Wednesday, October 31, 2018

KAVANAUGH REJECTED HIS $600K GOFUNDME, IT'S DR. FORD'S TURN TO DUMP HER $1 MIL

Like a SuperPAC, a GoFundMe can be created in your name without your compliance or participation. 
Justice Kavanaugh has made it clear that he doesn't want the money that was raised on his behalf.
Citing judicial ethics concerns, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh declined more than $600,000 that was donated to aid his family during the firestorm over sexual misconduct allegations that plagued his confirmation. The judge’s decision was announced on Tuesday in a message posted on the online fundraising page that gathered the funds.
“Justice Kavanaugh did not authorize the use of his name to raise funds in connection with the GoFundMe campaign. He was not able to do so for judicial ethics reasons. Judicial ethics rules caution judges against permitting the use of the prestige of judicial office for fund-raising purposes. Justice Kavanaugh will not accept any proceeds from the campaign, nor will he direct that any proceeds from the campaign be provided to any third party. Although he appreciates the sentiment, Justice Kavanaugh requests that you discontinue the use of his name for any fund-raising purpose.”
That's the right thing to do. Now it's Christine Ford's turn. Her GoFundMes have raised around a million dollars.
Two GoFundMe accounts have raised more than $842,000 for Ford, and the money is still coming in weeks after she testified and left the spotlight. The total does not include a third account collecting $120,000 for an academic endowment in her name.
As Paul Sperry noted, she doesn't need the money.
"The costs for security, housing, transportation and other related expenses are much higher than we anticipated and they do not show signs of letting up,” Ford said in a recent statement posted on the GoFundMe page of the “Help Christine Blasey Ford” campaign, which is still bringing in donations. "Funds received via this account will be used to help us pay for these mounting expenses.”
GoFundMe spokeswoman Katherine Cichy told RealClearInvestigations that Ford and her husband can withdraw as much as they want whenever they want for any purpose. Payments would be electronically deposited into the Fords' bank account within two to five business days of initiating withdrawals.
Transportation and housing don't cost anywhere in that neighborhood. Unless she's being protected by the Swiss Guards, neither does security. Legal costs could be quite high, but those were already covered by her people.
Some question the necessity of the financial assistance given that much of the costs associated with Ford's testimony – including all of her legal fees plus a polygraph examination – were covered by Democratic attorneys assigned to her by the Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, committee sources say; panel Democrats were allotted half of a $1 million committee fund for transportation, security, investigations and other expenses associated with the tumultuous confirmation process. The Senate Sergeant at Arms and Capitol Police also provided "heightened security" for Ford.
Kavanaugh rejected his GoFundMe haul, there's no sign that Ford is doing the same.


WASHINGTON POST TRYING TO RESTART

KHASHOGGIMANIA

7
Sorry Marty, I don't think it's happening.
It says something about the power of the illegitimate media cabal that its echo chamber was able to propel hysteria over an old friend of Osama bin Laden's death, and that the blame fell not on the Washington Post for giving him a forum to promote the Muslim Brotherhood, but on the Saudis for doing him in.
But news cycles are short. And it's getting too close to the midterms.
Some Jews getting killed blew the death of a Hamas supporter off the front pages. And the Washington Post and the New York Times are creakily trying to restart their Jihad.
"Jamal Khashoggi was brutally murdered four weeks ago. We're still waiting for answers," the Post croaks.
Translation. Stop talking about dead Jews. We want to talk about our dead Jihadist some more.
How's that conversation about anti-Semitism coming along?

WASHINGTON POST RAN PRO-SOROS PIECE FROM EMPLOYEE

 OF SOROS-FUNDED GROUP W/O DISCLOSURE

0
The media was always biased. But it used to abide by certain forms and norms. It worked, in the parlance of the Left, "within the system". Now it's making a mockery of the system, blatantly abusing its processes, while claiming all of its authority.
Typical of this is the media, which has become little more than the messaging arm of the Democrats and their radical leftist faction, which demands that competing media outlets on the right be censored in order to fight "fake news" (but Trump describing it as "fake news" is depicted as a threat to the First Amendment), while claiming that it practices the highest standards of dispassionate journalism.
Here is a fairly typical example of the media's casually routine abuses from my article today.
Criticizing George Soros, an anti-Semite and alleged Nazi collaborator, is anti-Semitic. The Washington Post alone ran two dishonest screeds, “Conspiracy Theories about Soros Aren't Just False, They're Anti-Semitic” and “A Conspiracy Theory about George Soros and a Migrant Caravan Inspired Horror.”
The former comes from Talia Lavin, a former New Yorker fact checker who had to resign after falsely claiming that a wheelchair bound ICE agent’s Afghanistan platoon tattoo was Nazi insignia. Seeing her potential for smearing people, Media Matters hired her as a “researcher” on “far-right extremism”.
What wasn’t good enough for the New Yorker was good enough for the Washington Post, which brought in a disgraced employee of Media Matters, an organization funded by George Soros, to accuse Soros critics of anti-Semitism. The Post did not see fit to inform readers of the fact that its pro-Soros screed was funded by a Soros group, only describing Lavin as “a writer and researcher based in Brooklyn”.
The Post could have surely found someone who wasn't working for a group that received a sizable amount of money from Soros to write an unhinged piece attacking his critics with false charges of anti-Semitism (particularly obscene coming on behalf of a man who has repeatedly justified anti-Semitism), but why bother?
Media ethics and standards are as dead as disco.
The media is no longer even bothering to hide the debauched corruption of its profession.

SOCIALISTS BACKING 

ACTUAL ANTI-SEMITIC CANDIDATE, PROTEST TRUMP OVER 

ANTI-SEMITISM

It really doesn't get any more obscene than this.
As President Trump met with the Rabbi of the synagogue that came under fire, a series of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel hate groups protested his presence.
The Trumps and Dermer went with Rabbi Jeffrey Myers into the vestibule of the synagogue to light candles in the martyrs' memory when they arrived. They then laid stones and white flowers at each of the 11 memorial sites outside.
Myers said earlier in the day that the interior of the synagogue, still an active crime scene, was too bullet-riddled to be used for worship. 
Later the president visited UPMC Presbyterian hospital, where the wounded including four police officers are recovering.
In the city's Squirrel Hill neighborhood a crowd estimated at 2,000 people gathered to protest against the president's presence. With police trying to clear them from city streets, they marched behind a banner urging the president to 'fully renounce white nationalism.'
The larger of two protest marches was organized by a group called IfNotNow Pittsburgh, along with a coalition that included local branches of Democratic Socialists of America and the International Socialist Organization, according to The Forward.  
'We certainly don’t want Trump to feel welcome,' IfNotNow activist Ella Mason told the paper.
Her group told the Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle in 2017 that its goal was to end the Israeli 'occupation' of Palestinians in the Middle East.
That means it's a pro-terrorist organization. But the DSA is even worse. It's running a straight up, actual anti-Semitic candidate.
On the other side of the country, DSA-LA continues to back Maria Estrada for California State Assembly District 63 despite her praise for Farrakhan, accusations that Jews were exploiting the Holocaust, and attacking a Jewish Democrat for not keeping “your party, your religion and your people in check.”
"Anyone who believes they are one of ‘God’s chosen people’ automatically feels superior and justified in all they do," Estrada ranted.
Estrada’s racism was criticized by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, reported on in numerous Jewish publications, and yet the DSA and Bernie Sanders’ Our Revolution, refused to withdraw their support. When contacted about her hateful views, both the local and national DSA, as well as the local and national Our Revolution organizations, failed to condemn Estrada.
The DSA is so bad that even some of its Jewish collaborators have raised certain concerns.
Also at the DSA convention was a representative from Melenchon's France Insoumise. Melenchon’s blatant anti-Semitism, was so bad that it was even condemned by members of the DSA’s Jewish Caucus. 
But instead of insisting that the DSA end its ties to an anti-Semitic movement, Lane Silberstein, a DSA and If Not Now member, weakly argued that, "Jewish socialists have had to contend with one of history’s most egregious eras of antisemitism— from which the left was not immune in promoting — and yet they continued to proudly identify as socialists… we will carry on that tradition and not shy away from working with the left.” The technical term for that is collaboration with anti-Semites.
Much as when D.C. Councilmember Trayon White accused the Jews of controlling the weather, the same leftist activists who rushed out to defend Salazar, Women's March's Sophie Ellman-Golan and If Not Now's Rafael Shimunov, came to his defense. White makes frequent appearances in editions of the Washington Socialist, the house organ of the MDCDSA, which has been able to lobby the D.C. racist.
And these are the people suddenly pretending to care about anti-Semitism. 

Trump bashes Paul Ryan on birthright citizenship: Focus on holding the majority

   
buffering
Autoplay: On | Off
President Trump on Wednesday bashed Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) for rejecting his call to end birthright citizenship, deepening an intraparty feud over the controversial proposal days before the midterm elections.  
 
Trump tweeted that Ryan should instead focus “on holding the Majority,” implicitly laying blame at the Speaker's feet if the GOP loses control of the House.
 
“Paul Ryan should be focusing on holding the Majority rather than giving his opinions on Birthright Citizenship, something he knows nothing about!” Trump tweeted.

The broadside comes one day after Ryan flatly denied that Trump could end birthright citizenship via executive order, which the president said during an interview with Axios is something he intends to do. 
“You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order,” Ryan said.
 
Trump added that “our new Republican Majority will work on this,” seeming to suggest he would ask lawmakers to end the Constitution's guarantee of citizenship for anyone born in the U.S. in addition to or in place of an executive order. 
 
The testy exchange points to the underlying tensions between Trump and House Republicans as the GOP fights to hold on to its majority in the midterm elections on Tuesday.
 
Most handicappers think Democrats have a good chance of winning back the House majority, and Trump's remarks about birthright citizenship were widely seen as damaging to vulnerable Republicans struggling to hold on to suburban House districts. 
 
But Trump has decided to double down on his hard-line immigration stance in the final stretch before Election Day, a plan he hopes will fire up his core supporters and get them to the polls.
 
The president earlier Wednesday vowed to push forward with his pledge despite opposition from Ryan, GOP lawmakers and legal scholars. 
 
Trump tweeted that the practice “will be ended one way or the other” and said the issue would ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. He said the 150-year-old right of noncitizen's children to be born in the U.S. as citizens “costs our Country billions of dollars and is very unfair to our citizens.”
 
Many Republican lawmakers have backed up Trump's dire warnings about a caravan of Central American migrants traveling toward the U.S. and endorsed his proposal to send 5,200 active-duty troops to the southern border to help stop it. 
 
But several GOP officials called the president's dramatic suggestion of ending birthright citizenship a bridge too far.
 
Legal experts have said limiting birthright citizenship via executive order to children of U.S. citizens and legal resident runs afoul of the 14th Amendment, which says “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” 
 
Vulnerable Republicans have said it will hurt incumbents running in competitive districts with large immigrant populations. Ryan made his comments while campaigning in Kentucky for Rep. Andy Barr, an endangered Republican, as part of a final push to save the party's House majority. 
 
Trump and Ryan had largely made peace with one another following a rocky first year, in which they sparred over the Republican Party's failed push to repeal the Affordable Care Act. But tensions largely faded from public view after the passage of the GOP tax-cut law.
 
Ryan's comments about birthright citizenship are somewhat out of character for the outgoing Speaker, who has previously said he prefers to handle disagreements with Trump behind closed doors.
 
“It works better to have private conversations than public disputes,” Ryan told news outlets earlier this year. “I can say anything. We have very candid conversations.”
   
LOAD COMMENTS (3,229)

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *