Beet L. Jooz

Sean Hannity tonight railed against the “garbage new compromise” on border security from Congress, but he also said he wouldn’t be too “concerned” if President Donald Trump went ahead and signed it anyway.

The agreement only allocates roughly $1.37 billion for barrier funding, a fraction of what the president wanted in the border security fight during the shutdown.

Hannity said tonight, “We haven’t seen the language, nor has the White House. Sources are telling me that it’s still being worked out. But if Democrats are going to put a lot of restrictions on wall construction––in other words, that it’s not really wall money––this is not a bill the president will be able to sign. He will then need a clean CR.”

Trump said today he’s “not happy” about the deal and Hannity agreed, saying, “The president has every right to be angry.”

He said the compromise is typical of the swamp “its level of funding for security and safety of the American people is pathetic.”

However, while Hannity said Trump would definitely be right to reject the compromise––bringing up angel families and crimes committed by illegal immigrants––he wouldn’t be terribly concerned if he signed it in the end:

“It would be perfectly reasonable for President Trump to reject this bill. Now, there’s another solution, maybe even a better solution. I’m not as concerned as some other conservatives if the president signs the bill, but there’s a couple of ifs.”

He elaborated:

“Step one: if president decides he wants to sign the compromise, which would guarantee the $1.375 billion down payment for the wall, okay, that money can be used immediately. Now, if he takes step two, which is the president utilizing money he has identified, some $900 million, for additional construction, that is already available for the administration administration’s discretion. That would be about $2.3 billion, but the important third step needs to happen simultaneously. That would be the president would need to declare a national emergency. This is the time. That is a necessity.”

He said Trump would be in the right to take this action and swiped at “the haters on both sides of the aisle” to defend Trump as someone who keeps his promises.

You can watch above, via MSNBC.

[image via screengrab]

A woman pointing a gun at an officer prompted a police chase that started near Livonia and ended in Baton Rouge Tuesday afternoon, according to a WBRZ report.

We knew this day was coming, but watching an MSNBC anchor and guest pundits squirm during a live Tuesday morning update in which NBC News intelligence and national security correspondent, Ken Dilanian, read aloud that the Senate Intelligence Committee admits it has found “no direct evidence” of collusion between President Trump and Russia, is a segment that itself perhaps belongs to the history books. 

Mediaite described of the "stunned" MSNBC host's demeanor: "The report met surprise first, then skepticism, with Jackson and her guests." They awkwardly and visibly try to make sense of hard and unambiguous reporting that runs contrary to everything being parroted in the MSNBC echo chamber over the past 2 years. 

To drive home the explosive significance of the findings, Dilanian noted just how long the 'collusion' incessant drumbeat has lasted: "After two years and interviewing more than 200 witnesses, the Senate intelligence Committee has not uncovered any direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia,” said Dilanian. “That’s according to sources on both the Republican and the Democratic side of the aisle.”

And in a prior NBC News article Tuesday morning, Dilanian spelled out: 

After two years and 200 interviews, the Senate Intelligence Committee is approaching the end of its investigation into the 2016 election, having uncovered no direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, according to both Democrats and Republicans on the committee.

MSNBC anchor Hallie Jackson and her guest panelists' faces looked visibly confused and uncomfortable as they learned the Senate report is going in the opposite direction of everything MSNBC and other mainstream outlets have been breathlessly reporting on a near 24/7 basis. 

More importantly, if this is a precursor of what the Mueller report concludes in a few weeks/months, the TV station that built its current reputation on the premise of Russian collusion, may have no option but to go on indefinite hiatus.

Watch the segment below, with host Hallie Jackson appearing to grow exasperated by the 2:20 mark:“If and when the president, as he may inevitably do, points to these conclusions and says look, the Senate intelligence committee found I am not guilty of conspiracy... he would be correct in saying that?”

Dilanian noted that while the Republican chair of the committee made what he characterized as "partisan" comments the week prior, it turned out be unanimous fact. “What I found,” he said, “is that Democrats don’t dispute that characterization.”

But perhaps sensing how "contrary" to the network's own hysterical 'Russiagate' coverage his reporting was, he tried to soften the blow, saying, “But, again, no direct proof of a conspiracy. As one democratic aide said to me, ‘we never thought we were going to find a Democrat between Trump and Vladimir Putin saying let’s collude, but the question is how do we interpret all these various contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia.'”

Hallie Jackson followed with further probing: “Not to put too fine a point on it, but I want to make sure I’m understanding this...” and asked “If and when the president, as he may inevitably do, points to these conclusions and says look, the Senate intelligence committee found I’m not guilty of conspiracy... he would be correct in saying that?”

Her face looking rather incredulous at this point, Dilanian responded by invoking the Meuller investigation, reassuring her his inquiry is not complete and likely could uncover more information. But then the bottom line: “That said, Trump will claim vindication through this, and he’ll be partially right,” he said.

When even NBC, @KenDilanianNBC and Democrats (excuse the redundancy) are admitting this so clearly in the first paragraph of their article, it's time for people to start facing some facts about what they've been telling people https://t.co/2TUxLQcdnY pic.twitter.com/evSNu8jk27

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) February 12, 2019

But Dilanian also noted the Senate intel committee has access to classified material, which means “if there was an intercept between officers suggesting they were conspiring with the Trump campaign, [the committee] would see that. And that has not emerged.”

“So that evidence does not exist, and Trump will claim vindication,” he repeated.

Yet after all this, during the full segment Vice News guest panelist Shawna Thomas actually invoked impeachment in what appeared a desperate attempt to grasp for anything. “There’s two things I question about [the report],” she began.

“Number one, if and when the report finally comes out from the Senate intelligence committee, is there anything in there that will cause, especially some of these new House Dems, to start to clamor, even if there isn’t ‘conspiracy’ or ‘collusion’, for impeachment?” said Thomas.

But then she tried to deflate the whole thing, upsetting as it was for purveyors of the collusion narrative: “The other thing is, based on what Ken is saying, it’s all stuff we knew already,” she said. 

Right... cause in MSNBC's Russiagate-land "the walls are closing in" on Trump, constantly. Except the network just woke up to the reality that it's not the case. 

One of the best compilations I've ever seen.

It's a BOMBSHELL. pic.twitter.com/V0oLimbKnT

— Mike (@Fuctupmind) October 29, 2018

We only wonder what Rachel Maddow will be left with after this. 

'We need something a little more concrete'

Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

The left wants to raise your taxes, and most Americans are okay with that. 

I was shocked by the numbers that I am about to share with you, and I think that you will be shocked too.  Once upon a time, being labeled as a “tax and spend liberal” was one of the worst things that could happen to a politician.  During the presidential election of 1984, Walter Mondale was very honest about the fact that he wanted to raise taxes on the American people, and Ronald Reagan absolutely crushed him with that.  In the end, it was one of the greatest election night landslides in history.  But this time around we could potentially see the opposite.  If things go badly for Trump, we could actually see a “tax and spend liberal” turn the map mostly blue in 2020.  I know that sounds very, very strange, but the latest poll numbers show that the American people strongly support raising taxes on the wealthy.

For example, the most recent Politico poll found that 76 percent of registered votersbelieve that taxes should be raised on the richest Americans…

Surveys are showing overwhelming support for raising taxes on top earners, including a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll released Monday that found 76 percent of registered voters believe the wealthiest Americans should pay more in taxes. A recent Fox News survey showed that 70 percent of Americans favor raising taxes on those earning over $10 million — including 54 percent of Republicans.

Those numbers are absolutely overwhelming.

When even a Fox News survey shows that most Republicans want higher taxes, then you know that something has dramatically changed.

And this high level of support for tax increases persists even when voters are asked about specific proposals from Democrats on the far left.  If you can believe it, 59 percent of Americans are even in favor of AOC’s proposal to raise the highest marginal tax rate to 70 percent…

A plan from first-term Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) to slap a 70 percent marginal rate on income earned over $10 million clocked in at 59 percent support in a recent Hill/HarrisX poll.

The new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll, conducted Feb. 1-2, found that 61 percent favor a proposal like the “wealth tax” recently laid out by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) that would levy a 2 percent tax on those with a net worth over $50 million and 3 percent on those worth over $1 billion. Just 20 percent opposed the idea. The poll surveyed 1,993 registered voters and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percent.

To me, voting for politicians that unashamedly want higher taxes is kind of like voting for more root canals or more telemarketing calls during dinner.

But right now the poll numbers clearly show that the left is winning the battle for hearts and minds, and that is a huge problem for the Republican Party.

Today, many Democrats work very hard to fight for their agenda in the court of popular opinion, but meanwhile most Republicans in Congress are simply “seat fillers” that make absolutely no effort to educate the public.  This is something that must change if Republicans hope to ever turn things around.

So why do Democrats want higher taxes?

Well, the primary reason they need higher taxes is to pay for multi-trillion dollar programs such as the “Green New Deal” and “Medicare For All”.

In particular, the “Green New Deal” would take an insane amount of money to implement.  Here is a summary of some of the craziest proposals in the “Green New Deal” that was put together by Michael Palicz…

• Rebuild every single building in the U.S.

“Upgrade or replace every building in US for state-of-the-art energy efficiency.”

• Will end all traditional forms of energy in the next ten years.

The Green New Deal is “a 10-year plan to mobilize every aspect of American society at a scale not seen since World War 2 to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.”

• Plans to ban nuclear energy within 10 years if possible.

“It’s unclear if we will be able to decommission every nuclear plant within 10 years, but the plan is to transition off of nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible.”

• Build trains across oceans and end all air travel!

“Build out highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary”.

• Don’t invest in new technology of Carbon Capture and Storage, just plant trees instead!

“We believe the right way to capture carbon is to plant trees and restore our natural ecosystems. CCUS technology to date has not proven effective.”

• Mandates all new jobs be unionized.

“Ensure that all GND jobs are union jobs that pay prevailing wages and hire local.”

Nobody knows for sure what all of that will cost, but needless to say the total would be in the trillions of dollars.

But most Americans are not in favor of higher taxes on the wealthy because they want to see such radical proposals come to fruition.

Rather, they like the idea of higher taxes because they think somehow they will get some goodies out of it.

In recent years, politicians on the far left have gotten a lot of mileage out of turning all of our basic needs into “rights”.  They have been boldly declaring that all Americans should have a “right” to housing, health care and a basic college education even if they don’t want to work for those things.

But if you are “entitled” to something, then that means that somebody else has to pay for it.

And most Americans are in favor of that concept until it becomes their turn to pay.

The Babylon Bee is a satire website, and their recent article about taxes was quite humorous…

Americans all over the country suggested they are OK with a majority of the people voting to take a minority of the people’s money, as long as they are not part of that minority.

“I am a very generous person, so I believe everyone else needs to pay their fair share,” said Lyle Hartright of Maine. “Everyone that isn’t me, I mean.”

“These are stunning results,” said one analyst. “We always believed that Americans were generous, but we never knew how generous. To offer to raise taxes to 70% or more on other people just goes to show how much compassion people have.”

America has already traveled quite far down the road toward socialism, and instead of reversing course, it looks like the American people want to pick up the pace.

But all we have to do to see where that road leads is to look at Venezuela.  Unfortunately, most Americans are not making that connection at this point.

This is the same media that call President Trump thin-skinned and accuse him of being a threat to the First Amendment.

'The Senate Intelligence Committee has not uncovered any direct evidence of a conspiracy'

Detectives hopeful of breakthrough in notorious case after genealogy websites help to snare former police officer suspected of 12 murders

'The idea that violent video games drive real-world aggression is a popular one, but it hasn't tested very well over time'

While it seems the mainstream media paused last week's avalanche of attacks on progressive Hawaiian Democratic rep. Tulsi Gabbard, which painted her as a Russian stooge for daring to oppose Washington's addiction to regime change wars abroad, in favor of new controversy surrounding another progressive, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and charges of anti-Semitism leveled at her for criticism of pro-Israel money in US politics, Gabbard hasn't let up a bit in terms of the intensity of her attacks on the warmongering establishment within both parties. In a new televised message Gabbard excoriated the pundit class for constantly dreaming up "new places for people to die".

Gabbard released the half-minute video on Tuesday appropriately called "Warmongers in their ivory towers" wherein the US Army reserve officer and Iraq War veteran slammed the Washington culture of "powerful" decision-makers who "sit in ivory towers" and send other people's children to war, while themselves never stepping close to a battlefield.

The message — which is all the more powerful given she has likely personally lost friends in the Iraq and Afghan "endless wars" — is reminiscent of Ron Paul's fearless attacks on the neocons during the 2012 Republican primary debates as "chicken hawks". Paul, also a veteran, brought the term into national consciousness.

It denotes those who advocate for US overseas military conflicts and foreign adventurism yet who avoided all military service in their careers. At that time Congressman Paul called out Newt Gingrich after Gingrich smeared Paul's non-interventionism position as "dangerous". 

“When Newt Gingrich was called to service in the 1960s in the Vietnam era, guess what he thought about danger? He chickened out on that and got deferments and didn’t even go,” Paul said related to the primary debates in a 2012 CNN interview, and added, “Some people call that kind of program a chicken hawk, and I think he falls into that category.”

We remarked previously that Gabbard, as a rare Congressional voice who has personally experienced the ravages of one recent regime change war and its lasting consequences for both common Iraqis and the American people, has emerged as a "Ron Paul of the Left" of sorts (at least on foreign policy that is).

And like Paul before, she could emerge in 2020 as a rare voice spotlighting Washington's addiction to regime change and "endless wars" abroad, and the military-industrial complex's fueling America's "global policeman" mentality, and its blindly obedient cheerleaders in the mainstream media. This will at the very least make the foreign policy debate during the next election — usually a mere single point of view establishment echo chamber — more interesting. 

This is especially true given that she'll likely unleash her "warmongers in their ivory towers" who think up "new places for people to die" attacks on her warmonger opponents during the Democratic debates. Seeing this is certainly something to look forward to. 

* * * 

Meanwhile the "chicken hawk" phenomenon is given deeper treatment in Nassim Nicholas Taleb's Skin In The Game, a key passage of which is quoted below:

"Now some innocent people, Yazidis, Christian minorities, Syrians, Iraqis, and Libyans had to pay a price for the mistakes of these interventionistas currently sitting in their comfortable air-conditioned offices. This, we will see, violates the very notion of justice from its pre-biblical, Babylonian inception. As well as the ethical structure of humanity.

Not only the principle of healers is first do no harm (primum non nocere), but, we will argue: those who don’t take risks should never be involved in making decisions.

This idea is weaved into history: all warlords and warmongers were warriors themselves and, with few exceptions societies were run by risk takers not risk transferors. They took risks –more risks than ordinary citizens. Julian the Apostate, the hero of many, died on the battlefield fighting in the never-ending war on the Persian frontier. One of predecessors, Valerian, after he was captured was said to have been used as a human footstool by the Persian Shahpur when mounting his horse. Less than a third of Roman emperors died in their bed –and one can argue that, had they lived longer, they would have fallen prey to either a coup or a battlefield."

And more...

"The interventionistas case is central to our story because it shows how absence of skin in the game has both ethical and epistemological effects (i.e., related to knowledge). Interventionistas don’t learn because they are not the victims of their mistakes."

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), a 2020 Democratic presedential contender, said Tuesday that neither she nor former Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) recall a reported incident in 2015 where the then-Senate minority leader rebuked th...

'It's clear that thing was in him, what we believed was a demon because it was not natural,' brother tells police

UN inspector accused government of straying towards 'thought crime' with law

Maisie Newell died in 2014

Four malnourished children, two of whom were locked inside a cage, were found by Wise County Sheriff's deputies during a disturbance call in Texas Tuesday morning.