Monday, July 16, 2018

Bourdain slammed rapist Bill and enabler Hillary

28 year old Dem star knows nothing but condems Israel anyway

Sunday, July 15, 2018

Not only is DNC VP Ellison a pro Muslim terrorist, he is pro cop killers

Posted: 14 Jul 2018 03:13 PM PDT
(Steven Hayward)
Have you heard? Democratic socialism is the bright new future. New and improved! Not like that old kind of socialism that produced gulags, corrupt governments, and mediocre economies. It’s kindler, gentler socialism, all warm and fuzzy and friendly. And . . . oh, wait:
Posted: 14 Jul 2018 06:38 AM PDT
(Scott Johnson)
Bernie Sanders came to town yesterday to support the candidacy of Minnesota Fifth District Rep. Keith Ellison for state attorney general. Sanders made appearances with Ellison at First Avenue in Minneapolis and at Denfeld High School in Duluth. I cannot imagine a political office for which Ellison is less fitted than the head of any organization devoted to law enforcement. Ellison’s candidacy is a disgrace, as is Sanders’s support of his candidacy.
The Star Tribune’s Jessie Van Berkel covered the Ellison/Sanders rally at First Ave here. The Star Tribune has posted a 50-minute video of the event along with her story. It makes for painful viewing and the loss of more than a few brain cells.
Van Berkel, incidentally, turns to PolitiFact to verify that Sanders is a socialist. Sanders’s self-avowal is apparently insufficient for her.
Seeking to run the top law enforcement office in Minnesota, Ellison should support law enforcement. It’s axiomatic. Of the several disgraceful threads that run through Ellison’s career, however, Ellison’s support for cop killers stands out in this context. Let us take a look back at his career with this narrow focus.
Perhaps the lowest moment in Minneapolis’s history was the September 1992 execution-style murder of police officer Jerry Haaf. Haaf was shot in the back as he took a coffee break at a restaurant in south Minneapolis. The murder was a gang hit performed by four members of the city’s Vice Lords gang. The leader of the Vice Lords was Sharif Willis, a convicted murderer who had been released from prison and who sought respectability as a responsible gang leader from gullible municipal authorities while operating a gang front called United for Peace.
The four Vice Lords members who murdered Haaf met and planned the murder at Willis’s house. Two witnesses at the trial of one of the men convicted of Haaf’s murder implicated Willis in the planning. Willis was never charged; law enforcement authorities said they lacked sufficient evidence to convict him.
Within a month of Haaf’s murder, Ellison appeared with Willis supporting the United for Peace gang front. In October 1992, Ellison helped organize a demonstration against Minneapolis police that included United for Peace. “The main point of our rally is to support United for Peace [in its fight against] the campaign of slander the police federation has been waging,” said Ellison.
Willis was the last speaker at the demonstration. According to a contemporaneous report in the St. Paul Pioneer Press, Willis told the crowd that Minneapolis police were experiencing the same fear from young black men that blacks had felt from police for many years. “If the police have some fear, I understand that fear,” Willis said. “We seem to have an overabundance of bad police. . . . [W]e’re going to get rid of them,” Willis said. “They’ve got to go.” The Pioneer Press account concludes with Ellison’s contribution to the demonstration: “Ellison told the crowd that the police union is systematically frightening whites in order to get more police officers hired. That way, Ellison said, the union can increase its power base.”
Ellison publicly supported the Haaf murder defendants. In February 1993, he spoke at a demonstration for one of them during his trial. Ellison led the crowd assembled at the courthouse in a chant that was ominous in the context of Haaf’s cold-blooded murder: “We don’t get no justice, you don’t get no peace.” Ellison’s working relationship with Sharif Willis came to an end in February 1995, when Willis was convicted in federal court on several counts of drug and gun-related crimes and sent back to prison for 20 years.
Ellison’s support for the murderers of Officer Haaf was not a one-off. In February 2000 Ellison spoke at a fundraiser sponsored by the Minnesota chapter of the old National Lawyers Guild, on whose steering committee he had served. The chapter was raising funds for former Symbionese Liberation Army member Kathleen Soliah after her apprehension in St. Paul (under the name “Sara Jane Olson”). The National Lawyers Guild is of course the old Communist front group, though it has survived the fall of the Soviet Union.
At the time of the fundraiser, Soliah/Olson had been a fugitive from justice for 25 years, avoiding prosecution on charges related to the attempted pipe bombing of Los Angeles police officers in 1975. Soliah/Olson had been apprehended on the Los Angeles charges at her home in the Highland Park neighborhood of St. Paul in 1999.
In October 2001, Soliah/Olson pleaded guilty to two counts of possessing explosives with intent to commit murder in the long-pending Los Angeles case. In January 2002 Soliah/Olson and four other SLA members were charged with the murder of Myrna Opsahl in Sacaramento in the Crocker National Bank case. Soliah/Olson’s participation in the SLA’s Crocker National Bank robbery/murder had long been a matter of public record. Soliah/Olson pleaded guilty to the murder charge in November 2002.
Following her apprehension in St. Paul, Soliah/Olson became a cause of the hardcore radical left. Ellison’s support for Soliah/Olson was notable, as was his demagogic denunciation of law enforcement authorities seeking justice for vicious crimes. Yet Minnesota media have remained uninterested in any serious exploration of Ellison’s indefensible public associations and statements.
In 2006 Greg Lang dug up Ellison’s National Lawyers Guild speech and posted it on his site devoted to all matters SLA. Greg emailed us the text of Ellison’s speech at the time he posted it on his now dead site. In turn I posted it on Power Line for archival purposes as part 8 of my seemingly endless 2006 series “Who is Keith Ellison?”
Referring to the days Soliah/Olson had spent in the SLA under the leadership of Donald DeFreeze (“Field Marshal Cinque”), Ellison hailed Soliah/Olson as a “black gang member” and thus a victim of government persecution. He described her as one of those who had been “fighting for freedom in the ’60s and ’70s” and called for her release. Ellison’s call went unheeded as Soliah/Olson subsequently pleaded guilty to charges in Los Angeles and to an additional murder charge in Sacramento; she served hard time in California on the charges.
In his National Lawyers Guild speech Ellison also spoke favorably of cop killers Mumia Abu-Jamal and “Assata Shakur” (Joanne Chesimard). Chesimard is wanted for the cold-blooded murder of New Jersey state trooper Werner Foerster in 1973. Chesimard was convicted of the murder but escaped from prison in 1979; she has been on the lam in Cuba since 1984. Bryan Burrough’s Days of Rage has a riveting account of Chesimard’s works and days as a terrorist. Chesimard is the first woman to be named to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists List. The FBI has offered a reward of up to $1,000,000 for her capture. The FBI video on Chesimard is below.
Ellison prayed for Chesimard in his National Lawyers Guild speech: “I am praying that Castro does not get to the point where he has to really barter with these guys over here because they’re going to get Assata Shakur, they’re going to get a whole lot of other people,” he told the crowd. “I hope the Cuba[n] people can stick to it, because the freedom of some good decent people depends on it.”
Then Star Tribune metro columnist Katherine Kersten devoted a column to this speech in 2006. When Kathy sought out Ellison, he declined to comment on his current view of Soliah/Olson or Chesimard/Shakur. He’s just that kind of guy.
Ellison still doesn’t want to talk about it. But can we at least get the facts out now that he aspires to the office of Minnesota attorney general?
NOTE: This post draws on my 2006 Weekly Standard article “Louis Farrakhan’s first congressman.”

Thursday, July 12, 2018


Letter from Yale Students, Alumni, and Faculty in Support of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh
July 12, 2018
We write as students, alumni, and faculty proud of our alma mater. We join Yale Law School in its praise of distinguished Yale alumnus Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
Judge Kavanaugh is eminently qualified to serve as a Supreme Court justice. Judge Kavanaugh, a graduate of Yale College and Yale Law School, is one of our nation’s most distinguished jurists. In his twelve years of service on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, he has demonstrated a principled approach to interpreting the law. He has reached legal conclusions free of political partisanship. Judge Kavanaugh has devoted his professional life to upholding the rule of law and our Constitution. . .
The letter goes on to note praise from Kavanaugh from a number of senior left-of-center figures on the faculty, like William Eskridge, Heather Gerken, and Akhil Amar:
We admire the Yale Law faculty who have spoken in support of Judge Kavanaugh’s qualifications and commitment to the Constitution. Some selections of our faculty’s comments are below:
“I can personally attest that, in addition to his government and judicial service, Judge Kavanaugh has been a longtime friend to many of us in the Yale Law School community. Ever since I joined the faculty, I have admired him for serving as a teacher and mentor to our students and for hiring a diverse set of clerks, in all respects, during his time on the court.”
—Heather K. Gerken, Dean and Sol & Lillian Goldman Professor of Law
“Judge Kavanaugh commands wide and deep respect among scholars, lawyers, judges, and justices.” “Good appellate judges faithfully follow the Supreme Court; great ones influence and help steer the Court. Several of Kavanaugh’s biggest ideas have found their way into Supreme Court opinions. Thanks to decades of high-level experience and close observation, Kavanaugh also understands the intricacies of the executive and legislative branches.”
—Akhil Reed Amar, YLS ‘84, Sterling Professor of Law
“Brett Kavanaugh has been one of the most learned judges in America on a variety of issues, ranging from theories of statutory interpretation to separation of powers.” “We are proud that he is our graduate and eager to continue to learn from his judicial opinions and scholarly publications.”
—William N. Eskridge, Jr., YLS ‘78, John A. Garver Professor of Jurisprudence
“Politics have deeply harmed our Supreme Court nomination process.” “But in terms of the man now before us, Brett Kavanaugh is a true intellectual–a leading thinker and writer on the subjects of statutory interpretation and federal courts; an incomparable mentor–someone who picks law clerks of all backgrounds and viewpoints; and a fair-minded jurist who believes in the rule of law. He is humble, collegial and cares deeply about the federal courts.”
—Abbe R. Gluck, YLS ‘00, Professor of Law
In our deeply polarized climate, these respectful, civil, and entirely accurate comments are a breath of fresh air.

We will no longer be NATO's patsy.

 So far, Trump’s focus on member nations’ lack of spending has caused an increase in defense spending among members. That’s almost certain to continue, though many members will probably continue to underspend.

The Democrats Disgrace Themselves

Remember, Strzok was so awful that he was forcibly escorted out of FBI building.  the FBI recently escorted Strzok out of its building.
What’s highly corrosive is Democrats applauding a renegade FBI agent who tells tall tales to Congress and whom the agency itself seems ready to weed out.

The Democrats Disgrace Themselves
Posted: 12 Jul 2018 04:44 PM PDT
(John Hinderaker)
As Paul noted earlier, Peter Strzok testified today–sort of–before a joint session of the House Oversight and Judiciary committees. The hearing crashed on takeoff and never recovered.
After giving an opening statement lauding his own patriotism, Strzok refused to answer questions on the ground that an FBI lawyer had told him not to. What followed was a farce–a farce deliberately created and sustained by the Democratic members of the committee. They interrupted constantly with silly points of order, heckled the committee chairman, and generally tried to disrupt the proceedings. To understand how bad it was, just go here and scan the transcript. My favorite moment was when Sheila Jackson Lee claimed that Strzok was entitled to claim attorney-client privilege (which, of course, he didn’t do).
JACKSON LEE: Mr. Chairman — Mr. Chairman, is it not appropriate to also interject the attorney-client privilege, which cannot be overridden, and is a rule of the House to the extent…
JACKSON LEE: …that the witness’ have the right…
GOODLATTE: …gentlewoman will suspend.
JACKSON LEE: …to an attorney client privilege in this House.
GOODLATTE: Mr. Strzok.
JACKSON LEE: And that is what this witness is asserting. Attorney client…
GOODLATTE: Mr. Strzok.
JACKSON LEE: … privilege, and he has been advised not to answer the questions.
GOODLATTE: The gentlewoman will suspend.
The gentleman has not raised the attorney-client privilege. He has said that he’s been instructed by the FBI not to answer the question. Now…
JACKSON LEE: By lawyers.
Obviously, the claim that a lawyer told the witness to clam up does not give rise to an attorney-client privilege entitling the witness to clam up. If it did, life would be a lot simpler for lawyers whose clients have something to hide. But Jackson Lee is so dim that she may not understand this.
When the Democrats got their turns, they continued to make a mockery of the hearing. They talked about “separated children,” student debt and Puerto Rico–yes, seriously–among other things. When they weren’t talking about Puerto Rico et al., they praised Strzok–who has been referred for disciplinary proceedings by the DOJ Inspector General and recently was escorted out of the FBI building–lavishly. I think they succeeded in their effort to turn the hearing into a pointless, chaotic mess, and nothing, as far as I have seen, was learned.
An intelligent Democrat would be embarrassed by his party’s antics today. Are there any such left?

Wednesday, July 11, 2018

Trump is right. German Wobbliness on Russia Is Real

German Wobbliness on Russia Is Real

And it long predates Trump.
The latest NATO summit got underway in Brussels this week, and President Trump brought all of his signature rhetorical subtlety to the Belgian capital. Off the bat at a meeting Wednesday with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, Trump accused Germany of being “captive” to Russia. The remark ruffled diplomatic feathers in the Western alliance and touched off a predictable freakout among reporters and pundits back home.
When Trump insults Merkel and Germany, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell tweeted, “Putin wins.” Mitchell’s horror was shared across the foreign-policy establishment. Many American liberals like to think of Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel as a one-woman bulwark against populism and Putinism at a time when the putative leader of the free world—Trump—is an unabashed populist and, they suspect, a crypto-Putinist.
Reality is a lot messier.
Yes, Trump’s suggestion that Germany is “captive” to Russia was a bit much. But it is true that, among the top NATO powers, Berlin has often struck a wobbly pose in response to Russian aggression and other threats to the West. With few exceptions, the country’s leaders view Germany less as a member of the Western military alliance and more as a commercial and diplomatic intermediary between East and West. Germany’s drift toward Moscow—there is no other way to describe it—began long before Trump came on the scene.
Start with the Nord Stream II pipeline, which provided the immediate context for Trump’s barb. The project—a joint venture of Gazprom, the Vladimir Putin-linked energy giant, and several European firms—would allow Russia to deliver some 55 billion cubic meters of gas directly to Germany. Running on the Baltic seabed, Nord Stream II would bypass existing land routes, which is why it has nearly all of Central and Eastern Europe up in arms.
Nord Stream II would allow the Kremlin to expand its energy dominance and isolate the likes of Poland and Ukraine, which not only lose out on transit fees but also the strategic leverage they enjoy over Moscow—i.e., the fact that they can block the westward flow of Russian gas and therefore a significant share of Putin’s energy income. The Merkel government, which backs Nord Stream II vigorously, is deaf to the ominous historical echoes of Germany and Russia dividing the region among themselves.
The Trump administration, like its predecessor, is opposed. As Richard Grenell, the American envoy to Germany, told me recently, “The U.S. shares widespread European concerns about projects like Nord Stream II that would undermine Europe’s own energy diversification efforts.” Grenell also warned that firms working on “Russian energy export pipelines are operating in an area that carries sanctions risk.”
A senior Republican congressional staffer, who has repeatedly met with the Germans on these issues in recent months, was blunter still: “Nord Stream II is Germany making money by putting Europe under Russian energy hegemony. The Trump administration has been fighting tooth and nail to stop it. So have bipartisan coalitions in Congress. But the Germans say it’s in their national interest and won’t budge.”
Then there is Germany’s less-than-serious response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and invasion of eastern Ukraine. Encouraged by President Obama to take the lead in talks with Moscow, Berlin softened the Western line in word and deed. In 2015, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the country’s most serious newspaper, called the German position on Russia’s encroachments a “pink line.” That was after an especially brutal Russian rocket assault against eastern Ukraine that left 30 civilians dead.
Germany’s response to the attack? It was serious, said then-Foreign Minister (now-President) Frank-Walter Steinmeier, but not one signaling a “quantitative change in the situation.” The previous year, as some 15,000 suspected Russian troops poured into eastern Ukraine and another 40,000 amassed by the border, then-German Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel was quick to warn NATO that “the impression must not be given that we’re playing with military options even in theoretical terms.”
Time and again, Gabriel, Steinmeier, and other German leaders have denounced NATO exercises meant to reassure allies in Central and Eastern Europe as “saber rattling” and “war cries.” Their proposed alternative: dialogue and cooperation and, well, gas deals. Berlin also reportedly opposed plans to rotate NATO armored forces through Poland and the Baltic States, and German leaders weighed on the Obama administration not to arm Kiev (not that the 44th president needed much persuading to abandon embattled allies).
To be fair, all this reflects popular sentiment in Germany. Opinion polling consistently shows that the majority of Germans don’t view Russia as a military threat, don’t support economic sanctions against Moscow, and don’t want German troops defending Poland and the Balts if Putin attacked them.
The reasons for this German ambivalence are complex. Not all of it can be attributed to cowardice or greed for euros. But it would be nice if the American reporters and pundits who imagine that Merkel can do no wrong, while Trump can do no right, would brush up on history—which did not, in fact, begin in 2016.