Left-Leaning Pollsters Remain Unchastened by 2016 Lessons

Ben Sellers
-
0

‘Things could—and probably will—change dramatically after the debates begin later this month…’

Trump Fires Back at Biden's Potshots in Likely Preview of General-Election Brawl
Joe Biden and Donald Trump / IMAGES via Youtube

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) With the official launch of President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign Tuesday and the first debates of the protracted Democratic primary season occurring next week, there is, once again, a renewed focus on polling data.

Of course, the lessons and disasters of the 2016 election will not be easily forgotten or dismissed, but a spate of recent numbers suggesting Trump trailing in head-to-head match-ups against several Democratic contenders have raised questions about how well the pollsters themselves have learned those lessons.

On Tuesday, just before the major Trump rally and Democratic debates set to take place in Florida, Quinnipiac University released a poll that suggested Trump was trailing significantly behind Democratic front-runner Joe Biden in the battleground state—despite other clear indicators showing that support for the president, who won Florida in 2016, had grown recently.

“Florida Republicans have won the last five major statewide elections, all by very close margins, but Sunshine State Democrats see these very early numbers as a sign that their losing streak might be coming to an end,” crowed Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll, in a press release.

Trump’s 44–51 percent approval rating from the poll is the best since he was elected, and the majority of Floridians acknowledge that they are better off, financially, than they were in 2016.

Moreover, voters still resoundingly disapprove of impeaching the president—one of the central preoccupations of the Democratic party since Trump took office—by a 2:1 margin.

And Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis ranks high in popularity, with 54 percent approval, according to Morning Consult.

In contrast with the QU results, a Florida Atlantic University Poll in May found that the two front-runners, Trump and Biden, were neck and neck in the Sunshine State, with Trump leading all other contenders.

The QU methodology seems sounder than many—random sampling using live telephone interviewers, equal breakdowns based on ideology—but it admits to using statistical weighting “to account for deviations in the survey sample from known population characteristics, which helps correct for differential survey participation and random variation in samples.”

In other words, after painstakingly trying to establish balance in their ideological sampling, they then go out of their way to skew the data, weighing some responses more than others to account for demographic factors.

Curiously, the polls provide the raw numerical count for only two figures: the total number of respondents (1,279) and the number of registered Democrats who answered a separate question about the primaries (417).

Other numbers are left to percentages—with some tables adding up to more than 100 (presumably due to rounding).

One interesting breakout detail from the analysis, however, was the fact that Trump has actually gained on Biden by a few percentage points since the last time QU asked the question, in October 2015.

In another reminder of just how premature it is to form conclusions based on the polling data—something on which the pollsters themselves would no doubt agree—Ballotopedia’s Scott Rasmussen issued a release Tuesday noting that four years ago this month, on June 16, 2015, Donald Trump formally announced his candidacy, and entered into the primary pool of GOP candidates polling around 1 percent.

An NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll a few days later found that 66 percent of Republican voters said they could not support him.

“Things changed dramatically in the course of the months that followed, particularly after the presidential debates began,” Rasmussen said. “Candidate Trump captured attention during the debates and dominated much of the media coverage on his way to the White House.”

Biden’s 41 percent lead over Democrats in QU’s Florida poll is considerably greater than what then-Republican front-runer Jeb Bush had (22 percent) at this point in 2015, but Rasmussen cautioned against thinking that the candidate with the most name-recognition or fundraising prowess (Bush was able to raise $150 million off his family legacy) would translate to later success.

“This data provides an important and cautionary reminder about reading too much into Democratic primary polling at the moment,” Rasmussen said. “Things could—and probably will—change dramatically after the debates begin later this month.”

Dems Panic as Trump’s News-Cycle Dominance Eclipses Their Candidates

Ben Sellers
-
0

‘Donald Trump has managed to control the media cycle on a daily basis in ways that have made it difficult to communicate our message…’

Trump Renews Calls for Unity and Greatness in SOTU Address
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi celebrates as Trump recognizes the women in Congress. / IMAGE: Screenshot via Yahoo News

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) Ignoring the fact that their own preoccupation with President Donald Trump was the principal source of their woes, Democrats on Monday bemoaned the lack of equal attention.

“Donald Trump has managed to control the media cycle on a daily basis in ways that have made it difficult to communicate our message,” whined Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez, although it was unclear what message he was referring to that was unrelated to the president.

Resistance to Trump’s political agenda and efforts to censure, impeach or indict him have been a signature part of nearly every legislative action taken by the Left in some way during the current 116th Congress.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi‘s personal vendetta with the president has resulted in an overall aversion to any compromise that would signal a victory for the White House.

Consequently, the House has focused on passing bills that stand no chance of clearing the Senate, creating an overarching sense of gridlock on anything but the partisan Democrats’ incessant efforts to investigate Trump administration.

Recent data compiled by The Washington Post said the result was that, through May, Trump had generated three times as much Google search traffic in the U.S. this year as all his Democratic rivals combined.

He also saw 75% more interactions on the three leading social media platforms: Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

Rather than acquiesce to Trump, the knee-jerk reaction of the Left often has been to ratchet up its own rhetoric, resulting in the party’s ideological drift to the fringes.

As younger firebrands like Alexandria Ocasio–Cortez draw comparisons with Trump on their rhetorical style, older Democrats—including current Democrat front-runner Joe Biden—have reluctantly shifted their policies away from center to placate the rabid base and compensate for a lack of pizzazz.

“You will find yourself jerked around on Donald Trump’s chain unless you are creating fights,” said Brian Fallon, a former strategist for Democrats including Dianne Feinstein, Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton who now oversees the organization Demand Justice.

Fallon played a pivotal role in the resistance efforts against Justice Brett Kavanaugh and in helping to engineer the uncorroborated rape accusations against Kavanaugh by California woman Christine Blasey–Ford.

Despite the nation-rending clash over Kavanaugh’s confirmation, Trump ultimately emerged victorious when the FBI investigation into the accusations yielded nothing, further eroding confidence in the Democratic opposition that had staked much of its own credibility in the fight.

Trouble for Perez

Ignorant DNC Chairman Perez: Electoral College Is Not Part Of The Constitution
DNC Chairman Thomas Perez/Photo by Gage Skidmore (CC)

According to Politico, the blowback from the Left’s internal rift is starting to reach Perez, just as he scrambles to prepare for the first round of Democratic primary debates taking place over two nights next week.

Some old-guard Democrats are openly expressing aggravation with the DNC chair’s capitulation to the more clamorous voices on the party’s outer reaches—including the clumsy job of determining which candidates made the final cut in a field of more than 20 for the upcoming debates.

“It’s got to be the biggest nightmare Perez ever possibly imagined,” Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., told Politico.

Among those who didn’t make it was Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, a Democrat in a deeply red state who said he got a late start due to his state legislature still being in session and failed to gain ample traction in the polling and fundraising metrics that were used.

Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., also criticized Perez’s handling of revamped rules addressing the role of superdelegates in the DNC—a major point of contention in the 2016 rivalry between Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

In what was seemingly an effort to tilt the balance more toward the electorate and less to party elites, Perez diminished the role of the lawmakers, leading Connolly to complain that those in Congress had become ““second-class citizens in our convention,” according to Politico.

Connolly said the complaints could spell trouble for Perez, who ascended into the role after internal scandals during the last election forced out his predecessors, Debbie Wasserman–Schultz and Donna Brazile.

“I don’t think he has a reservoir of goodwill here among my colleagues in the Congress. And I think he’s lost a lot of stature,” Connolly said of Perez. “… That puts him in a very exposed position that is one problem away from being terminal.”

In Search of a Scapegoat

Top 12 brands in Your Home That Facilitate Porn, Sex Trafficking
Photo by clasesdeperiodismo

Perez, who was widely criticized for blacklisting ratings leader Fox News from the DNC debate schedule, pointed fingers at national media outlets for the recent woes.

Despite the pervading liberal biases of many news institutions, Trump’s success at dominating the headlines was their fault, he claimed.

“I think the media needs some soul-searching,” Perez told The Washington Post.

“Too many media outlets and journalists wake up in the morning look to his Twitter feed and that dictates their day,” he said.

Some media sources agreed with Perez that Trump’s persona was simply more television-friendly, appealing to viewers’ penchant for the sensational.

“Trump’s sound bites are more incendiary, more unseemly, more crudely insulting—and therefore spicier for TV news to use,” network news analyst Andrew Tyndall told The Post.

Democrat critics put it more bluntly.

“We have a culture that rewards the clown show at the expense of real issues,” said Guy Cecil, chairman of the superPAC Priorities USA.

Although Democrat dark-money groups like Priorities USA intend to spend heavily attacking Trump, however, that could ultimately feed into their problem.

Not only does the president have the advantages of a bigger bully pulpit and a well-amassed campaign war-chest of his own, but he also has a well-primed base that is inured by the years of “witch hunts,” “fishing expeditions” and “cry wolf” attacks against conservatives that have since been discredited.

With Trump functioning as a lightning rod for Democrats’ wrath and attention, the result is a party that is far more coalesced around the the president than its diffuse counterpart is in opposition.

Still, some Democrats continued to put their trust in the process—that the large field of primary contenders on the Left would ultimately concentrate all its energies on a single candidate best equipped to take on Trump and unify the disparate voices in the party.

“The field will winnow. And I don’t think that it’s worth it for the DNC to be involved in the winnowing,” Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, told Politico. “I don’t find it concerning or alarming to have 20 people running for president. I think it’s great.”

As Trump formally kicks off his own campaign Tuesday, there will likely be a greater sense of urgency to do so sooner than later, lest the gap continue to widen.

Leftists HIDE Their List of Activist Judges for When They Reclaim Power

Ben Sellers
-
0

‘They want to pack the Court, and aren’t even willing to tell the American people who they are going to pack the courts with…’

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) Already, radical leftists have put forth the idea of packing the Supreme Court with additional justices to tilt the balance next time they have an opportunity.

Now, at least one coalition has begun compiling its wish-list of activist prospects, taking a page from President Donald Trump’s own playbook.

“It is essential to be ready on Day 1 of a new administration with names to fill every vacancy,” Nan Aron, president of Alliance for Justice,  told The New York Times. “This is to start identifying people so the new president won’t waste a minute in addressing this need.”

AFJ announced last week that it was spearheading the new Building the Bench initiative, complete with its own Twitter hashtag.

The Times said nearly 100 federal judges were part of the judicial resistance movement, waiting for Trump—or any conservative—to leave office so that they may retire and be replaced by a like-minded (or even more radical) alternative.

Unlike Trump, though, AFJ is remaining tight-lipped about who is on its list—and with good reason, considering the smear-campaign against Justice Brett Kavanaugh began in 2012, when he already had been identified as a possible nominee if Obama had lost re-election.

AFJ spokeswoman Laura Kinney said that her group would make its list available only after a Democrat won, and then would leave it to that person to determine how to use it, according to RealClear Politics.

“Names will be shared with an incoming administration, not the nominee,” she told RCP. “And it would not be our prerogative to disclose any names.”

AFJ’s website gives a good indication, however, of the type of judges it would seek to push through.

“It would be nice to see more people who have experience outside the three big pots,” Peter Shane, a constitutional law professor at Ohio State University and a member of the Building the Bench advisory committee, told The Times, referring to the tendency to appoint sitting judges, prosecutors or senior law partners to many federal benches.

The website describes Building the Bench as “collaborative effort with many organizations that represent workers’ rights, women’s rights, civil rights, LGBTQ rights, and more.”

Left wing protestors in front of the U.S. Supreme Court / IMAGE: Wall Street Journal via Youtube

Specifically, the effort is targeting prospective judges who have been involved in things like social-justice advocacy, hoping to further entrench the role that judicial activism has played in supplanting and undermining the legislative power of elected representatives.

“We’ll be looking for individuals who have dedicated their legal careers to public interest, civil rights, and criminal justice causes, or who have done significant pro bono work in those areas,” said the AFJ website.

Among the groups it is partnering with in the effort are Planned Parenthood, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, People For the American Way and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Aron told Bloomberg.

Many of the current Democratic primary candidates declined to say whether they would commit to using a list compiled by the Building the Bench coalition if they were elected, according to RealClear Politics.

But critics on the Right were quick to weigh in on the lack of transparency.

While AFJ and its media partners claim the Trump presidency has successfully hijacked the judiciary, “furiously installing conservatives” as The Times said, to fill the spots that Republicans had succeeded in blocking during the Obama years, judicial overreach from leftist radicals has, in fact, been one of the most alarming developments in recent political history.

Using injunctions, federal judges have taken the unprecedented step of attempting to delay or block executive action on an array of issues, from immigration to transgenders in the military.

Ironically, many of the actions being blocked by liberal judges were first implemented by executive order from the Obama administration with no underlying legislative foundation.

Judges also have increasingly played a role in the Left’s efforts to establish a permanent electoral majority through means such as gerrymandering districts under its “Sue til Blue” campaigns.

The Supreme Court this week declined to rule on one such case in Virginia, determining that the state legislature lacked legal standing to challenge the court decision forcing it to redraw its districts.

Two other cases in Maryland and North Carolina are currently pending before the high court.

Colo. Secretary of State Ignores Her Own Preaching on Election Transparency

Ben Sellers
-
0

‘Coloradans deserve to know who is trying to influence their vote and how they are trying to do it…’

Jena Griswold / IMAGE: Denver7 – The Denver Channel via Youtube

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) After talking up the importance of transparency in her public statements, Colorado‘s secretary of state is now being sued for attempting to skirt the state’s open record’s laws regarding a recent push to ban the Electoral College.

In March, the once battleground Colorado, newly radicalized, joined other blue states in passing legislation that would support the “national popular vote” movement.

In theory, should the number of states in accord pass the 270 mark needed to win the majority of electoral votes, the states would all agree to support the winner of the nationwide popular vote rather than their statewide winner.

Critics have noted that the discrepancies in rules between various states over matters such as ballot harvesting and how elections are administered would almost certainly result in court challenges and disfranchisement.

The more cynical have observed that it appears to be a clear ploy by sour-grapes left-wingers to re-write the rules since they cannot be elected through the constitutionally established means.

While Colorado’s General Assembly was considering the NPV bill—which it ultimately passed and was signed by Gov. Jared Polis—newly elected liberal Secretary of State Jena Griswold testified before the state legislature in favor of it.

That testimony prompted the Washington Free Beacon to request the communications between Griswold and other state officials with organizers of the national movement under the state’s open records act, known as CORA.

Griswold’s office only released the records selectively, however, and upon prompting acknowledged through a legal analyst that it had retained some of them, citing “work product” protections, which would apply to materials prepared in anticipation of litigation.

On Thursday, Judicial Watch announced that Griswold’s office would, indeed, be getting the litigation it sought, in the form of an open-records lawsuit.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the Left had good reason for wanting to suppress the behind-the-scenes mechanisms and motives of its play at the national electoral system.

“Leftists in Colorado and other states want to undo the Electoral College and the U.S. Constitution in the hopes of guaranteeing control of the presidency,” Fitton said.

“This attack on the Electoral College would give large left-leaning states and voter fraud an unconstitutionally outsized impact on the outcome of our presidential elections,” he said.

Ironically, the Free Beacon reported that, prior to her own office coming under fire, Griswold had given considerable lip service to the need for greater transparency in government and elections.

Citing testimony published on her own office’s website, the paper said Griswold had previously denounced “secret political spending,” declaring that “Coloradans deserve to know who is trying to influence their vote and how they are trying to do it.”

Ironically, she called for a consistent and unified set of election rules to be established—the opposite of what would result if the NPV compact were to take effect.

“There will be some Democrats and some Republicans who will say they have concerns about more transparency,” Griswold said.

“But I believe that the majority of us here can agree that transparency is good for democracy and we can do more,” she said. “Campaign finance reform is about making sure that everyone plays by the same set of rules; it’s about giving voters the facts.”

REPORT: Gov’t Waste Up 4% over Last Year Despite Pork-Barrel Spending Moratorium

Ben Sellers
-
0

‘The only place pork is good is on ribs and on a bun—that’s about it for me…’

PHOTO: Citizens Against Government Waste via Facebook

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) The nonprofit watchdog dedicated to tracking wasteful federal spending can breathe easy that their jobs are secure for the foreseeable future—along with many others being artificially bolstered on the backs of taxpayers.

Citizens Against Government Waste released the 27th annual edition of its Congressional Pig Book tracking government earmark spending on Wednesday.

The report showed an increase of 4 percent in pork-barrel spending over the previous fiscal year, and a 22 percent increase since 2011, when Congress implemented what was supposed to be a moratorium on earmarks in its appropriations bills.

“Taxpayers should always remember why the moratorium was needed in the first place,” said CAGW President Tom Schatz during a press conference flanked by several members of Congress.

“After high profile boondoggles like the bridge to nowhere and a decade of scandals in the 2000s that resulted in jail terms for congressmen and lobbyists, Washington decided it was time to take a break from earmarks,” Schatz said.

Since it began in 1991, CAGW has tracked 111,114 earmarks, amounting to $359.8 billion, he said.

That included a record high $29 billion in FY2006.

“The increase in pork-barrel spending has occurred behind closed doors and hidden from taxpayers,” Schatz said. “There are no names of legislators attached, and really no information about where the money is being spent.”

He noted that defense spending accounted for $9.4 billion—or 61 percent—of the current waste based on the seven criteria used by CAGW.

Among the most wasteful of the Pentagon’s projects was the requisitioning of 16 additional F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, Schatz said.

The program has been in development for 18 years and is eight years behind schedule.

With an acquisition cost nearly double the initial estimate, now totaling $428 billion, and operational costs at $1.2 trillion, Schatz said it was “by far the most expensive weapons system in history.”

Schatz also ran through what he described as “a slew of absurd nature-related earmarks,” which CAGW highlighted in a video on its Facebook page.

And he noted what he said was “perhaps the most flagrant earmark,” a $16.7 million appropriation comprising the entire operational budget of Hawaii’s East–West Center, even as a counterpart called the North–South Center ceased being funded in 2001.

Schatz said he was encouraged by a motion Senate Republicans approved in May that would have established a permanent earmark band.

He brought four GOP congressmen to the podium for brief remarks, beginning with Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who noted a $2 million study recently on whether people were more or less likely to eat food if the person in front of them in line at a cafeteria had sneezed on it.

“The reason we still have waste is we keep giving the people who are wasting it more money,” Paul said. “Give them less money and they’ll waste less.”

Rep. Tom McClintock of California distilled the picture of government waste over the past decade down to its simplest terms:

“If you want to know everything there is to know about the federal budget, you just need to know three numbers: 21, 32 and 38,” he said.

The first number accounted for the percentage of population growth and inflation. The second accounted for the increase in federal revenues. The third accounted for the increase in federal spending.

“All of that comes out of the future economic growth of our country—we’re literally taking it from our kids,” he said.

Two freshman congressmen, Reps. Ted Budd of North Carolina and Tim Burchett of Tennessee both joined as well. Both said they were barbecue aficionados and perhaps enticed by the CAGW mascot.

Burchett quipped that he thought the book was a recipe book at first and was planning to take it home before discovering its much more shocking contents.

“The only place pork is good is on ribs and on a bun—that’s about it for me,” he said.

As Schatz warned earlier, though, the need for vigilance was greater than ever, with the annual deficit now approaching a trillion dollars and the national debt exceeding $22 trillion.

“As earmarks under the moratorium continue to rise, there is still a bipartisan appetite to bring them back completely,” he said.

ANALYSIS: Green Energy Advocates’ Carbon Dioxide Tax Requires Huge Gov’t Entitlement Program

Ben Sellers
-
0

‘A carbon tax increases the power, cost and intrusiveness of the government in our lives…’

Oil Industry And Left-Wing Enviros Find Common Cause In A Carbon Tax
Photo by JeepersMedia (CC)

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) In Orwellian fashion, the left-wing green-energy lobby has continued to torque its messaging on Obama’s failed cap-and-trade initiatives—but the numbers don’t lie, according to Americans for Tax Reform.

The idea of raising rates on carbon-dioxide-emitting energy sources, to deter consumption and promote innovation in clean-energy alternatives, has now taken several iterations, including the simply put “carbon (dioxide) tax,” and the newly prettified “carbon (dioxide) dividends,” noted the conservative economic-freedom advocates.

The House of Representatives is currently considering a bill titled the Energy Innovation and Carbon (Dioxide) Dividend Act of 2019, which is cosponsored by 44 Democratic congressmen as well as Florida Republican Francis Rooney.

While Rooney’s support has earned him considerable criticism from energy advocates, others, such as Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., a member of the Freedom Caucus, also have broken rank recently to endorse climate-change initiatives.

And ATR reported that Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, was “looking at” a parallel bill in the upper chamber that was being pitched by Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del.

In fact, one group of notoriously centrist right-wing dignitaries penned what they called “The Conservative Case for Carbon (Dioxide) Dividends” in February 2017, in which returns from the carbon dioxide upcharges would go back into Americans’ retirement accounts, overseen by the Social Security Administration.

“We the People deserve to be compensated when others impose climate risks and emit heat-trapping gases into our shared atmosphere,” said the plan, with names like former White House Cabinet secretaries James Baker, Henry Paulson and George Shultz attached, as well as Walmart board chair Rob Walton and a slew of other academics and economic advisers.

“The new ground rules make intuitive sense: the more one pollutes, the more one pays; the less one pollutes, the more one comes out ahead,” they said.

However, warned Americans for Tax Reform, “It would also create a large new entitlement spending program and give the government more power over your life.”

Just as the existing Social Security fund is riddled with bureaucratic waste that offsets its public benefit, so, too, would any massive increases in its scope prove to be as cataclysmic, financially speaking, as any climate disaster Al Gore can concoct.

ATR was among 75 groups that recently submitted a letter to Congress voicing their opposition to carbon dioxide dividends in a brief paragraph, which noted that Americans would pay more in untold ways for the diminishing returns.

“A carbon (dioxide) tax raises the cost of heating your home in the winter and cooling your home in the summer. It raises the cost of filling your car,” they wrote. “A carbon (dioxide) tax increases the cost of everything Americans buy and lowers Americans’ effective take home pay. A carbon (dioxide) tax increases the power, cost and intrusiveness of the government in our lives.”

With 295 million monthly payments to disperse—or 3.5 billion payments a year—based on current figures and discounting population shifts, even if the moneys earmarked for rebates were not dipped into to cover socialist special-interest pet projects like the Green New Deal, some would surely be siphoned along the way.

“Energy and environment reporters dutifully note each new corporate honcho or Nobel economist who endorses a carbon-(dioxide)-tax-and-dividend framework,” said ATR. “Yet these same reporters have shown a remarkable lack of curiosity as to the real life ramifications of such a complex redistribution regime.”

In a recent report, the group broke down the numbers to reveal just how much government bloat the carbon dioxide plan would entail.

Ironically, for a proposal pitching itself as environmentally conscious, it would require massive reductions to the tree population while adding reams of red tape (and more than a few pads of carbon paper) into the ecosystem.

“[T]he carbon (dioxide) tax scheme will task some agency or agencies with a significant bureaucratic undertaking: Enrollment, eligibility determination, fraud prevention, case workers—to resolve lost, missing, or inaccurate payments, custody and divorce issues (kids get the payments too) and bank account number updates—software development, IT staffing, human resources management, legal staffing, and dozens of other logistical undertakings,” said ATR.

“Congressional offices will spend some quantity of time on carbon (dioxide) tax problem calls, letters, and related casework,” it added.

Moreover, the so-called dividends would then be taxable, meaning the IRS would also be involved.

“This will require coordination across the federal government and trigger an enormous quantity of paperwork for the government, employers, and households,” said ATR.

Anti-ICE Sheriff Told to RESIGN After Releasing Violent Illegal to Public

Ben Sellers
-
0

‘Sheriff McFadden was charged with protecting the safety of our citizens, but instead he put them at risk in favor of his radical liberal agenda…’

NC Lawmaker Offends Jihad Media with Term 'Jihad Media'
Dan Bishop/YouTube

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) The Republican candidate in North Carolina‘s closely watched 9th Congressional District race piled criticism on Mecklenburg County Sheriff Garry McFadden for playing politics while twice allowing a dangerous criminal back on the streets.

State Sen. Dan Bishop, whose district includes much of the county that surrounds the Charlotte metropolitan area, said McFadden should step down for his “reckless policies” and called on his opponent in the U.S. congressional race, Dan McCready to denounce them as well, The Charlotte Observer reported.

“Sheriff McFadden was charged with protecting the safety of our citizens, but instead he put them at risk in favor of his radical liberal agenda,” Bishop said in a statement. “He needs to resign, and other sanctuary sheriffs like him must be stopped.”

Bishop also included a petition on his campaign website for citizens to demand McFadden’s resignation.

McFadden—a former homicide detective and reality television star—ran last year on a platform of withdrawing from agreements with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement to honor detainer requests for undocumented criminals.

The refusal to work with federal agencies on the arrest and detention of illegal immigrants effectively confers “sanctuary” status on the Charlotte/Mecklenburg region, although no laws have been passed at the state or municipal level to designate it such.

But McFadden’s policy came under fire last month when Luis Pineda–Ancheta, a 37-year-old Honduran national with a history of domestic abuse, was arrested after a nine-hour standoff at a Charlotte apartment complex, during which a SWAT unit was called.

Even though it was the second time Pineda–Ancheta had been arrested in a short span for domestic violence against a female acquaintance who had a restraining order on him, McFadden again released the criminal.

Despite having issued detainer requests for Pineda–Ancheta, ICE fugitive operations then had to re-arrest him.

In addition to facing criticism from ICE and local media, McFadden also received a complaint from at least one federal prosecutor.

Andrew Murray, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, said he recorded his formal objection after Pineda–Ancheta’s second release in order to avoid yet another recurrence.

“It’s unfortunate because that mean[s], really, I’m intervening in significant felony charges,” Murray said, according to WBTV. “Basically, I didn’t want a three-peat. I didn’t want him out again, given the allegations against him, to be a threat to the community or to the victim.”

On Wednesday, the N.C. Senate Judiciary Committee—of which Bishop is a member—scheduled debate over a proposed bill that would address the issue of sheriffs refusing to cooperate with ICE, reported WSOCTV.

The bill, which would require the sheriffs in all 100 counties to honor the detainer agreements, passed the state House of Representatives in April.

Following Bishop’s denunciation, McFadden yet again deflected criticism, claiming it was state and federal authorities who were playing politics with the issue while he was simply fulfilling his constituents’ mandate.

Urban Areas Nix ICE Partnerships for Criminal Aliens, As Rural Areas Join Up
Charlotte Sheriff Gary McFadden/IMAGE: Garry Mcfadden 4Sherrif via Youtube

“I appreciate the fact that Sen. Bishop must appeal to the politically conservative base in all of District 9,” McFadden said in a statement.

However, he said, “[I] was elected by the people of Mecklenburg County to represent all of Mecklenburg County, and only Mecklenburg County.”

McFadden added that the detainer agreements and another, the 287(g) program, which deputizes local law enforcement to work on behalf of ICE, created a sense of mistrust and fear within the community, according to the Observer.

“Sen. Bishop has never worked in law enforcement and has no personal experience grappling with the monumental task facing law enforcement every day in our attempts to build trust between our agencies and all segments of a large and fast-growing community,” McFadden said.

“[I]f people do not trust law enforcement, those people will not engage with law enforcement, and crimes will continue to go unsolved,” he said.

McCready—the Democratic opponent running against Bishop in the 9th District race—also responded to Bishop’s statement with one of his own on the controversy.

Without elaborating on what sort of policies he would endorse, McCready called for a “comprehensive” immigration plan that would fix the existing loopholes in the broken immigration system.

“Until we see a comprehensive and bipartisan immigration reform that secures our border, respects our laws and protects our American values, these awful incidents will keep happening,” he said.

The rhetoric mirrored recent statements from ICE and President Donald Trump, while not specifically condemning McFadden or other sheriffs whose refusals undermined federal immigration policies and jeopardized the safety of their communities.

However, many Democrats in Congress have taken a far more radical approach of calling for ICE to be abolished.

The special election for the 9th District seat will be held on Sept. 10 after the state elections board earlier refused to certify the previous Republican victor, Mark Harris, amid accusations of ballot harvesting.

After a monthslong investigation, Harris dramatically withdrew himself during a hearing, citing health concerns.

A recent poll showed Bishop leading in the race by roughly four percentage points, although McCready—who also ran against Harris last November and received substantial outside contributions—enjoyed a sizeable cash advantage.

Liberty Headlines reached out to Bishop for additional comment and will update with any response.

Democrat Candidates’ Town Halls Boost Fox News’ Image w/ Viewers

Ben Sellers
-
0

‘I’m just not going to help Fox News executives raise money off my name…’

Fox News Pays $10 Million to Settle Discrimination Lawsuits
IMAGE: Madison Stephens/YouTube)

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) Whether Fox News‘s recent town halls actively sought to shed the network’s image among Democrats as a pro-Trump mouthpiece or simply reflected a commitment to the sort of evenhanded journalism its news wing has always pursued, it seems to be working.

A survey of 600 viewers released on Tuesday by Morning Consult revealed a 6-point net positive gain in perception of the network as a direct result of its 2020 primary coverage featuring town halls with Democratic candidates.

That included 19 percent who viewed the network more positively versus 13 percent who viewed it more negatively.

Scott McDonald, CEO and president of the Advertising Research Foundation, said the viewers gave the network credit for “for letting in some other voices.”

However, he added, “I wouldn’t call it a trend until you actually can watch it over a period of time and see whether it builds.”

The town halls conducted by CNN and MSNBC both produced smaller net gains in perception that fell within the survey’s margins of error.

The findings came on the same day that NBC revealed the slate of moderators for its late-June debates.

The two-night event, broadcast from Miami on June 26 and 27 will feature Savannah Guthrie, Lester Holt, Chuck Todd, Rachel Maddow and José Diaz–Balart.

The Democratic National Committee previously announced its plans to blacklist Fox News from the debates, claiming right-wing bias.

Several of those selected for the NBC debates, however, have come under fire for their own far-left biases.

In particular, Maddow is known as an extreme-left pundit whose Fox counterpart is conservative host Sean Hannity.

Todd, although he bears the title as NBC News political director, has drawn considerable criticism for suppressing reasonable debate on topics like climate-change in his capacity as host of “Meet the Press.”

Only Cuban–American Telemundo anchor José Diaz–Balart, whose brother is a Republican congressman in south Florida, seems likely to press the field of candidates on any topics outside of the fringe-left agenda.

By contrast, the Fox News town halls have largely proved positive for a few centrist-posturing candidates who wish to reach across the aisle to disaffected conservative voters, with some reaching an untapped audience more than the two rival networks combined.

Among those who have participated are Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.; Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.; Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY; former Housing Secretary Julian Castro; and South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, who previously had harsh rhetoric about Fox, was said to have been begging its parent company, News Corp, to grant him a town hall as he struggled to gain traction in the polls and to meet cutoff thresholds for the primary debates.

However, other candidates, such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren, have thus far refused to participate, with Warren notably attacking Fox and alleging that it espouses hate and racism.

Warren also claimed the town halls were a cynical ploy to cultivate new sponsors and increase revenue. “I’m just not going to help Fox News executives raise money off my name,” she said on “The View.”

In May, Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott said the network was on track to post its highest revenues ever this fiscal year.

Even so, McDonald doubted that the town halls would translate into a broad new source of income for the network, which periodically draws left-wing activists to threaten boycotts of its sponsors.

“I wouldn’t expect there to be a bunch of advertisers popping up that haven’t already been doing business with Fox,” he said.

UC Study: Women in Congress Help to Change the ‘Flow’ of Discussions

Ben Sellers
-
0

‘When we introduce a woman onto this committee, we might see that there is going to be a difference in how the discussion flows, and the types of ideas…’

House Democrats Change the Rules, Make It Much Easier to Increase Taxes
Nancy Pelosi/IMAGE: CNN via Youtube

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) A recent study from the University of California, San Diego suggested that the influx of women in Congress would likely increase the amount of productivity, civility and cooperation—although evidence has indicated quite the opposite.

Following last November’s elections, nearly a quarter of all members of Congress are women—counting both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

In an interview last month on the podcast “P.S. You’re Interesting,” UCSD political science professor Pamela Ban claimed that the unprecedented groundswell of estrogen would help boost female group dynamics, according to CQ/Roll Call.

“We find that when you increase the number of women, when you increase the proportion of women on a committee, that helps to increase the amount of times that women will speak up,” Ban said, citing a recent study she had conducted analyzing Congressional Quarterly committee hearing transcripts from 1995 to 2017.

Ban said increasing the number of women on a committee positively affects the participation of majority-party women and women in senior positions.

It also impacts “instances such as number of interruptions made,” Ban said.

Women are more likely to stick to topics introduced by other women, while men are more likely to change the subject, she said.

“When we introduce a woman onto this committee, we might see that there is going to be a difference in how the discussion flows, and the types of ideas,” Ban said.

State of the Union compromise greatness 3
Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib / IMAGE: Screenshot via Yahoo News

In reality, though, the recent class of freshman Democratic congresswomen such as Reps. Alexandria Ocasio–Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan have driven Congress to unprecedented levels of divisiveness.

As their own party bickers over matters like impeachment and anti-Semitism, leading to one embarrassing public episode after another, even the most routine committees have become wretchedly inefficient.

During a hearing with the heads of several major banks, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., chair of the House Financial Services Committee, struggled with maintaining order and allowed committee members to grandstand well past normal business hours, leading Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin to say he had an important foreign dignitary waiting in his office.

In the same committee, during testimony from Housing Secretary Ben Carson, Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., rudely and scornfully interrupted Carson, while Omar issued a disrespectful tweet afterward (or perhaps during the hearing) suggesting he wasn’t fully awake.

Ocasio–Cortez—famously known for penning the Green New Deal, estimated to cost $93 trillion—has also been known to be less-than-attentive to the substance of meetings and more concerned with critiquing her fellow congress members, without evidence, on their lack of preparation.

Of course, Tlaib’s declaration on the first day of Congress, with respect to President Donald Trump, that she intended to “impeach the motherf***er” set the tone that many of the freshman Democrats have continued to abide by.

Leading them in their efforts is Machiavellian House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose claims that the president was engaged in a cover-up brought infrastructure talks to an untimely end, and who most recently declared that she hoped to see Trump in prison.

While Ban’s analysis may be accurate in concluding that the women currently in power have been emboldened to speak, to change the flow of discussion and types of ideas, the overall result may not be one that many women elsewhere wish to claim ownership of.

GEORGE WILL: I Would Support Any Democrat in 2020 if GOP Holds Senate

Ben Sellers
-
0

‘It’s become a cult because of an absence of ideas…’

George Will / IMAGE: MSNBC via Youtube

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) George Will, the formerly conservative Washington Post columnist turned rabidly NeverTrump commentator, cast no doubt in a recent MSNBC appearance that his animus for the current president has caused him to toss the baby with the bathwater.

Since Will left the Republican Party in 2016 over its Trump support, many have speculated on what the true, underlying reasons were for his opposition.

Some have found the answer in a personal vendetta, and others in the threat that Trump represents of upending the elitist D.C. power structure with which Will has long identified.

“It’s become a cult—it’s become a cult because of an absence of ideas,” claimed the ex-right-wing thought-leader on Wednesday, according to the Huffington Post.

Will said he would support any of the Democratic candidates in 2020 provided the GOP maintains Senate control to thwart a potentially radical socialist agenda.

“A Republican Senate would virtually block legislative change,” he said. “And it would take the Republican Party away from its current identification with someone who is in temperament and in most policies not conservative.”

While Will has long attempted to channel the inverse of Ronald Reagan’s famous quip—“I didn’t leave the Democratic party, the Democratic Party left me”—he has struggled to find genuine examples to support his thesis.

The liberal HuffPo, which dotingly characterized the 78-year-old Will as a “conservative icon,” said that in his MSNBC appearance he was able only to cite free trade as a core conservative principle that had been abandoned by his former party.

“For years, decades, all the 20th century almost, conservatives said, ‘We’re for free trade.’ Trump said, ‘By the way, you’re not anymore.’ And they said, ‘OK, we’re not for free trade anymore,’ or they pretend to be.”

But while so-called free-trade agreements may have favored individual corporations, Trump has asserted that many international trade deals—particularly those hatched in the post-World-War-II era to encourage the modernization of developing economies—resulted in substantial imbalances leveraged against U.S. industries and needed updating.

China, which has rapidly developed into the greatest economic and geopolitical competitor of the United States, has exploited loopholes in America’s open governance to do everything from spreading propaganda to committing acts of corporate espionage.

Likewise, it has capitalized on open-trade disparities to drive down the value of American goods and services with its own cheap and exploitative labor.

Mexico—against which Trump recently threatened to impose a punitive tariff—also has gamed the system, using the customary openness of the U.S. to make bad-faith arrangements on immigration and trade.

Will left open the possibility that he may one day return to the ranks of Republicanism, should it purge itself of the Trump influences.

“Conservatism has an enormously long and distinguished pedigree of ideas. It has a momentum into the future given by these ideas,” Will said. “And they did not go away, and they have not been refuted by the 45th president.”

1...3,7793,7803,781...3,810Page 3,780 of 3,810