump Rally: Whining About the Media

Watching President Trump’s 100-day rally was like stepping into a time machine and going back to Trump’s general election campaign. If you managed to see any of campaign rallies, you didn’t miss much last night.

Continue reading “The Donald Trump Rally: Whining About the Media”

The Scary Anti-Free Speech Movement 

So let’s play a game called “Who’s the fascist?”, because now anyone can play. In Portland, Oregon their annual rose parade was canceled after leftists promised to violently attack the local Republicans (if they showed up). If organizers didn’t cave, hundreds of rioters would swarm. So they caved, and canceled the whole event, with the excuse that they could not guarantee the participants’ safety; which is now the go to excuse to enable the mob. 

Now this is nuts. We’re America, people have fought and died for the right of free speech and assembly, and we let mobs of pointless weasels take that away? As lawless rioters brag about how they own the city, you prove them right by giving in. So where’s the media or the heroic actors and musicians that fight for tolerance? 

So who’s fault is it? Do you blame the spoiled brats for being spoiled brats? What about their enablers, like the academics who claim to defend free speech (unless you’re a conservative), the liberal bureaucrats in college towns (that are now cowering under their desk), or the meek tweeters in Hollywood who “bravely” zing right wingers who remain silent? 

What we’re seeing is the first anti-free speech movement. And it’s from the progressive, punitive mob; coddled for decades by the media, entertainment industry, and government. 

On college campuses and towns, the American flag is slowly being replaced by a white one. First speeches, now parades. 

What’s next? That’s a really good, but also very scary question. 

The Proposed Trump Tax Cuts

The big story from yesterday: the Trump tax cuts. I’ll explain them, what I think of them, and what is likely to happen. So, first of all, right now, on your personal income tax, you have seven groups. All right, seven percentages, and you fall into one of those seven. That’s cut back to three. All right. The President wants to cut it to three.  It would be a 10% rate, 25%, and 35%.

He does not say what the earning power will be to get into either of those groups, or any of those groups I should say, because there are three of them. The top group is 35%, that comes down from 39%. So it’s down four points.

Continue reading “The Proposed Trump Tax Cuts”

On Ann Coulter and UC-Berkeley

As of right now, conservative speaker Ann Coulter is going to speak at Berkeley, I guess tonight? Nobody quite knows what the situation is, whether she’s going to go there, or what she’s going to do. There’s a lawsuit filed against the college by the Republican Committee at the college, saying freedom of speech is being violated because they don’t want Coulter to come this week, they want it next week, or whatever it may be.

I fear for Coulter’s safety and for others, conservative people primarily. I fear for their safety and the others that want to listen to Coulter. These people on the far left are really insane and dangerous. But, is it worth it because people might get hurt?

But also attached to that story of these snowflake fascists on college campuses trying to keep opposing points of view away is a column on free speech by a Provost at NYU named Ulrich Baer.

This is amazing, absolutely amazing. I’m going to quote from this column, because this is frightening. Ready?

So Baer says:

As a scholar of literature, history and politics, I am especially attuned to the next generation’s demands to revise existing definitions of free speech to accommodate previously delegitimized experiences. Freedom of expression is not an unchanging absolute. When its proponents forget that it requires the vigilant and continuing examination of its parameters, and instead invoke a pure model of free speech that has never existed, the dangers to our democracy are clear and present.

We should thank the student protestors, the activists in Black Lives Matter and other “overly sensitive” souls [with quotes around “overly sensitive,” Ulrich’s being sarcastic] for keeping watch over the soul of our republic.

This is so much garbage, I can’t believe it.

Now, what this guy is saying is that free speech is not an unchanging absolute. It’s the old evolution of the Constitution, and that we in the precincts of academia, will decide what’s worthy speech, and what isn’t.

We know that Ann Coulter’s ideas are de-legitimate. That’s what he uses, de-legitimate. Therefore, not worthy of being heard. This is fascism, totalitarianism, Stalinism.
That’s what happened in Russia. The Soviet Union.

So you don’t have any right to say something that’s “de-legitimate.” And this is what is being taught in the nation’s schools. This is New York University. This guy’s a Provost, it’s outrageous. Dangerous.

He’s a fascist, ought to wear an arm band! Really makes me angry. But this is what’s happening.

The only exception to freedom of speech is if your speech is threatening to someone. If you are threatening harm, not putting forth an idea. And it’s not psychic harm, or emotional harm – it’s physical harm.