[American Thinker] You'd think they'd be all over this like tabloid papparazzi. Wild and prurient news always sells papers and draws viewer eyeballs, and the scattered reports about how America's first Muslim congresswoman, Rep. Ilhan Omar, reportedly married her own brother in a bid to bring him into the country ahead of the others trying to get in, is quite a doozy. The press certainly got excited about the Stormy Daniels controversy for such a reason, but why the absence of interest in Omar's kinky weird love life?
Now the fearless Michelle Malkin has taken up the case, wanting to know why this isn't being looked into by either the press or more importantly, these law enforcers. She writes:
Investigations dating back to 2016 by blogger Scott Johnson of Power Line (which recently celebrated 15 years in the blogosphere), David North of the Center for Immigration Studies, Alpha News reporter Preya Samsundar and PJMedia.com reporter David Steinberg have determined that the outspoken Somalian Muslim refugee likely married her own brother named Ahmed Elmi in 2009 for some unknown ill-gotten gain while still informally married to the man she calls her husband and father of her three children, Ahmed Hirsi. After a Somalian website floated questions about the marriage arrangement with Elmi and Johnson's initial reporting broke into the local news, Omar sought to divorce Elmi. Her use of $6,000 in state campaign funds, some of which went to pay a personal divorce lawyer, is currently under state investigation.
To marry her own brother, something her spokespeople brush off as nonsense and refuse to answer questions about. Actually, they ought to be answering questions, to reporters, and investigators - and they most certainly are not. Apparently we all supposed to think that Omar, with her out-there anti-Semitic views, and fourth-world background, is quite incapable of acting in a way that's contrary to bourgeois values.
Malkin also notes that the issue itself, even outside the kink factor, has quite the potential for more serious crime:
The Dems don't mind having crazy aunts in the attic they just don't like to talk about their craziness. I'd be concerned about latent Islamacist tendencies.
What's Minnesota law and Federal law say about marriages between siblings for the purpose of perpetrating a fraud?
[Washington Examiner] Markets thrive on competition. Unfortunately, this doesn’t just apply to real economic markets. It also applies to markets for bad ideas and political pandering.
With approximately 200 Democrats now running for president (we lost count a few weeks ago), the bidding to bribe Iowa caucusgoers is becoming intense. This is unfortunate not just because it is unseemly but also because the offers are coming at the expense of the nation’s well-being and the environment’s health.
The worst pander so far comes from Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. When she is not privately belittling her staff in ALL CAPS 4 a.m. emails, Klobuchar is attempting to gain traction in Iowa by fattening the wallets of ethanol barons. Her specific plan is to stop granting waivers to small refiners that let gasoline producers out of a small part of the requirement that they mix their product with large volumes of ethanol, which is economically unnecessary and environmentally harmful. "GET ME A SALAD COMB!!111!!!"
The blending requirement exists solely to subsidize an industry that would barely exist without it. Ideally, the government would grant universal waivers and let the market decide how much ethanol it wants in gasoline. But unfortunately, this is not how the real world works.
It would not be worth paying much heed to Klobuchar’s opening bid, except that it will be matched and exceeded by several other Democratic candidates who actually have a chance of winning their party’s nomination. Even worse, President Trump, a fan of ethanol since before his second-place Iowa finish in 2016, may feel a need to increase his own bid when the general election season rolls around.
Iowa’s critical role in selecting nominees, especially Democratic nominees, has made ethanol nearly bulletproof. Unless more politicians gain the kind of courage that Sen. Ted Cruz displayed when he promised to phase out ethanol subsidies during his presidential run in 2016, unnecessary ethanol mandates are here to stay.
There are ethanol free pumps all over Florida because of marine engines. Such product can be found by visiting pure-gas.org
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
05/31/2019 1:51 Comments ||
The Iowa and New Hampshire primaries are the other side of the push to eliminate the Electoral College. "First in the nation" primary status should be outlawed. Make 'em all at the same time just like elections. Screw the people in Dixville Notch.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
05/31/2019 1:54 Comments ||
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
05/31/2019 12:17 Comments ||
If it was shut down there would be no place to put the grain. Why? Some of the richest farm areas have tore down their graineries and got rid of their dryers. Why? It is put as is into nearby giant "stills".
If we quit putting ethanol in gasoline the corn would just rot. Maybe it implies other crops better for the land should be grown. Whatever...
[American Thinker] Robert Mueller should have been disbarred decades ago, along with his enforcer Andrew Weismann; that is how egregious his record of malfeasance is, all matters of public record.
What he did Wednesday morning was his final IED tossed at the President to placate his Democrat overlords who desperately want to impeach Trump. But for what? Mueller gave no list of felonies in his report nor did he detail any crimes of which Trump is even amorphously guilty.
This entire enterprise, the fabricated notion that Trump and/or persons within his campaign colluded with Russians to cheat his way to the presidency was illegitimate from the outset. It did not happen. Not even a very expensive team of Trump-haters could find their way to naming anyone on the Trump side guilty of anything illegal having to do with the election. And we can be certain that if they could have bent and twisted any relationship, any meeting, any friendship, any past association to find Trump guilty of anything, this band of malefactors would have run with it. They found nothing but gossip and innuendo, rather like a clique of mean girls in middle school.
Volume two of Mueller's report was entirely unnecessary but for this gang of thugs' need to vent and hopefully give the Democrats something with which to move ahead with impeachment.
True to form, the dim bulb Democrats are such legal ignoramuses they have continued to insist the report found Trump guilty of all manner of crimes even though it did not. We can be sure that if they had discovered anything useful, they would have used it and recommended charges. But they did not.
So on Wednesday morning, a shaky and seemingly anxious Mueller went before the cameras to say the opposite of what he had told AG Barr, that it was only the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) guidelines that prevented him for exonerating the President. Barr has testified that on at least two occasions, Mueller told him those guidelines had nothing to do with his final report. There were others present when he said this to Barr.
So, who had the gun to Mueller's jowly head? (He resembles the canine Mastiff.) He has most likely been on the outs with the DC social establishment who were enraged by his report. They had universally assumed it was their ticket to unseating the man. So shocked by Mueller's findings, the ruling elites of the beltway have probably exorcised Mueller from their midst.
The co-authors of this piece are policy wonks who spent time at the libertarian Cato Institute. From the About for War on the Rocks:
War on the Rocks is a platform for analysis, commentary, debate and multimedia content on foreign policy and national security issues through a realist lens. It features articles and podcasts produced by an array of writers with deep experience in these matters: top notch scholars who study war, those who have served or worked in war zones, and more than a few who have done it all.
[WarOnTheRocks] President Donald Trump was right to want to pull U.S. troops out of Syria and should not have let his advisers overrule him. The rationales the administration gives for keeping U.S. forces in Syria are impossibly ambitious, and vehicles for escalation. Elements of the administration, starting with John Bolton, the national security adviser, seem eager to use U.S. forces in Syria and Iraq as bait for a war with Iran.
We have occasionally hoped that Congress might bestir itself to vote on the U.S. war in Syria, or even end it. Instead, its members mostly criticized the possibility of withdrawal, avoided any vote on the war, and now have sponsored an expert report setting out an extravagant set of missions for the small U.S. force remaining there. They won't be able to accomplish these missions, so naturally the troop presence must be vastly increased. Another Vietnam, here we come! Continued on Page 49
Many (hopefully most) Americans want nothing to do with Syria, or the greater ME for that matter. But "we" will soldier on nonetheless...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
05/31/2019 2:20 Comments ||
"Iran’s plan is to build nuclear bombs with which to control the world and force it to submit."
That's remarkable. How do you know this? Can you read minds? Can you tell me what I had for breakfast?
Libya got rid of its nuclear program at Western request and look what happened to it. As soon as it was verified to be disarmed, it was destroyed. Now, literal slave markets exist. Way to go, good job! War is always the answer!
Posted by: Herb McCoy ||
05/31/2019 2:43 Comments ||
The problem is that those who abandon their friends when tired of them soon have no more friends. Trump so far has not done that,
The key question is, if he abandons the Kurds and or the Saudis, will Kim or any sane Iranis trust him enough to make any concessions?
The Turks do have a long term problem. Kurds are having more children than other Turks, and will eventually become a majority in Turkey. Putin has a similar problem with Moslems in Russia. The Western Europeans have been seeking the same problem for reasons not very clear.
Their problem is that their native populations have turned against parenting, and they want enough new people to occupy their real estate.
We are in uncharted times.
Hey Herb. Did someone say what you quote here? I sure don't know if that is ture, but I also don't know if it is false. Do you? If so, how do you know it? Do you read minds?
My recollection is that our strange and irrational behavior in Libya was done by the very same people who withdrew us from Iraq, which led to the horrors of ISIS.
They managed to make everyone treat us with disdain.
I wish you would tell us, with your insight, what exactly they were aiming for.
Re: Iran’s plan is to build nuclear bombs with which to control the world and force it to submit.
Mr. McCoy is quoting my in-line comment on the Page 49’d portion of the ery long article, Daniel. As to how I know, the Mad Mullahs have been proclaiming their plans at the start of every military parade since 1980. But even if they hadn’t, let us contemplate what it is that jihadis are required by Allah and the Prophet Mohamed’s perfect example to do, and compare to Iran’s actions in the intervening period, which I will address when I’m not falling asleep — though there are others here who can lay it all out considerably better than I. ;-)
Ooh, the ad hominem insult! That's always a winning argument! How creative, too!
Accusing Iran of world conquest? I mean, come on. This is pure psychological projection. When you're guilty of something, you constantly accuse others of doing the same. It's like the person who accuses others of wanting to eat dicks - those are very likely his own unacceptable thoughts, and to get rid of them he's got to project them on others.
Posted by: Herb McCoy ||
05/31/2019 9:53 Comments ||
Libya dropped its nuke and chem program when Ghaddafi saw his brother Lion of Islam dragged out of a reeking hole in the ground. It wasn't because the West asked nicely.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey ||
05/31/2019 10:17 Comments ||
Accusing Iran of world conquest? I mean, come on. This is pure psychological projection.
While I have not personally received a hand-written declaration on the Ayatollah's offical stationary, I tend to give this a high probability of being true based on what the Ayatollahs have said in the past, the tenets of Islam, and the fact that Iran is an Islamic theocracy.
You people actually think that Iran wants to conquer the entire world??
Even Cyrus the Great only got as far as Egypt and Asia Minor. Jesus. I can't believe educated adults really think that Iran wants to conquer America, like an actual invasion with landing craft and everything. And we need to declare war on them right now, by false flag if necessary, in order to avert this horrible fate.
Posted by: Herb McCoy ||
05/31/2019 13:55 Comments ||
Accusing Iran of world conquest? I mean, come on. This is pure psychological projection. When you're guilty of something
You accuse me of wanting to conquer the world, Mr. McCoy?
What would I do with it? I’ve been to other parts of the world. Many of them I wouldn’t want to live in even as an expat spouse — shopping followed by tea on the veranda while native nursemaids take care of the children, native housemaids take care of the cleaning, and the native cook takes care of meals palls within a week. Let them rule themselves, and as long as they don’t feed jihadis at their breasts, I don’t care.
Go read Rantburg’s archives, Herb. Start on 9/11 and work your way forward to today. Then you'll have a better understanding of what the Mad Mullahs want, and how they think they’ll accomplish it much more cleverly than by open invasion.
I can't believe educated adults really think that Iran wants to conquer America, like an actual invasion with landing craft and everything.
Now you are changing definitions in mid-stream. And being a bit silly, IMHO.
War comes in many flavors, from the balls-to-the-wall peer-to-peer industrialized warfare we saw in WWII to the various low-level insurgencies we see around the globe. No one is arguing that Iran is preparing to invade CONUS or even Andalusia - sorry, I mean Spain, which was once a Muslim province. But we have been in a state of war with Iran since 1979. Or 1983 if you count the Marine barracks in Beirut. No coastal invasions, but continuing attacks on our facilities and interests around the world.
The recent shipping attacks may be a false flag, but more likely it's just the Iranians fucking with the Saudis. And it may not have been the Iranians directly, but one of their proxies. That's how it is done nowadays. Deniability and all that. At one time this would be important, but with the rise of America as a producer, the Straits of Hormuz isn't the big deal it used to be - at least as far as we're concerned.
You may be concerned that Bolton or one of our little pit bulls is barking up a storm. But without a stick, or threat of a stick, there is no carrot. Prediction: you will never see American boots on the ground in Iran. There is no reason for it. But that doesn't mean we won't bomb the crap out of some of their facilities. Does the name Gaddafi ring a bell? Assuming the Israelis don't beat us to the punch.
Like the man said, you may not be interesting in war but war is interested in you. The only questions are whether you acknowledge it and what you intend to do about it. Do you think an Iran with nukes wouldn't pass them along to one of their proxies?
[Breitbart] Thursday on his nationally syndicated radio show, conservative talker Rush Limbaugh warned of the dangers of not taking a closer look at the origins of the Mueller probe, which opens the door for "criminalization" of policy differences and politics.
Limbaugh said if such a thing is allowed, it would mean "we’re done" as a country.
Partial transcript as follows:
Everybody with half a brain ought to be outraged with what Mueller did yesterday. But they’re not, because Mueller is an ally in getting rid of a politician they don’t like. They couldn’t defeat the politician at the ballot box, and they couldn’t find any crimes that this politician committed.
So they’re just going to tell everybody they think he’s guilty and that he intended to commit crimes. "But, for crying out loud, we just don’t have the evidence yet! We can’t catch him, but we know he’s guilty. Therefore, because we know he is, he is." That’s what they are constructing here. If they get away with this ‐ if they get away with the criminalization of policy differences ‐ then we’re finished. I mean, given the assets they have?
They have the deep state. They have the media. They have the power of the federal Treasury. Look at what they’re doing now with open borders, flooding the nation. Hollywood, the pop culture corrupting our society. Academia. Wall Street. They have all of this at their disposal. Right now, all we have is the people on our side and maybe 51, 52% of the country. These people have to be defeated. The people that did this have to be held accountable.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.