The Inevitable New The Inevitable Trump Mocking Thread

"Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez retweeted a post from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which the US has designated a terrorist organization.

The head of the US Center for Palestinian Rights on Tuesday shared an article questioning the influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in the face of accusations from Omar that the pro-Israel lobby was paying members of Congress.

“AIPAC activist tells NYT the lobby is coming for Congresswomen @AOC @RashidaTlaib and @IlhanMN,” Yusuf Munayye tweeted. “They are three people who, in my opinion, will not be around in several years.”"
 
78276a0808a81e487f16f796460a5b49.jpg

'NOT A SAFE JOURNEY'
Migrant girls over 10 given pregnancy test at border because of rape risk: DHS boss
 
BREITBART

Thomas Sowell on Rise of Socialism: Educational System, Media Aren’t Encouraging People to Test Ideas Against Facts
EmailTwitter

6 Mar 201988

1:33


Tuesday on Fox Business Network’s “Cavuto: Coast to Coast,” economist and Hoover Institution senior fellow Thomas Sowell offered his thoughts on what appears to a comeback for the popularity of socialism in the United States.


Sowell explained that some of the blame could be put on the media and educational institutions in the country for not doing a better job of putting socialism to the test.

“Unfortunately, neither our educational system nor our media encourage people to test ideas against facts,” Sowell said. “Socialism is a wonderful sounding idea. It’s only as a reality, it is disastrous.”

Prior to his conversion from Marxism to embracing free-market economics, Sowell explained how he relied on empirical evidence, which he argued was lacking now.

“Before I was a Marxist, I was an empiricist, and I stayed an empiricist,” he said. “And with the passing years, as I look into more and more things, I saw the difference between the reality and the rhetoric. Unfortunately, so many people today including in the leading universities don’t pay much attention to evidence.”


“Looking at it from a worldwide perspective, I would say these so-called exceptions are universal on every continent among people of every race, color, creed, and whatever,” Sowell added
 
Fellow libtards. Now is the time to strike on our world agenda. This obscure Southern California youth soccer website is the widest media to get the message to the largest audience.

1. Ensure HR 1 passes, pdq
2. Get the 81 innocent targets of our retribution served with subpoenas.
3. Get hundreds of thousands of Central American pantywaists to overload of porous open southern border.

5nos out.
 
Nonononono said:
Fellow libtards. Now is the time to strike on our world agenda. This obscure Southern California youth soccer website is the widest media to get the message to the largest audience.

1. Ensure HR 1 passes, pdq
2. Get the 81 innocent targets of our retribution served with subpoenas.
3. Get hundreds of thousands of Central American pantywaists to overload of porous open southern border.

5nos out.
Click to expand...


Poor Poor Bob the Slob.
So easily.....

15965385.jpg
 
“Wrong on multiple levels”: WaPo drops four Pinocchios on Hillary’s vote-suppression claims
Ed Morrissey Mar 06, 2019 4:01 PM
hillary-eyes.jpg

“Seriously misleading.”
 
MAGA!






A big change to Ford’s Mexico plans that will make Donald Trump smile

Jazz ShawPosted at 4:31 pm on March 6, 2019


TrumpAirForceOne715Wave9-6-17.png

You might recall, a little more than a year ago, when liberals were absolutely giddy over the news that Ford was going to be building an automotive plant in Mexico after all. It was seen as a defeat for President Trump’s America first ideas and a failure of one of his campaign promises. I wonder what they’ll be saying now? The company just announced that the Mexico deal has been scrapped and they will instead be expanding a plant in Michigan, adding hundreds of new jobs. (USA Today)

See Also: Good news from Pelosi: Omar’s comments weren’t “intentionally anti-semitic”

Ford Motor announced Tuesday that it would cancel plans for a $1.6 billion Mexico plant and launch a Michigan expansion in a move that may be viewed as a capitulation to Donald Trump.

Ford CEO Mark Fields said the company would spend $700 million and add 700 jobs to “transform and expand” its Flat Rock, Mich. manufacturing plant to make autonomous and electric vehicles.

“Make no mistake about it — Ford is a global automaker but our home is right here in the United States,” Fields said at a press conference.

This is an interesting development, mostly for the people of Michigan. A 700 job expansion is nothing to sneeze at and with technology increasingly moving in the direction of autonomous vehicles, this will keep them in a growing market. But it’s also something that will be of great interest to the President as we head into the next election cycle. After only narrowly carrying the state in 2016 with a plurality, beating Clinton by barely half a point, his approval ratings have been underwater there by as much as 15 points recently.



If this decision by Ford is viewed as a feather in Trump’s cap, that means the Democrats will once again have a lot of work to do in a state that they previously were able to take for granted. (Hillary Clinton definitely took it for granted in 2016 and the results were fatal.) But in 2018 they seemed to have regained their mojo in a significant way. They won the races for governor, attorney general, and secretary of state. It was the first time they took all three of those seats in a single election since Reagan was in office.

But as I mentioned above, this is one announcement that should really be looked at outside of partisan politics. Whether you love the President or despise him, this is good news for Michigan. A big boost in manufacturing jobs radiates outward like a rising tide, helping with their struggles in housing and retail markets. Let’s hope this trend
 
Gerald Nadler Rejects Constitution’s Limitations on Impeaching Trump

Donald-Trump-Jerrold-Nadler.jpg

Getty Images
KEN KLUKOWSKI 7 Mar 2019
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (R-NY) told a Sunday show host that Congress can impeach President Donald Trump for matters that are not crimes, and also for alleged acts that he claims Trump committed before becoming president, rejecting key limits that the Framers of the Constitution placed on Congress’s impeachment power.

Nadler gave an interview to George Stephanapoulous on ABC’s This Week, laying out the long-term partisan Democrat’s plan to relentlessly attack President Trump, with the evident goal of ousting him from office.


“Seeking to sabotage a fair election would be an impeachable offense,” Nadler declared, insisting that the president is “implicated” in “various crimes,” including crimes committed during the 2016 election.

Nadler’s Judiciary Committee investigation will seek to establish the facts pertaining to the president’s actions during the 2016 election. Nadler made clear that he has already concluded that the president is guilty of “abuse of power,” “corruption,” and “obstruction of justice.” That last one is key, because it is a specific federal felony that could be cited as grounds for impeachment.

The left-wing Democrat accused President Trump of a laundry list of illegal activities, including little-known – and little-understood, especially by media pundits – constitutional provisions such as what he calls the “Emoluments Clause” of the Constitution. (There are actually two such provisions in the Constitution, the Foreign Emoluments Clause and the Domestic Emoluments Clause. It is unclear which one Nadler says the president is violating.)


But the list of allegations show that the New York partisan is quite serious, including “abuses of power, obstruction of justice, threats to the Mueller investigation, threats to witnesses,” and so on.

Nadler also claimed that when President Trump criticizes Robert Mueller, that criticism is obstruction of justice, which is a felony. He also claims that President Trump’s firing James Comey as FBI director was obstruction of justice.

He also insists that Congress can remove the president from office for matters that are not crimes.

“So can there be impeachable offenses that are not crimes?” asked Stephanopoulous.


“Oh, sure,” Nadler replied. “Crimes and impeachable offenses [are] two different things.”

Nadler’s claims are shocking.

First, the Framers of the Constitution specified in Article II, Section 4, “The President … shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Elsewhere, the Constitution adds that it takes a simple majority vote (50 percent plus one, or 218 in the modern House) in the House to impeach, and then a two-thirds supermajority vote (67 in the modern Senate) to remove an impeached president from office.


The Constitution gives treason and bribery as examples of impeachable crimes. The best reading of that clause could be paraphrased as, “treason, bribery, or similarly serious crimes.” People can debate about whether lesser crimes can be treated as impeachable offenses, but they cannot debate about whether the Framers were talking about actual crimes. The Constitutional Convention debated having the Constitution say that a president could be removed for “maladministration” – that is, being a bad president – but deliberately decided against it.

The Democrat-led U.S. House in 1974 included abuse of power as one of the impeachment articles against President Richard Nixon. Nadler did not discuss that, but it is sometimes mentioned in impeachment discussions.

But impeaching for abuse of power is hard to reconcile with the original public meaning of the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution unless it is referring to criminal abuses of power. The 1970s were a decade that saw government officials frequently abandon the original meaning of the Constitution, perhaps most infamously with the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision – inventing out of thin air a constitutional right to abortion – but also the original meaning of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause in Lemon v. Kurtzman(1971), how the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause applies to campaign-finance laws in Buckley v. Valeo(1976), and the proper scope of vital constitutional separation-of-powers principles such as Congress’s War Powers Act and vast expansions of federal powers over the environment and education.

In other words, you want to take with a grain of salt conclusions about the Constitution that branches of government promulgated in the 1970s. It was not the U.S. government’s finest decade in that regard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top