.
Wednesday News Executive SummaryMedia Editors: Above the Fold
INTRAPARTY SQUABBLE: Elizabeth dinky/liar-Warren made a forceful case for a female president and stood behind her accusation suggesting sexism by progressive rival commie-Bernie Sanders in a Democratic debate that raised gender as a key issue in the sprint to Iowa’s presidential caucuses (Associated Press)
WITH LAWMAKERS LIKE THESE, WHO NEEDS ENEMIES? Democrats block a vote to support Iran protesters (The Daily Caller)
National Security
THE ART OF THE DEAL: Britain, France, Germany suddenly harden toward Iran after killing of Soleimani (The Daily Wire)
SO ABOUT THOSE commie-BERNIE GULAGS… Federal judge upholds Trump family-separation policy (Hot Air)
OBSTRUCTION: House Democrats launch investigation into Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” program (The Daily Caller)
Government & Politics
“THE GOVERNMENT’S … BAD FAITH”: Michael Flynn asks to withdraw guilty plea in case stemming from Mueller probe (NPR)
IRONY: The 2020 Census has no citizenship question — but offers assistance in 58 foreign languages (Bongino.com)
TRADE-DEAL LEVERAGE: The U.S. will keep billions of dollars of tariffs on Chinese goods in place until after the 2020 election as leverage to keep Beijing from violating a phase-one trade deal (National Review)
NEW BUDGET BUSTER: dinky/liar-Warren promises to cancel student-loan debt using executive powers (Politico)
MEANWHILE… U.S. budget deficit topped $1 trillion in 2019 for the first time in seven years (CNBC)
Closing Arguments
POLICY: Why the European Union just admitted the Iran deal is dead (Washington Examiner)
POLICY: Three Mile Island and the exaggerated risk of nuclear power (Foundation for Economic Education)
HUMOR: commie-Sanders campaign doubles down with new ad warning Americans they’ll never be able to hear a female president over the sound of her vacuum (The Onion)
~The Patriot Post https://patriotpost.us/articles/67919?mailing_id=4802&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4802&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body .
White House Confirms Impeachment
Defense Team: Pat Cipollone, Jay Sekulow,
Michael Purpura and Patrick Philbin
by sundance
{ theconservativetreehouse.com } ~ Earlier today the White House confirmed the impeachment defense team led by White House Counsel Pat Cipollone. Joining Cipollone is President Trump’s personal attorney Jay Sekulow and White House Deputy Attorneys Michael Purpura and Patrick Philbin. Additionally, constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz may also work in an advisory capacity with the four member legal team.
.
House Scheme Unfolds – scumbag/liar-Adam
Schiff Transmits “New Evidence”
to scumbag liar-Nadler
by sundance
{ theconservativetreehouse.com } ~ Yesterday’s ridiculous, albeit proactive, New York Times narrative about Russians hacking Burisma now makes sense. Today the Lawfare team (Mary McCord et al) within scumbag/liar-Adam Schiff’s impeachment crew send additional files of evidence... to be included in the impeachment articles constructed by HJC Chairman scumbag liar-Jerry Nadler. It is all coordinated. The “new evidence” relates to information turned over by Lev Parnas, an SDNY indicted former associate of Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani. The Lawfare purpose is to bolster their premise that President Trump was trying to force Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate loose lips liar-Joe Biden’s corrupt activity around the Ukrainian company Burisma. The Lawfare crew behind scumbag/liar-Schiff waited until the last minute to push the new “evidence” because they didn’t want republicans to deconstruct it during the impeachment evidence gathering phase. Additionally, the Lawfare crew anticipate a Trump impeachment defense surrounding actual evidence of the loose lips liar-Biden corruption, which makes the Trump request to Zelensky valid. So the proactive democrat strategy was/is to use the New York Times presentation of Russia hacking Burisma to negate the provenance of the evidence against the loose lips liar-Bidens. In essence, to cast doubt upon any documents that would show loose lips liar-Joe and Hunter Biden participating in an actual influence and money-laundering scheme...
.
Duping Americans on Sharia
by Raymond Ibrahim
{ cms.frontpagemag.com } ~ Does Islam itself promote hostility for and violence against non-Muslims, or are all the difficulties between the West and Islam based on secondary factors... from “radical” interpretations of Islam, to economics and grievances? This is the fundamental question. Obviously, if “anti-infidel” hostility is inherent to Islam itself, then the conflict becomes existential—a true clash of civilizations, with no easy fixes and lots of ugly implications along the horizon. Because of this truism, those whose job it is to whitewash Islam’s image in the West insist on the opposite—that all difficulties are temporal and not rooted to innate Islamic teachings. Enter Shariah: What Everyone Needs to Know, co-authored by John Esposito and Natana J. Delong-Bas. The authors’ goal is to exonerate Shariah, which they portray as enshrining “the common good (maslahah), human dignity, social justice, and the centrality of the community” from Western criticism or fear, which they say is based solely on “myth” and “sensationalism.” In their introductory chapters they define Shariah as being built upon the words of the Koran and the Sunna or example of the Muslim prophet Muhammad as contained in sahih (canonical) hadiths. They add: “Shariah and Islamic law are not the same thing. The distinction between divine law (Shariah) and its human interpretation, application, and development (Islamic law) is important to keep in mind throughout this book…. Whereas Shariah is immutable and infallible, Islamic law (fiqh) is fallible and changeable.” Next the authors highlight how important Shariah is to a majority of Muslims. They cite a 2013 Pew Poll which found that 69% of Muslims in the Middle East and North Africa, 73% in South Asia, and 55% in Central Asia believe that “Shariah is God’s Allah’s divine revelation.”...
https://cms.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/01/duping-americans-sharia-raymond-ibrahim .
The Democrats’ Dysfunctional Demolition Derby
by J.T. YOUNG
{ spectator.org } ~ Viewers of previous 2020 Democrat presidential debates have witnessed a dysfunctional demolition derby... Instead of trying to hit each other, the entrants have done all they could to avoid one another. The reasons for this caution over collision is that the cars are so weak, and they are all driving in the same direction. The Democrats’ next debate will take place Tuesday night in Iowa, with the smallest and least diverse field yet. It will be the party’s seventh. If it is like the other six, nothing will happen. That no action is expected is anunderstatement. America’s presidential nominating contests are usually political versions of demolition derbies. As any enthusiast knows, demolition derbies are pure Americana, taking our love affair with the car to its very grave. They are unmitigated mayhem. You simply get a car from — or on the way to — the junkyard, get it into running condition, and try to hit other cars, while avoiding being hit. The last car running wins. They are the lowest common denominator, stripping away the superfluities of speed and skill; giving the crowd only the crashes, without the filler. They are also generally descriptive of America’s presidential nomination contests. Sure, sometimes there are cars on which all eyes are fixed. Still, the name of the game is to hit and be hit, proving yourself worthy of the party’s banner. If demolition derbies are generally descriptive of America’s presidential nomination process, they are absolutely descriptive of Democrats’ 2020 one. All the cars are clunkers, whether residents of, or transients to, the junkyard is irrelevant. If you purposely aimed to pick an unillustrious field, you could not have done better...
https://spectator.org/the-democrats-dysfunctional-demolition-derby/?utm_source=American%20Spectator%20Emails&utm_campaign=3e31f2ef7b-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_01_14_02_41&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_797a38d487-3e31f2ef7b-104608113 .
People Are Dying in Racial Violence So
That Democrats Can Win Elections
by Daniel Greenfield
{ cms.frontpagemag.com } ~ After a black nationalist attack on a Jewish supermarket in Jersey City, a member of the Jersey City Board of Education defended the murder of two Jewish people and a Latino employee... "Drugs and guns are planted in the Black community,” Joan Terrell Paige ranted on Facebook. The two Black Hebrew Israelite killers, the former community organizer wrote, “went directly to the kosher supermarket. I believe they knew they would come out in body bags. What is the message they were sending? Are we brave enough to explore the answer to their message? Are we brave enough to stop the assault on the Black communities of America?" While some Democrats called on Joan Terrell Paige to resign, others defended her hatred of Jews. The Hudson County Democratic Black Caucus argued that "her statement has heightened awareness around issues that must be addressed." “She said nothing wrong. Everything she said is the truth,” declared Carolyn Oliver Fair, the head of the North Jersey Chapter of the National Action Network. The NAN is scumbag-Al Sharpton’s organization and has been addressed by every important Democrat from Barack scumbag/liar-nObama to liar-Nancy Pelosi to Elizabeth dinky/liar-Warren. Virtually every 2020 Democrat has appeared at the National Action Network including dinky/liar-Warren, Andrew Yang, Julian Castro, Pete Buttigieg, lowlife-Kamala Harris, scumbag-Cory Booker, and commie-Bernie Sanders despite its ugly history even before Fair’s support for murdering Jews. scumbag-Sharpton had been the central figure in the Crown Heights Pogrom, he has a history of anti-Semitic slurs, and the NAN has blood on its hands. Unlike many contemporary hate groups, the National Action Network has the unique distinction of being the destination of choice for every major Democrat and for its role in the murder of 7 people...
https://cms.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/01/people-are-dying-racial-violence-so-democrats-can-daniel-greenfield .
Michael Flynn Withdraws Guilty Plea – Cites
DOJ “bad faith, vindictiveness and
breach of plea agreement”
by sundance
{ theconservativetreehouse.com } ~ Moments ago, citing prosecutorial vindictiveness and the DOJ changing their position on sentencing, lawyers for Lt. General Michael Flynn filed a motion to withdraw the guilty plea... This is good news. Withdrawing the plea will now force the government to prove its case. Prosecutor Brandon Van Grack knowingly sought to induce false statements from Flynn relating to his FARA registration. When Michael Flynn refused to lie about the FARA registration and other material matters related to his business partner Bijan Rafiekian (Flynn Intel Group), the government retaliated against Mr. Flynn. “Only after new counsel appeared, did the government for the first time demand an admission and testimony from Mr. Flynn that he knew and intended when he signed the FARA registration form that it contained several material false statements. Not only was that demanded testimony a lie, but also, the prosecutors knew it was false, and would induce a breach.” […] “The government’s stunning and vindictive reversal of its earlier representations to this Court are incredible, vindictive, in bad faith, and breach the plea agreement.”...
.
Why Two-Parent Homes Are Still BetterLewis Morris: A family built around two parents has many advantages. Two-parent families are statistically less likely to be poor. They are also less likely to suffer addictions or engage in criminal behavior. Children who grow up in homes where both mom and dad live under one roof have a greater chance to live successful, well-adjusted lives and create stable familial relationships for themselves.
This is not to say that children who grow up in one-parent homes are doomed to miserable lives, but it’s hard to deny that the opportunity for a better life takes a lot more work. One-parent households are predominantly lower income, less educated, and more susceptible to crime and drug problems.
Sociologists, economists, and politicians have struggled for years to find ways to alleviate the inequities dealt to one-parent households. Potential solutions abound, but those suggested by Dr. Christina Cross, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard University, ignore the core issue and risk making matters worse.
In a shockingly obtuse New York Times op-ed last month, Cross claimed that for black Americans the problem is not a lack of two parents under one roof, but, rather, it’s a lack of access to resources compared to white one-parent families. In other words, more taxpayer money will fix it.
Cross points out that black one-parent households have a tougher time than white one-parent households when it comes to getting and maintaining jobs, obtaining a good education, owning property, and so forth. She then makes the cognitive leap that access to resources alone is the problem for one-parent black families because one-parent white families perform statistically better in these areas. The power of a two-parent household among blacks is “a myth” according to Cross. Rather than stepping back and looking at the larger issues that face all one-parent families, Cross chooses to make a racial divide and drive home the tired leftist narrative about a racist system that has it in for black families.
Perhaps one-parent white families do perform statistically better than one-parent black families across all of Cross’s data points, but what difference does that make? White or black, they are still more likely to be poor, less educated, and more susceptible to a tougher life.
Ian Rowe, senior visiting fellow at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, takes Cross to task for her misguided analysis. Rowe points to data from the National Center for Education Statistics that shows the proportion of black children living in poverty decreases from 45% for mother-only households and 36% for father-only households to 12% for two-parent households.
Rowe also questions how Cross narrowly cites evidence to play down the importance of two-parent households for blacks while ignoring the broader issue of family structure for children of all races. Why does the problem have to be confined to one race? Non-marital births among white women under 24 numbered 238,000 in 2018, far higher than any other racial cohort.
Cross is right to be concerned about the issue of single-parent families, but by choosing to make a racial argument, she makes it that much more difficult to implement the real solution: A more stable family structure benefitting all children, no matter their skin color. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/67871?mailing_id=4800&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4800&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body
Comments