Pelosi goes after James Rosen, gets toasted

Speaker Nancy "Dancing Dentures" Pelosi (D-CA) called journalist James Rosen of Sinclair Broadcast Group "Mr. Republican talking points" Thursday after he asked her a whistleblower question at a press conference.

"And so I wonder if you could explain to the American people why the legal rights of the whistleblower should prevail in this political setting over those of President Trump, who should ordinarily enjoy a right to confront his accuser," Rosen asked Pelosi.

Pelosi's feathers were ruffled.

"Well, let me just say this," Pelosi responded, her acrimonious smile betraying her anger as she pointed at Rosen. "I'll say to you, Mr. Republican Talking Points, what I said to the president of the United States: When you talk about the whistleblower, you're coming into my wheelhouse."

She then bragged, while unwittingly revealing her age:

 "I have more experience in intelligence than anybody in the Congress, anybody that's ever served, 25 years on the committee as top Democrat, ex officio, as Speaker and leader. I was there when we wrote the whistleblower laws. The whistleblower is there to speak truth to power and have protection for doing that. And any, any retribution or harm coming to a whistleblower undermines our ability to hear truth about power. So, I will defend the rights of the whistleblower vehemently, vehemently."

When Rosen pushed back, Pelosi said Trump can make his case to before those overseeing impeachment proceedings, adding that "the president is not above the law, the president will be held accountable, and nobody should have the right to endanger whistleblowers, and that is the system that I will defend, and the American people understand that."

The President also has a right to face his accuser, because his accuser also is not above the law, and legally, has no right to anonymity as Democrats would have us believe.

So how did Rosen, a journalist who was spied on by the Obama administration, react? By reporting how Pelosi grew "testy" to his question, which happens to be perfectly reasonable, adding that the Speaker "attacked" him and resorted to "personal disparagement" to his question.

Perhaps she wasn't ready for a question from the press who wasn't a leftist shill for the DNC.

Twitter was abuzz with responses to Pelosi's angst. One person tweeted:

"Knee-jerk reaction Alinsky RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

Another posted:

"I watched as it happened today and had to pick my jaw up off the floor. She was way out of line. There was nothing at all wrong with your question or how you asked."

And another:

"She not used to having real journalist ask her questions."

If you noticed, Pelosi never answered Rosen's question.


Please consider following this blog and visit the ads on this page.   You can also see my other blog on the Times of Israel.




Tweet

Some "journalists" want Warren to have free pass

Some so-called journalists are advising their colleagues against questioning veracity-challenged Elizabeth "Throwing Bull" Warren about Medicare for All and how she plans to have us pay for it.

Warren, who claims to be only 70, is one of the top contenders for the Democratic nomination but may eventually vie for a spot on "Dancing With the Stars" if the presidential gig doesn't pan out.

For Warren and her fellow leftists, government cannot be big enough. She is staunchly behind a total government takeover of the healthcare industry, which of course would be like putting early Ebenezer Scrooge in charge of Welfare benefits.

The 1/1024th Native American refuses to acknowledge that her plan would mean a huge increase in taxes among the middle class, and this continues to prompt actual reporters to ask her to clarify the plan, which she is loath to do. All she keeps saying is that "overall costs" would go down.

At least Sen. "Brooklyn" Bernie Sanders (I-VT) admitted that the same plan, which he was first to propose and which Warren stole from him, would indeed raise taxes up the wazoo, while also claiming that overall costs would go down. Bernie proposed a 4 percent tax increase on families making more than $29,000 a year, which is peanuts and would burden the poor even more drastically than is currently the case.

In the Democratic debates when the moderator asked gay South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg after Warren asked him to explain his use of the word "evasive," Buttigieg said, "Well, we heard it tonight. A yes or no question that didn't get a yes or no answer."

Buttigieg added: “This is why people here in the Midwest are so frustrated with Washington in general and Capitol Hill in particular. Your signature, senator, is to have a plan for everything, except this. No plan has been laid out to explain how a multi-trillion-dollar hole in this Medicare for All plan that Sen. Warren is putting forward is supposed to get filled in.”

The left loves to do this--think Nancy Pelosi and Obamacare when she said that we have to pass the bill so we can know what's in it.

Washington Post columnist Margaret Sullivan, the former public editor of the New York Times, said after the debate that asking Warren about how she’d finance Medicare for All was “doing President Trump’s work for him.”

Because the truth actually does do President Trump's work for him.

But let's pretend that the press is actually on the side of Trump, not the Democrats. We can refer to the claim as "gas lighting."

New York University professor Jay Rosen, who teaches journalism [but is not related to James Rosen, a journalist who was labeled a "conspirator" by the Obama administration], chimed in on Twitter on Wednesday, saying: “The ‘make Elizabeth Warren say she would raise taxes on the middle class’ question should be a credibility killer. For the journalists who keep asking it.”

Actually, it seems the opposite is true--most people believe the media is in the pocket of the left and pursuing an answer to a question that would directly affect all taxpayers are not only fair, but crucial in understanding where candidates stand on important issues.

Huffington Post leftist-editor-in-chief Lydia Polgreen, another former New York Times hack, also criticized the notion of unbiased journalism.

“’Will you raise middle class taxes’ is a lazy, gotcha question based on untested premises,” she lied. “A fairer question would be to ask candidates to explain how they’d convince voters of the tax tradeoff’s benefits.”

Medicare for All is projected to cost $32.6 trillion over 10 years. That translates to more dollars than all the paper on Earth to print that amount.


Please consider following this blog and feel free to click on the ads on this page. It costs nothing, and may just save your life. Or not. But seriously, please check out the ads as this is my source of generating revenue. And you can also see my blog on the Times of Israel.




Tweet

BREAKING: Ilhan Omar facing campaign finance violation probe

Former Fox News reporter and now on staff with Sinclair Media, James Rosen confirmed Monday morning that authorities recently finished investigating two complaints concerning campaign finance violations against the execrable Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN).

Both complaints against the anti-Semitic Omar were filed last year by Republican Minnesota state lawmaker Rep. Steve Drazkowski. He claims Omar spent thousands of dollars on a divorce attorney and personal travel expenses. If this is true, it is likely that nothing will happen and Omar will continue hating Jews and being supported by her fellow Democrats.

“In referring Omar to the Minnesota Campaign Finance Board, Drazkowski alleged that Omar improperly spent close to $6,000 in campaign funds for personal use, including payments to her divorce attorney and for travel to Boston and Estonia,” says the report.

Rosen notes that Drazkowski’s filings follow “an earlier episode in which Omar repaid $2,500 for honoraria she received for speeches at colleges that receive state funding, a violation of ethics rules for Minnesota lawmakers.”

“I had observed a long pattern,” said Drazkowski. “Representative Omar hasn’t followed the law. She’s repeatedly trampled on the laws of the state in a variety of areas, and gotten by with it.”

But is it possible she was following sharia law?

The Republican lawmaker maintained that Omar has been allowed to skate in the face of her controversial actions by strategically using her identity as a shield. Her intersectional 'creds' as a Muslim, and a woman of color gives her victimhood standings that allow her to say anything she wants with impunity.

“There’s a political fear that people have of being called a name, being called a bigot, being called racist, being called Islamophobic,” he said, leaving out sexist and homophobe.

When Omar was questioned about the probe into the alleged finance violations on Thursday, she refused to respond and kept walking and walking. Earlier this year, the Democrat denied the alleged indiscretions, though the complaints were still unconfirmed to the public at the time.

“The Omar Committee’s 2017 year-end report shows several non-campaign disbursements for out-of-state travel for Rep. Omar to attend various events,” reads a notification allegedly from the finance board posted on Drazkowski’s website.

“The information on the committee’s 2017 year-end report does not indicate how attendance at these events would have helped Rep. Omar in the performance of her legislative duties,” another notification says.

The results of the investigations are expected to soon be released, Sinclair reports, but nothing will come of it, one can assume based on past non-outcomes.

Despite her many controversies, Omar has become a key figure for the Democrat Party because of her hatred for Trump, America, Jews and Israel.

The Muslim Democrat has found herself under fire on more than one occasion for past and present comments she’s made about Jews and Israel. In March, for example, Omar used the old trope that Jewish Americans have “dual loyalty” even after she was criticized for past comments that were clearly anti-Semitic.

“Lawmakers must be able to debate w/o prejudice or bigotry. I am saddened that Rep. Omar continues to mischaracterize support for Israel. I urge her to retract this statement and engage in further dialogue with the Jewish community on why these comments are so hurtful,” said Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), who is Jewish.

“Our democracy is built on debate, Congresswoman!” Omar responded on Twitter. “I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee. The people of the 5th elected me to serve their interest. I am sure we agree on that!”

Nobody pledges their allegiance to Israel, as the anti-Semite implied. Supporting an ally, in fact the only ally in the Middle East that isn't calling for global sharia and is a beacon of civilization in the mire of surrounding nations, is not pledging allegiance to the country, but pledging support of that ally. To say otherwise is to again use that anti-Semitic trope that has existed for decades.

Hopefully Omar will receive whatever justice is determined by the probe, but don't hold your breath.

Follow Brain Flushings and have a few laughs while you get a conservative viewpoint. Politics is the new NFL without the mindless kneeling and this blog will both inform you and will hopefully entertain you bigly.

Tweet

Obama spokes-leftist denies Obama wire-tapped POTUS

President Trump accused former President Obama of ordering surveillance on his Manhattan Trump Tower residence at the height of the 2016 election. 

Kevin Lewis, an aide to Obama, predictably denied the claim, but after going after conservative reporters such as Fox News' James Rosen, it seems like a plausible assumption on Mr. Trump's part that Mr. Obama would stoop that low.

In a series of posts on social media, Mr. Trump tweeted that he just discovered that he was "wire tapped" prior to the November elections and nothing untoward was discovered. He then referenced Nixon and Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

Lewis said in a statement "A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice."

Of course not--Obama had the DoJ in his pocket with Lynch. And it was Lynch who met with Clinton prior to his wife's case, who refused to recuse herself--even though CNN said that she did.

"As part of that practice," Lewis blathered, "neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen [except for James Rosen, shall we say]. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false," he lied.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if politicians on both sides of the aisle didn't lie?

Trump did not cite the source of his information, but the notion that he made such a brash accusation may constitute an acknowledgement that officials at the highest levels of government were at one time probing his business and financial dealings.

Last year, the Department of Justice under Lynch obtained a Foreign Intelligence Service Act (FISA) court warrant to wiretap Trump's conversations, ostensibly to discover whether his campaign had colluded with the Russians to interfere with the election. It was denied but they may have gone ahead (illegally) in spite of that.

If that is the case, then someone's head should roll.

Tweet

Obama's War on the US Constitution

Killing Anwar al-Awlaki via drone was justified by the Obama administration as long as it was done in accord with applicable laws of war. 

So it's okay for Obama to kill Americans because we're in a "war on terror" but how is it that we've released five terrorists and now we have the Benghazi attack mastermind on his way to the USA where we plan to treat him like a common criminal? Isn't this one of the the terrorists with whom we're at war?

This administration does what it wants to whomever it wants because they believe that they are above the law, and unfortunately, our other two branches of government does nothing to disprove this notion.

Guns are run into Mexico using straw buyers paid by the DoJ, and congress does nothing about it other than whine.

The New Black Panthers intimidated white voters at a polling place in Philadelphia, but Eric Holder's DoJ decides not to pursue the case and congress again, sits on its hands as Obama wins a second term.

The Benghazi terrorist attack, where Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were killed ends in a dead end, it seems, while the administration stalls for time as more scandals erupt, and then it's "Dude, that was two years ago." And nothing is done other than congressional fuss-making.

The IRS scandal has Lois Lerner taking the Fifth and we now learn Lerner lost two years of emails. How convenient. And how incredibly convenient that her hard drive was also gone. If Lerner was not trying to target  conservative groups, then why is the left making excuses rather than being angry over a government agency acting inappropriately? But questions are asked by congress and they only get five minutes each to question the suspects who then filibuster without really answering anything of substance.

The Associated Press and the James Rosen scandals? Let's not go there now--freedom of the press deserves more than a paragraph here.

We are no longer the nation we once were. We are no longer a nation of clear laws when political interests are involved. And we need to demand from our representatives that they do a better job stopping the lawlessness of the administration. We obey and protect our Constitution, not shred it like somebody's emails must have been.


Tweet

Coincidences and Coverups

Ahmed Abu Khatalla is captured after 2 years since his involvement with the Benghazi 911 attack that killed our ambassador and 3 Americans. Hillary Clinton gets interviewed by Fox News Network practically at the same time we learn of this. Coincidence?

The IRS loses 2 years of emails that would have clarified the involvement of Lois Lerner and perhaps Barack Obama in the scandal that targeted conservative groups, keeping them from obtaining their tax exempt status. Then 6 more IRS officials had "the dog eat their emails."  Another coincidence?

Obama trades 5 Taliban terrorists for a lowly Army deserter. This happens at the same time when he is planning to close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility. Now there's talk of him releasing scores more of these dangerous thugs. Yet another coincidence?

We had the Fast and Furious scandal, Benghazi, Bergdahl, Solyndra, the IRS, AP, NSA, James Rosen, and the New Black Panthers voting suppression scandal, lest we forget. One administration, so many "phony scandals." 

We have to ask ourselves the question: what are the chances we will ever get the hard evidence, the communications, emails and the like, about these scandals? Probably about as much chance as catching Jay Carney being totally truthful about Obama.

According to the Associated Press, the Obama administration last year cited "national security" 8,496 times to withhold information requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This is a 57% increase from the previous year. In fact, 36% of FOIA requests made in 2013 were either censored or denied, and in 196,034 other occasions, the "dog ate the homework" excuse was used--that is, they simply could not find the records requested.

So "the most transparent administration ever" is exactly the opposite of that claim. It should give you pause to wonder what other lies have they told, and what are they not telling us.






Tweet

Holder at the Bus Stop, Obama Stands Behind Him

Holder may go--but certainly, he should go. It seems pretty clear that he lied to congress. He also may be behind the Gibson Guitar Company heavy-handed, office bust-in (my term). He didn't know about the potential prosecution of James Rosen; he knew nothing about Fast and Furious, and he knows nothing about everything as the head of the Department of Justice. At the very least, he should be fired for his gross incompetence. But more than this, he should be prosecuted, for his low-life evil abuse of the Constitution of the United States of America. It's as simple as that.