Democrat Party Chair Gives Deranged and Vulgar Speech Denying Trump Was Elected

Thomas Lifson

A virulent strain of Trump Derangement Syndrome appears to have struck the newly-installed top leader of the Democratic Party, Tom Perez. In an age where disagreeing with the projections of mathematical models on climate that have failed to predict the last 20 years of climate history gets one labeled a "denier," the head of the Democrats proclaimed that Donald Trump didn't win the election.

The Electoral College begs to differ.

Speaking before a group of activists on Newark, NJ, and perhaps forgetting that smart phones ubiquitously record public statements, the Chair of the Democratic National Committee made a jackass of himself, raising questions about his mental fitness for his position. His election fantasy wasn't even the worst of it. Christian Datoc of the Daily Caller reports:

Newly elected Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez campaigned for Democrats in Newark, New Jersey Friday by telling a crowd the Republican Party doesn't "give a shit" about them.

That is a blood libel. In essence, after failing the working class (Perez was addressing the New Jersey Working Families Alliance) for generations by allowing and encouraging a flood of low skilled illegal immigrants to drive down wages, and promoting the hollowing out of American manufacturing through globalism, all that the Democrats have to offer is hatred: Those Republicans hate you, so vote for us.

Here is the worst of it:

Datoc has the entire rally on video, for those with the stomach for it.

Perez is going hard left to mollify the extremists in his base. He probably fears the shadow of his former rival and current subordinate, Keith Ellison.

I was raised to never laugh or point at deranged people making fools of themselves in public. I hope that my late mother would forgive me this post.

© 2011 AmericanThinker

McCaskill: If We Block Gorsuch, ‘The Things I Fought For With Scars On My Back To Show For It…Are In Jeopardy’

Matt Vespa

UPDATE: Well, looks like she's going to roll the dice on supporting the filibuster:

Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill announced Friday that she will not support the nomination of conservative Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court and will join a Democratic effort to block his confirmation vote, which is scheduled for next week.

“This is a really difficult decision for me. I am not comfortable with either choice,” McCaskill said in a statement.

“While I have come to the conclusion that I can’t support Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court ?—? and will vote no on the procedural vote and his confirmation ?— ?I remain very worried about our polarized politics and what the future will bring, since I’m certain we will have a Senate rule change that will usher in more extreme judges in the future,” McCaskill said.

UPDATE II: McCaskill tweeted this on the day Grosuch was nominated.

We should have a full confirmation hearing process and a vote on ANY nominee for the Supreme Court.

— Claire McCaskill (@clairecmc) January 31, 2017

***

Guy touched upon what could be a rift between Senate Democrats on the Gorsuch filibuster. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has called on his colleagues to block Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch because a) he’s not Merrick Garland; b) he’s a conservative; c) Trump won; and d) the progressive base is demanding thermonuclear war on the Trump agenda. He’s slowly cobbling together the votes to block the qualified nominee, who has garnered support across the political spectrum, highlighting that the GOP would have plenty of political cover (and a good reason) to nuke the filibuster rules. It may come to that. At least nine Senate Democrats did say that Gorsuch deserved a hearing and a vote. Of that group, Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) have broken ranks to support a filibuster of Gorsuch. Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) have said they will not support such an endeavor. Sens. Jon Tester (D-MT) and Claire McCaskill are still up in the air. 

These red state Democrats know that 2018 is going to be a challenge. In some cases, it shouldn’t shock us if they find themselves in the fight for their political lives. As Guy noted, McCaskill is walking the tightrope, but new audio obtained by the Missouri Republican Party from a fundraiser with the Democratic senator shows that she knows the dangers of this filibuster game Schumer has his caucus playing with Republicans (via Kansas City Star) [emphasis mine]:

“The Gorsuch situation is really hard. There are going to be people in this room that are going to say, ‘No, no, no. You cannot vote for Gorsuch,’ ” McCaskill said in the recording. “Let’s assume for the purposes of this discussion that we turn down Gorsuch, that there are not eight Democrats that vote to confirm him and therefore there’s not enough to put him on the Supreme Court. What then?”

She pointed to the list of potential nominees that Trump released before the election to galvanize conservative support. “By the way, Gorsuch was one of the better ones,” McCaskill quipped.

“So they pick another one off the list and then they bring it over to the Senate and we say no, no, no, this one’s worse. And there’s not enough votes to confirm him. They’re not going to let us do that too long before they move it to 51 votes,” she said.

[…]

McCaskill made a distinction between using the filibuster to block Gorsuch, who would replace Scalia, arguably the court’s most conservative justice during his tenure, and using it to block a nominee if one of the court’s more liberal or centrist justices dies or retires.

“So they move it to 51 votes and they confirm either Gorsuch or they confirm the one after Gorsuch,” she continued. “They go on the Supreme Court and then, God forbid, Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies, or (Anthony) Kennedy retires or (Stephen) Breyer has a stroke or is no longer able to serve. Then we’re not talking about Scalia for Scalia, which is what Gorsuch is, we’re talking about Scalia for somebody on the court who shares our values. And then all of a sudden the things I fought for with scars on my back to show for it in this state are in jeopardy."

Alas, some reason from the other side. Sen. McCaskill knows that it’s best to keep the powder dry in case of a second vacancy, where the balance of the Court would be at stake for liberals. This all-in mentality over a conservative replacing a conservative isn’t smart strategy and she knows that, but like all politicians, McCaskill wants to be re-elected. She’s definitely on the chopping block—and Democrats have become an endangered species in this area of the country. In neighboring Arkansas, Mark Pryor lasted as long as he could before losing to Sen. Tom Cotton in 2014. McCaskill survived in 2012 due to Republican opponent Todd Akin making a horrible remark about rape that spilled over to other races as well. It may not be so easy a re-election ride since Republicans had worked on gaffe-proofing their candidates. They deployed this strategy in 2014. The result was a GOP takeover of the Senate.

But getting back to these filibuster games, it’s clear that McCaskill is in a no-win situation with her base and her political standing. Trump won Missouri handily and the growing red trend of the state could have her updating her resume come January 2019 no matter what she does on Gorsuch. In all, at least there’s one Democrat who seems to know the risks of playing chicken with Republicans on the filibuster rules. She knows her colleagues would nuke it—and if Schumer keeps this up, they should. 

Ace Of Spades Decision Desk has the latest on the filibuster count. There's a lot of uncertainty on the Democratic side.

White House Asks Israel Not to Engage in 'Unrestrained' Settlements A Day After West Bank Expansion

Cortney O'Brien

The only blemish in President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's friendly press conference last month was their disagreement over Israeli settlements. When asked if Israel had the right to build more settlements in the West Bank, Trump turned to the prime minister and said he'd like him to "hold back" on future settlements for the time being. 

Netanyahu said they'd talk.

That conversation may come sooner rather than later, considering this week's developments. On Thursday, Israel approved a new settlement in the West Bank, making it the first new Jewish town since 1993. The Trump administration responded mildly, considering the Israeli government had already voted upon the settlement, intended for Amona evacuees, before the White House voiced its opinion of settlements.

“While the existence of settlements is not in itself an impediment to peace, further unrestrained settlement activity does not help advance peace,” a White House official said Friday.

Netanyahu is expected to comply with the White House's wishes. In a show of "good will," the prime minister said the government will only engage in limited construction going forward. 

Trump Gets Ready for Tough Mar-a-Lago Meeting with the ChiCom Big Kahuna

Friday - March 31, 2017

RUSH: Next week the ChiCom big kahuna is coming to town. He’s going to meet with Trump over a couple of days at Mar-a-Lago. But he’s not going to be staying at Mar-a-Lago. The ChiCom leader is gonna be staying at some motel in Lantana. I’m not kidding. It may not be a motel. It might be a private resort or private home, but he’s not staying at Mar-a-Lago.

And the reason he’s not staying at Mar-a-Lago is that the ChiCom leader doesn’t want the peasants that live in his country, doesn’t want them to see the style of luxury and so forth that he might be experiencing if he were seen tooling around Mar-a-Lago. So he’s gonna stay in some out-of-the-way, off-the-beaten-path place. I think it’s Lantana, Lantana, Manalapan, very close to one another. They’re south of where Mar-a-Lago is. You’re looking at me like you can’t believe that.

Trump is saying it’s gonna be a tough two days of meetings. It’s gonna be really tough. The ChiComs are tough. The ChiComs are smart. And the ChiComs have been negotiating with stupid leaders up ’til now. And you know what one of the beefs is? Folks, this is just too rich. Apparently the ChiComs are gonna accuse Trump of retarding world progress on climate change, because of Trump getting rid of all these regulations at the EPA.

The ChiComs are gonna say, “Okay, look, if you expect us to pick up your slack, you can forget it. We’re not gonna exempt you guys from what everybody else is having to do to save the climate. We’re not gonna pick up your slack.” Now, the truth is the ChiComs aren’t doing anything. The ChiComs don’t believe in climate change. They just say they do. The ChiComs are using coal, they’re using the dirtiest fuel they can find.

The ChiComs have got their own pollution problems, and they’re making no effort to really fix them, because the ChiComs are totally focused on unbridled economic growth, and they’ll deal with all those problems later. Right now they’ve gotta grow their economy. They have to create 15, 20 million new jobs a year in China, and those jobs cannot be in the cities. The cities are overrun. The cities are overpopulated. That’s why there’s so much pollution in the cities.

So the ChiCom leader has to create 15, 20 million jobs a years in the countryside. That’s, by the way, one of the reasons why Apple’s manufacturing factories are way out in the sticks in China. Shenzhen, some of them are close to Hong Kong, but many of the factories that Apple uses, they partner with a company called Foxconn, these factories are out in the middle of nowhere.

These factories are cities, 300 to 500,000 people work in these factories, and they built up little towns around them to house them. Hospitals, schools, everything else, all built around the factory. Imagine two or 300,000 people or 500,000 in a single facility. It’s not one big building, there are many buildings, but it’s an incredible number of employees. And the ChiCom cities like Beijing, Shanghai, all these, they’re overrun.

So the ChiCom leader’s got his own problems. But they are a staunch enemy of ours when you strip it all away. And Trump has acknowledged it’s gonna be a real tough two days with the guy. And the guy has made it plain he doesn’t play golf. Trump can’t take him to play golf, he’s not gonna be playing golf, he’s not interested in that. He’s not interested anything social.

However, the ChiCom leader has a wife — this is a first — most communist leaders’ wives are never made public. I mean, they are the epitome of backgrounders. They show up at dinners but they don’t speak. They nod, they bow, they do whatever. But this guy’s wife, however, has taken the world by storm. She’s supposedly a model. She’s supposedly very, very aggressive, very up front, very visible, and loves being in the spotlight.

I mean, we don’t see communist leaders like this. I mean, think of Raisa Gorbachev. Did you ever see the wife of Yuri Andropov? Did you ever see the wife of Leonid Brezhnev? Did you ever see Khrushchev’s wife? No. And even if you did, you wouldn’t know that she was the wife of one of the communist leaders. So this ChiCom guy’s wife, that’s a whole different mix. But they are not doing the social route. They are not gonna do anything that will send pictures back home of the ChiCom leader sitting around drinking pina coladas in the lap of luxury at Mar-a-Lago. It’s not gonna happen.

Don’t Ignore Putin’s Trail of Blood

Aaron Rhodes

Talk about Russia and Vladimir Putin fills the news in the Euro-Atlantic region. But in considering the problematic aspects of cooperating with the Russian government, too many focus on relatively trivial and ambiguous issues such as Russian operatives exposing embarrassing statements by American politicians. Even those who do criticize the Russian regime seem to go no further than the murders of political opponents and journalists, awful as those might be. More serious problems, in particular Russia's record of genocide-like war crimes in Chechnya, are either forgotten or willfully ignored.

During the two Chechen wars, Russian military and security forces destroyed virtually every building in the capital of Grozny and devastated other Chechen towns and villages. The Russian security services had begun with a campaign to demonize and scapegoat Chechens. There were serious allegations that the FSB itself blew up large apartment buildings in Moscow and Volgodonsk in the fall of 1999, then blamed it on Chechens in order to create a casus belli. The entire might of the Russian military was unleashed on Chechnya. Surface-to-surface missiles were used along with aerial carpet bombing, artillery, and tank bombardment. I visited human rights advocates in Grozny in July 2002, on behalf of the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights; one my coworkers remarked that the condition of the city was "worse than Kabul, even 1945 Dresden." 

It is impossible to obtain exact figures of casualties in the two Russo-Chechen wars, because the only entity able to make a serious investigation would be the Russian state, which apparently has no interest in the truth. Estimates vary between 85,000 and 250,000 of the roughly one million Chechens in the area at the times of the open conflict. That would mean anywhere between 8 and 25 percent of the population.

During the second war, numerous villages were encircled by Russian forces, the stated goal being to "mop up" and neutralize rebels. Residents were systematically robbed, beaten, raped, or shot. Many were abducted and disappeared. Around 8,000 of those who disappeared are still missing, but what really hurts Chechens today is that under Ramzan Kadyrov's oppressive regime people still disappear, and authorities will not even consider requests for investigations. And people are still tortured by police and security forces.

Russian leaders, primarily Vladimir Putin, have made Chechnya an example of what happens when a part of the Russian Federation seeks independence, which is makes their encouragement of pro-Russian Ukrainians in Crimea and the Donbas a bit ironic. But punishment was also meted to independent countries that were once parts of the Soviet Union, and earlier of the Russian Empire. The message: Accept Russian dominance -- or else.

Putin and his subordinates have wrapped their war crimes in the mantle of the "War Against Terrorism;" 9/11 was a gift. The Chechens' defense of their ancestral lands and their freedom was presented as "International Islamic Terrorism." Many in the West seemingly accepted that as a fact, even though nobody, Chechen or other Muslim, has at any time struck in Russia proper to promote some "Caliphate."

How can any Western politician think of Russia, under Putin, as a reliable partner in the conflict between liberal democracies and Islamist extremists? There is no evidence that Russia has fought against the real jihadis, like ISIS. On the contrary, Russia directly and indirectly cooperates with the "Shia Axis": Iran, Syria's Assad, and Hizb'allah. There is a straight line between Putin's manipulation of the "threat of Islamism" in Russia, and the Russian/Assad campaign in Syria, where the war serves political purposes and civilians and moderate opposition forces are used for target practice by Russian forces while the Islamic State is often given a pass. Indeed, Putin has left a trail of blood in post-Cold War Europe and the Middle East -- in Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine, in Syria, a trail that may soon extend to Belarus and to the streets of Russian cities.

In liberal democracies, the Left and Right have traded places when it comes to Russia. While the Left for decades considered the Soviets to be morally equal to America, now they all of a sudden see Russia as a threat. Putin and the ethno-nationalist and neoimperialist Russian approach to sovereignty and human rights find favor in among a wide range of European and American conservatives. Some see Putin as defending traditional Christian values against the excesses of secular postmodernism. Indeed, Putin has touched a sore spot – a neglect by Western elites of the value of national identity and deeply-rooted moral beliefs. Others, like Henry Kissinger, see a Russian sphere of influence where particular cultural and political values should legitimately rein. A Danish MP recently claimed not "to see any Russian threat anywhere;" the Russian takeover of parts of Ukraine was a fait accompli, and sanctions should be dropped, she insisted. What is important now is "dialogue."

With Russia on the move, and threatening a nuclear war in Europe, the reflex of Cold War appeasement has resurfaced. What is important, as President Donald Trump has said, is to "get along with Russia." He may soon change his mind. In America, it is mainly left-wing Democrats who complain about Russia, but their concerns are remarkably parochial, centering on claims that Russian hacking may have tilted the presidential election against Hillary Clinton.

What these positions have in common is a shocking ignorance of recent history, and a chilling indifference to the tens of thousands of victims of Russian brute force in this century, as well as the lives of Russian citizens and to the future of freedom throughout the former Soviet Union and for the former Eastern European Russian satellite states. 

Yes, nobody wants war with Russia. But if we fail to hold accountable alleged perpetrators of war crimes, and to clearly and forcefully defend the human rights and freedoms of those under Russia's authoritarian yoke, we are not making such a war less likely. And at the same time, we are allowing commitment to our own freedoms to erode.

Aaron Rhodes is President of the Forum for Religious Freedom – Europe. He was Executive Director of the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights between 1993-2007, and later co-founded the Freedom Rights Project.

© 2011 AmericanThinker

Senate intel panel declines Flynn immunity offer 'at this time': report

Senate intel panel declines Flynn immunity offer 'at this time': report
By Katie Bo Williams - 03-31-17 11:38 AM EDT

The Senate Intelligence Committee has turned down former national security adviser Michael Flynn's request for immunity in exchange for his testimony in the panel's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election - at least for now.

The committee is not receptive to the offer "at this time," according to NBC's Kasie Hunt.

The panel's investigation into Russian interference in the election is ongoing, and the decision does not necessarily rule out such a deal in the future.

Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) earlier in the week strongly implied that Flynn would be a potential witness before the committee - telling reporters that "you would think less of us" if the committee had not talked with him.

Flynn, a former intelligence official, was ousted in February after the revelation that he misled Vice President Pence about conversations he had with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has made requests to 20 individuals to be interviewed in connection to the investigation, and five of those interviews have already been scheduled, Burr said.

The remaining 15 interviews will "probably" be scheduled within the next 10 days, Burr said, and only Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, has been publicly identified.

The committee will schedule its interview with Kushner only when "we know exactly the scope of what needs to be asked," Burr said - providing one plausible explanation for the decision to turn down Flynn's offer.

It is common for witnesses to ask for immunity in exchange for testimony. Congress can grant such protections, but lawmakers typically do so only after consulting with the Justice Department, to avoid disrupting a federal investigation.

The Justice Department can delay a congressional immunity deal, but cannot not block one entirely.

Flynn's lawyer has provided few details about what testimony he might provide but said in a statement that "no reasonable person, who has the benefit of advice from counsel, would submit to questioning in such a highly politicized, witch-hunt environment without assurances against unfair prosecution."

Trump tells NBC to stop covering Russia story

Trump tells NBC to stop covering Russia story
By Elliot Smilowitz - 04-01-17 09:00 AM EDT

President Trump on Saturday called for NBC News to devote more attention to his unproven claims that President Obama spied on him and stop covering the investigations into Russia's interference in the election.

"When will Sleepy Eyes Chuck Todd and @NBCNews start talking about the Obama SURVEILLANCE SCANDAL and stop with the Fake Trump/Russia story?" Trump tweeted just before 9 a.m.

"It is the same Fake News Media that said there is 'no path to victory for Trump' that is now pushing the phony Russia story. A total scam!" he added shortly after.

When will Sleepy Eyes Chuck Todd and @NBCNews start talking about the Obama SURVEILLANCE SCANDAL and stop with the Fake Trump/Russia story?

- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 1, 2017

It is the same Fake News Media that said there is "no path to victory for Trump" that is now pushing the phony Russia story. A total scam!

- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 1, 2017

It was not immediately apparent what NBC coverage Trump was taking issue with. Chuck Todd on Friday interviewed top Washington lawyer Abbe Lowell and former Obama press secretary Josh Earnest on "MTP Daily" about the latest Russia developments.

Russian interference in last year's election is the subject of investigations by the Senate Intelligence Committee, House Intelligence Committee and the FBI.

Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn has volunteered to be interviewed by the FBI and congressional committees probing possible links between the Trump campaign and Russia in exchange for immunity from prosecution.

The president has frequently decried coverage of the investigations into Russian meddling as "fake news."

Trump last month claimed in a series of tweets that Obama "wiretapped" him before the election. He did not supply any evidence.

FBI Director James Comey says he knows of "no information" validating Trump's accusation. Trump has stood by the allegations, and the White House has said the comment refers to the Obama administration's surveillance activities more broadly.

- Updated at 9:03 a.m.