All of a sudden, Democrats have become very noble about redistricting, seeking to take the politics out of it.
But of course, the true reason is not good citizenship, but that the politics are bad for them. According to the Washington Post:
Republicans are in complete control of the offices in charge of redistricting in 21 states, meaning they either A) control the governor’s mansion and both chambers of the state legislature or B) they have veto-proof majorities in both legislative chambers regardless of the governor’s party. Democrats maintain a similar advantage in just five states.
In the overwhelming majority of states, redistricting is handled just like any other piece of legislation. Lawmakers in legislative chambers work together to draw maps and submit them to the governor for approval. The party in control of the government also controls the redistricting process.
So the Democrats have trotted out Barack Obama, the leftist Chicago machine-politics veteran who is doing his usual “above politics” and “I’m a moderate” schtick.
The man who steamrollered Obamacare through Congress with only Democratic votes – and the bipartisan opposition of Republicans and 34 Democrats – wants to lecture us that gerrymandering makes Congress too partisan and not “reasonable.”
Of course, by reasonable, he means policies he supports.
I listen to people like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, who think they’re great intellectuals, and I’m never impressed. Politicians make bad intellectuals. They’re in three businesses: Advancing an agenda; amassing power; and making people like them. Reflective thought is not their strong suit, though some pretend otherwise.
Ronald Reagan, who was assailed by the media and Democrats as a dum dum, actually had a coherent system of thought based on wide reading. But he is one of the few.
And so, with Obama, you get lots of platitudes that he thinks are profound, like “we are a nation of immigrants” and this one, that Trump and his supporters are ruled by “fear” while Obama and the progressives represent “hope.” As if some amount of fear was always bad, and hope with the absence of fear is always good.
Without once mentioning the president by name, former President Obama on Thursday drew sharp contrast between his eight years in office and the Trump administration.
“To a large degree, we are seeing a competition between two stories,” the former president told about 200 people at a high-dollar fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee in Beverly Hills.
“There’s the story that is based largely on fear, and there is a story based largely in hope. There’s the story that says we’re in it together, and there’s the story that says there’s an us and a them,” Obama told DNC Chairman Tom Perez during a conversation at the event.
“There’s a fundamental contrast of how we view the world,” the former president said, “and I think we are seeing the consequences of when one vision is realized, or at least in charge.”
So, if you bump into a lion while you’re out hiking, what’s better to have, hope or fear?
I suppose you could say that Chamberlain had a policy of hope, and Churchill had a policy of fear.
Millions of Trump voters took a look at the direction the country was going in and, yes, they had fear. Fear of a perpetually slow economy and stagnant wages; fear of a culture changing so rapidly and in so many negative ways, including attacks on religion and free speech; fear of unlimited immigration, a large amount of it illegal, that could not easily be assimilated; fear of a surrender of U.S. sovereignty to dubious international organizations and agreements.
Fear that they were losing their country.
And it’s not fair to say Trump voters were without hope. If they were, they never would have turned out en masse in the election and voted for the one person they believed, despite his flaws, might stand in the way of the nation’s degradation and perhaps eventual disintegration: Donald Trump.
You can only abuse the goose – America – so long, they reasoned, before it stops laying the golden eggs. We are not a nation of immigrants. We are a nation of citizens, as Mark Levin points out. What makes us unique is that, remarkably – unlike in Europe, for example – immigrants add their small contribution to the culture while largely being absorbed into it. That’s not happening anymore.
And by the way, there is an us and a them. American citizens are “us.” Foreigners are “them.” We are not One World. We love all peoples, but we are not all peoples. We are America, we have a culture, we have traditions, and we have a philosophy, and to the extent those are being erased by “change agents” like Obama, it should create grave concern.
Barack Obama is expected to hit the campaign trail around September to help Democratic candidates around the nation running for the Senate, the House, and for governor, according to CNBC.
That means lots of new lectures about “that’s not who we are” and what it takes to be an American, which is, being a liberal.
I would think the sight of Obama on the campaign trail will bring lots of conservatives to the polls, frightened off their couches by the prospect of a return to the era where leftists like Obama ran the country.
Liberals don’t need any more motivation, they’re already foaming at the mouth with hatred for conservatives and President Trump. So I’m not sure this helps Democrats.
The Trump administration needs Congress to change the law in order to keep illegal parents and children together, unless the courts reinterpret it, which they likely won’t. Pelosi and Schumer have already indicated they don’t want Congress to move even a limited immigration bill.
Obama would say he needs Congress to act, and when it didn’t, like with DACA recipients, he simply wrote his own law.
This is absolute, 100 percent, entirely pure, grass-fed, organically grown, TRUTH.
If President Obama (who got nowhere with North Korea and would have had to go to war with many millions of people being killed) had gotten along with North Korea and made the initial steps toward a deal that I have, the Fake News would have named him a national hero!
The Obama administration repeatedly lied to Congress about whether Iran would be able to access the U.S. financial system as Obama officials completed, and the Senate vote on, a nuclear with the rogue nation.
According to the report, released Wednesday by Republicans on the Senate Homeland Security Committee’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Iran was desperate to access billions of dollars stored abroad. The most efficient way to do this was to use the U.S. banking system in order to convert the funds into Euros. But it had been barred as part of sanctions regime from using U.S. banks, even under the Iran deal.
Both before and after the deal was signed and voted on by Senate, the Obama administration assured Congress that Iran would not be able to access U.S. banks. But not only did it allow Iran to do so, it encouraged U.S. banks to complete transactions for Iran. The banks refused, however.
From the report:
As the United States negotiated with Iran, one important U.S. interest consistently remained off-limits: Iran would not be granted access to either the U.S. financial system or the U.S. dollar.
Senior U.S. government officials repeatedly testified to Congress that Iranian access to the U.S. financial system was not on the table or part of any deal. This notwithstanding, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, at the direction of the U.S. State Department, granted a specific license that authorized a conversion of Iranian assets worth billions of U.S. dollars using the U.S. financial system. Even after the specific license was issued, U.S. government officials maintained in congressional testimony that Iran would not be granted access to the U.S. financial system.
For example, in July 2015, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that, under the JCPOA, Iran “will continue to be denied access to the [U.S.’s] financial and commercial market.”
The Senate disapproved the deal in September 2015, but not by enough votes to sink it. Six months later, the Obama administration was still lying about it.
From the report:
In March 2016, Senators Marco Rubio and Mark Kirk wrote to the Treasury Department to seek clarity on “new reports suggesting the Administration is working to give Iran access to the U.S. financial system or to dollar transactions outside of the U.S. financial system.” The Treasury Department responded in June 2016:
“To be clear, the U.S. Department of Treasury is not working on behalf of Iran to enable Iranian access to U.S. dollars elsewhere in the international financial system, nor are we assisting Iran in gaining access to dollar payment systems outside the U.S. financial system. The Administration has not been and is not planning to grant Iran access to the U.S. financial system.”
Just three months earlier, the same agency issued a specific license for Iran to access to the U.S. financial system and the U.S. dollar.
Iran eventually found other ways to convert its money to Euros so it could access it.
The hubris of President Obama and his aides was on full display Monday morning when Ben Rhodes appeared on CBS This Morning to talk about how there is no rational explanation for opposing Obama’s unassaible ideas.
Rhodes was asked a leading question by This Morning’s Gayle King:
“When you look at the Trump administration, many people believe that they’re trying to unravel and undo everything that the Obama administration did,” King said.
Rhodes happily gobbled up the bait.
“There are certain policies that they have targeted, Paris climate agreement, Cuba, TPP, there’s not an ideological rationale for why you would take down all of those policies other than that Barack Obama did them,” he said.
Of course not! If you oppose Obama, it’s because you hate Obama. His thinking is so rationale, his ideas of such clarity and brilliance, that to oppose them is to be an idiot or a hater.
This, of course, is how many liberals think. Just, especially Obama and his coterie.
White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders Wednesday complained that neither CNN nor MSNBC went live with President Trump’s signing of the “Right to Try” bill that allows terminally ill patients to use drugs not yet approved by the FDA.
The drugs would only have had to pass FDA’s “Phase 1” trials that demonstrate relative safety.
I’d point out that while the President signed that legislation and actually addressed America, two networks chose not to cover it, and instead covered something totally different in palace intrigue. A massive piece of legislation that had bipartisan support, that was life-changing — literally, life-changing – for millions of Americans — two networks chose not to cover the President’s remarks on that.
Even some of the coverage I did manage to locate focused on the limited benefits of the legislation. “Trump oversells Right to Try law,” headlined the New York Times.
Okay. When has any White House not oversold an achievement? I guarantee to the New York Times, any of your reporters who get a terminal illness diagnosis will be happy about this legislation.
And no, I’m not wishing terminal illness diagnoses on New York Times reporters. They still do some good reporting.
Okay, it’s a joke! My God, everybody’s so sensitive.
And of course, if Obama had signed this bill, it would be yet more evidence that he was the Second Coming, performing miracles to heal the sick.
The event even had an adorable moment. Usually, adorable moments are up there with scandals for provoking coverage. But not for Trump.
According to the Daily Mail:
An eight-year-old boy who helped inspire federal legislation giving the terminally-ill the ‘Right to Try’ experimental drugs stole the show on Wednesday at a bill signing event. The boy, Indiana’s Jordan McLinn, left his wheelchair to stand at the president’s side as Donald Trump inked his name to the legislation. While the president was passing out signing pens to the event’s participants, the boy repeatedly went in for a hug. After several attempts the president rewarded him with an embrace and a kiss.
Netflix is belatedly concerned about losing conservative viewers with it’s multiyear, multi-project deal with Barack and Michelle Obamas to produce content. According to the Hollywood Reporter: At an industry event Tuesday, Netflix chief content officer Ted Sarandos said the network’s production deal with Barack and Michelle Obama, announced last week, does not represent an organizational shift to… Continue Reading
This video below addresses one of the great mysteries of the week. We keep hearing in the media that there was no evidence that the Trump campaign was spied on. And whatever was, DON’T CALL IT SPYING. Of course there’s evidence, laid out by the liberal media itself, about surveillance of indviduals associated with the… Continue Reading
From a piece running in the Wall Street Journal today by Kimberly Strassel: The Department of Justice lost its latest battle with Congress Thursday when it allowed House Intelligence Committee members to view classified documents about a top-secret intelligence source that was part of the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign. Even without official confirmation… Continue Reading
Here’s a short part of a very long Facebook lecture by Barack Obama on President Trump’s decision to exit the Iran nuclear deal: There are few issues more important to the security of the United States than the potential spread of nuclear weapons, or the potential for even more destructive war in the Middle East.… Continue Reading