October 27, 2017 6:45 AM HomeMorning ReadsMorning Reads for Friday, October 27, 2017 Morning Reads for Friday, October 27, 2017 By Ginny Morning Reads 45 Comments That’s a mighty fine umbrella you got there. Shame if anything happened to it. Why don’t any of the mayors-in-waiting think this is important? “The Collective.” Really GT? Is that the best you could do? Does everyone get their own Borg alcove, too? There’s this football game this Saturday… Unbiased, my hind-parts. Best body armor ever? Make mine red. With a 50’s style fur collar. This comparison of Presidents is spot-on. What could go wrong? Progressive experiment pizza parlor Dudley Dough (Boston) is closing. Surprise. Not Surprised. Johnny Carson would have been 92 this week. Dumb Ideas, part 264. We’re all going to end up in granny-pods anyway, so why not? Share this:TwitterFacebookTumblrRedditEmailPrint Related About Author Ginny Get off my lawn. 45 Comments Noway2016 Ouch! Lol! Keeps getting better and better…Ginny’s link https://pjmedia.com/trending/rewind-fbi-used-clinton-campaigns-steele-dossier-get-fisa-warrant-trump-campaign/ October 27, 2017 6:59 AM Log in to Reply Andrew C. Pope Not gonna download some Russian spyware just to read that article, but you do realize that, if a FISA warrant was issued, it came after a judge reviewed the evidence and found probable cause? Congratulations, you played yourself. October 27, 2017 7:19 AM Log in to Reply Noway2016 Well, it’s Ginny’s link first of all. And second, yor awful touchy. You’re afraid this Lib Collusion scandal has very long legs. Four words: Danbury Minimum Security Prison. LMAO! October 27, 2017 7:41 AM Log in to Reply Benevolus I hope it does have long legs. Maybe a couple more committee investigations would help! October 27, 2017 8:08 AM Log in to Reply Noway2016 I’ll just wait for the Special Prosecutor. Much more effective! Any odds on how long that takes? October 27, 2017 9:00 AM Benevolus On the one hand you have a party and candidate paying for oppo research. That is not collusion. On the other hand you have adversarial Russians reaching out to support a particular candidate, whose subsequent administration has very clearly and publicly done everything it can to “repay” them. That would be collusion. Add to that all the contacts with Russia. On the one hand: Manafort Flynn Junior’s meeting Tillerson/Exxon/sanctions Multiple people failing to disclose meetings with Russians On the other hand you have: ……. So yeah, bring on another investigation. Even if there are Dems guilty of colluding I would welcome we find that out. October 27, 2017 9:27 AM Andrew C. Pope This is going to be the extent of my comments on this: 1) I don’t care who paid for the “dossier.” It doesn’t matter. This is a red herring. The only thing that matters is what’s in the document and whether or not its true. I would imagine that Robert Muller and his investigators are trying to ascertain the veracity of the information contained in the document. 2) What we know is that the Clinton campaign and the DNC contracted an opposition research firm to do in-depth research on their opponent. Opposition research is standard practice for campaigns and has been standard practice since the dawn of our fair Republic. Shoot, some Republican candidate or donor had previously contracted the same firm, using the same individual before the Clinton team ever did. 3) The information contained in the document was so alarming to the intelligence community that they presented it to then President-Elect Trump because the felt he needed to know that it was circulating. Furthermore, the information was so concerning that John McCain and others forwarded the document to the FBI and other intelligence agencies. This ties back to #1, the information contained in the document was deemed important enough to the intelligence and national security community that they felt it was worth investigating. 4) I clicked on Noway’s link and it said that the dossier was “part” of the information considered by the FISA court in issuing a FISA warrant to the FBI. Assuming the article is true, that would indicate that there was more evidence than just the dossier presented. The fact a FISA warrant was issued means that the court found probable cause for issuing the warrant, something that, if I were Noway, I’d be concerned about. Again, if the information in the document is true, why does it matter if the information initially came to light as part of opposition research? Shoot, oppo research is how the case against Bob Menendez started. 5) You have to be an absolute moron to think that this evidences collusion between Russia and Clinton. I’m not being hyperbolic. If you believe that you are one of the dumbest people on the planet and I would caution you against handling sharp objects. To think that there’s collusion between the Clinton campaign and the Russians you would have to believe that the Clinton campaign’s grand scheme was to 1) pay money for opposition research; 2) have a dossier produced; 3) say nothing about the dossier; 4) lose the election; 5) ???; 6) profit. 6) I mean, seriously, does anyone really believe the Clinton campaign or the DNC’s plan was to have Russia hack into their private emails, release those emails, pretend that they were for Trump when they were secretly trying to help Hillary, put together a fake dossier, give the fake dossier to the Clinton campaign, and then have the Clinton campaign not actually release it before the election. Like I said, if you believe there was any sort of collusion between Russia and the Clintons with regard to this document you are probably not reading this because you forgot to breathe halfway through #3 and #4. October 27, 2017 11:59 AM evergreentree No spyware on pjmedia.com. Pajamas Media has been a leading conservative blog for over 10 years and it is mainstream, not far-right or alt-right or Trumpist like Breitbart or GatewayPundit. October 27, 2017 7:55 AM Log in to Reply Andrew C. Pope Hey look, some real news sources: Trump chooses not to deport illegal immigrant wanted for rape, bribery, and kidnapping because he’s a Mar-a-Lago member: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/10/trump-decides-not-to-deport-dissident-after-learning-hes-a-mar-a-lago-member Meanwhile, Border Patrol has detained a 10-year old girl with cerebral palsy. They stopped her ambulance en route to the hospital and stakes out her hospital room before taking her into custody. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41767631 On a lighter note, and in honor of the Hamilton/Adams article above, here’s the Adams-centric rap that was cut from the musical Hamilton: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oUI8b17YGx8 October 27, 2017 7:05 AM Log in to Reply evergreentree “Trump chooses not to deport illegal immigrant wanted for rape, bribery, and kidnapping because he’s a Mar-a-Lago member” That is an outrage. But I ask you … what are your opinions on deporting illegal immigrants generally? October 27, 2017 7:56 AM Log in to Reply Andrew C. Pope It’s too complicated a question to fully address in the comments section of a blog, but I’ll try and hit the basics: I think we should be deporting individuals convicted of felonies and violent misdemeanors in the United States. I don’t think it does any good to round up folks who are trying to make a living, trying to provide for their families, and have been peaceful, productive members of their community. For one, it’s a massive diversion of DHS resources away from both border protection and from locating and deporting the folks that should be deported. Second, it’s been shown that when immigrants fear deportation they’re less likely to report crime, domestic violence, and sexual assault to the appropriate authorities. Third, there’s also a financial incentive to lessening the fear of deportation in immigrant communities. As I mentioned yesterday, half of undocumented immigrants pay federal income taxes. One of the things that depresses that number is the fear in the immigrant community that filing a tax return will alert the government to an individual’s immigration status (despite the IRS’ promise it does not share immigration status with DHS). October 27, 2017 8:52 AM Log in to Reply evergreentree “I think we should be deporting individuals convicted of felonies and violent misdemeanors in the United States.” So then you support open borders with unrestricted immigration? Meaning that anyone can come here when they want and leave when they want so long as they do not commit a felony while they are here? I submit that this is – in practice – what you are advocating. If you believe otherwise please correct me. October 27, 2017 9:08 AM Log in to Reply Benevolus When are you going to ask how he feels about employers who hire undocumented workers? October 27, 2017 9:15 AM Andrew C. Pope There’s a difference between the interdiction of individuals at the border and deportation of individuals who have already established lives in the United States. At no point did I suggest “open borders” or “unrestricted immigration.” In fact, if you’ll slow down and read my earlier post you’ll see that I specifically noted how broadening deportation targets diverts funding away from things like border protection. DHS does not have the manpower to enforce the border appropriately while simultaneously rounding up every undocumented immigrant in the country. To pretend otherwise is folly. Accordingly, our focus should be on 1) better border control measures to prevent undocumented border crossings and 2) locating and deporting the individuals that come here and commit felonies and violent misdemeanors. October 27, 2017 9:31 AM evergreentree 1) better border control measures to prevent undocumented border crossings and Kindly name what these would be. The border is vast – and there is one with Canada too. 2) locating and deporting the individuals that come here and commit felonies and violent misdemeanors. They would only be deported after they serve their sentence right? October 27, 2017 12:27 PM Andrew C. Pope 1) You’re not going to control the border with fences and border patrols. Further, the National Immigration Forum stated in a study that we’ve accomplished about as much border control as possible without comprehensive immigration reform. Illegal immigration is the result of demand for work and family visas colliding with an immigration system that is woefully outdated. One of the smartest things we could do would be allowing more workers to enter the U.S. legally. Further, businesses need to be held accountable if they break the law by deliberately hiring and exploiting undocumented immigrants. If the demand for undocumented workers falls, the incentive for people to cross the border illegally will also decline. As for more physical border control measures, during the Obama Administration we stepped up the use of surveillance drones and tactical aircraft along the border as well as increases in border fencing and security personnel. 2) Not necessarily, the US has 12 bilateral prisoner transfer treaties, including treaties with Bolivia, Canada, Mexico, Panama, and Peru. We’re also party to multilateral prisoner transfer treaties, including the Inter American Convention on Serving Criminal Sentences Abroad, which is in force in Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, the U.S., and Venezuela. October 27, 2017 12:57 PM evergreentree Please no wasted energy on businesses who hire and exploit the undocumented. It is only designed to divert from the fact that the undocumented violate the law by coming and continue to violate the law by staying. It is a law that you disagree with or have little regard for so it is no issue for you when they break it. But the laws that you support and feel are important you wish to see strictly enforced with lawbreakers punished correct? 1. So you oppose deporting people claiming that they should be interdicted at the border. Once they are in, they are in unless they commit a felony or violent misdemeanor. 2. And you oppose doing anything more at the border than we are now despite the fact that it cannot, will not and has not worked. 3. Which means that you essentially wish to decriminalize illegal immigration in and of itself , allow the undocumented to bring their family members over and significantly increase the number of visas to come here legally. And have absolutely no recourse if their visas expire and they refuse to leave. But we would allow those who overstay their visas – estimated to be a bigger set of illegal immigrants than border crossers – to bring their families over also. Since it would be well nigh impossible to stop illegal immigration in practice – the border is rather easy to cross and nothing would be done to either border crossers or visa overstayers once they get here, and they would be able to bring their families over here with no impediments – I am sorry but an open immigration policy would be better. Eliminate the need to come here secretly and instead have them come here openly through channels designed to facilitate them. If we can’t control who gets to come here or do anything about it once they get here – and under your proposals both are true – we should at least know who they are, where in the U.S. they plan to go, what they plan to do while they are here and how long they plan to stay. That would be far better for our security situation than what exists now. October 27, 2017 9:31 PM Andrew C. Pope As a threshold matter, I’d like you to spend some time this weekend looking up whatever teacher you had for logic/argumentation class. I want you to find their number in the phone book. I want you to call them and apologize for learning absolutely nothing in their course. As for the collection of straw men and slippery slopes you put together with used chewing gum and bailing wire: Undocumented immigrants came here, and continue to come here, for work. They get work with business that are willing to hire undocumented immigrants. Believe it or not, some of those businesses take advantage of their immigration status to get away with inhumane working conditions, unfair wages, and exploitative business practices. If you want to stem the flow of immigration to the United States, you need to reduce the demand for their labor. You can do that by increasing penalties for companies that deliberately hire and exploit undocumented immigrants (thereby decreasing the number of companies willing to hire undocumented immigrants). While you’re calling your logic/argumentation teacher, dial up whoever taught you intro to economics, because you owe them an apology as well. Into the numbered arguments we travel: 1. I have said, repeatedly, that it is a waste of DHS resources to have a broad based deportation strategy that doesn’t appropriately prioritize individuals that pose a greater risk to society. A modicum of reading comprehension ability would have allowed you to understand this point. 2. I never said anything to that effect. Seriously, do you need to add your middle and high school English teachers to this phone tree you’ve started? Our current border control measures (which were ramped up during the Obama Administration from an already aggressive W. Bush policy) have helped reduce the number of immigrants crossing our southern border. What is your definition of “has not worked?” Because your observation that our current level of border enforcement “cannot, will not, and has not worked” is just plain wrong. Don’t take my word for it, dial up anyone with any substantive experience in immigration policy and they’ll tell you the same thing. They’ll also tell you that if you think that we’ll be able to stop all undocumented entries over the southern border or that a wall will some how stop illegal immigration, you’re dumber than Trump. We’ve reached the point with our physical border security measures where, to achieve further substantive reductions in immigration flows, we need to enact systemic level changes through comprehensive immigration reform to reduce demand for labor from undocumented immigrants, improve development in Central/Latin America, and cooperate with our neighbors in the region to combat drug cartels and human trafficking organizations. 3. No, that is not what I’ve said. As I pointed out earlier, you’re not very good at this whole “logical argument” thing. I wish to have an immigration system that prioritizes individuals that actually pose some form of societal risk, not 10 year old girls with cerebral palsy. These are, believe it or not, human beings with friends, families, jobs, and lives. Bursting into a little girl’s hospital room to send her to an immigration facility doesn’t just impact that one girl, it impacts her parents, her siblings, her friends, her neighbors. My faith has taught me that we should love and care for those around us, we should help the stranger among us. For a country that so frequently complains of attacks on its “Judeo-Christian values” I find it perverse that the same country seems willing to rip families apart for the “crime” of trying to find a better life. 3b. As to your slippery slope about a parade of immigrant families coming over the border. Assuming I argued for “decriminalizing” illegal immigration. That still wouldn’t make undocumented immigrants citizens and, accordingly, it wouldn’t boost their ability to bring over family members on visas beyond their present ability to bring over family members on visas. Some other scattered responses: the border is rather easy to cross I encourage you to try and swim across the Rio Grande or walk through miles and miles of an Arizona desert. Until that time, maybe hold off on saying that a border crossing is “easy” it just demonstrates that you’re someone who is merely repeating whatever they’ve seen on Hannity. nothing would be done to either border crossers or visa overstayers once they get here, and they would be able to bring their families over here with no impediments Again, that isn’t true. Hate to drop the lawyer card, but I’ve actually worked on immigration policy and with immigration courts, you literally have zero clue what you’re talking about. Eliminate the need to come here secretly and instead have them come here openly through channels designed to facilitate them. That’s what DACA is, in a way, designed to do. Bring folks out of the shadows so we have a better sense of who is here, and offer them a status that allows them to go to school, get jobs, live a life, with a little less fear that ICE is going to stop their ambulance on the way to the hospital and stake out their hospital room waiting to arrest them. October 28, 2017 12:06 AM xdog Saudi Arabia grants citizenship to a robot named Sophia, proving that if you’re rich enough weirdness doesn’t matter. October 27, 2017 7:40 AM Log in to Reply Andrew C. Pope The robot already has more rights than women in Saudi Arabia do. October 27, 2017 9:01 AM Log in to Reply evergreentree On the Roxbury’s Dudley Dough thing … something like 60% of small businesses fail so blaming their failure on their progressive ideology is a bit of a reach. Also why bash entrepreneurs for innovating and trying something different? Entrepreneurs who try out novel ideas have a far higher failure rate than regular businesses. A lot of them keep trying – and failing – over and over again until they finally get it right. Also the idea that if you pay workers higher wages and train them, you will have a more productive, more loyal and better skilled workforce is precisely the mindset that our postwar economic boom was based on. The salary race to the bottom practice came along later and I really have trouble identifying who benefits from it beyond the CEOs and mutual funds. In this era there wasn’t much talk about living wages because a lot more employers paid them voluntarily. Do not mistake me. I am not a progressive. I am very much capitalist and free market. But what I oppose is the government imposing ideas like this on businesses. But if within the free market system people want to try various experiments on how to run their business voluntarily, without the government forcing them to, it is perfectly fine. They shouldn’t be mocked, belittled and dismissed for trying, or for having the beliefs in the first place. Also someone else might come along and get it to work. I remember when Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream was criticized for having a policy that limited the salary of the CEO to several multiples of the salary of the lowest paid employees. So if the CEO wanted a raise, he had to give everyone else a raise also. I would imagine that the “Hot Air” people would have been among their most vehement critics had they been around back then. Yet their leftist ideology didn’t prevent Ben & Jerry’s from being a very successful company. So maybe these pizza owners just need to learn from their failures and try again. October 27, 2017 7:49 AM Log in to Reply Ginny I’m not bashing anyone. I simply presented an article. October 27, 2017 9:09 AM Log in to Reply Indypendant Not surprised. October 27, 2017 9:56 AM Log in to Reply Ellynn I always enjoy a different OV, so you just keep doing whatcha doing. October 27, 2017 12:03 PM Log in to Reply evergreentree I meant to attack Hot Air and not you. Nonetheless I apologize for what I wrote. October 27, 2017 12:29 PM Log in to Reply kvnryn Speaking of reputable news sources…I’m pretty sure today is the 27th. October 27, 2017 9:20 AM Log in to Reply Ginny LOL. “I have missing time.” October 27, 2017 2:47 PM Log in to Reply Andrew C. Pope I don’t know what to believe anymore: https://www.marketplace.org/2017/08/15/life/big-book/your-pumpkin-pie-lie October 27, 2017 9:31 AM Log in to Reply Ellynn If you ever make a pie using an actual pumpkin (which is how I learned as a child) you know it is much more fibrous -you needed to really stew it down and then mash it through a wire mesh colander. I just steam it and run through a Vitimix or a NutraNinja. You use less liquid when you make it too then the can version. As to Cheesecake… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_cheese and don’t get me started on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neufch%C3%A2tel_cheese October 27, 2017 12:29 PM Log in to Reply Noway2016 MAGA! http://news.gallup.com/poll/221060/americans-best-holiday-shopping-mood-years.aspx Ohhhh, Merry Christmas! October 27, 2017 11:04 AM Log in to Reply Benevolus Yay! Ask and ye shall receive: A Josh McKoon quote! “Today’s AP report raises serious legal questions and is troubling to say the least. If it is true, conservatives should have serious concerns about the sanctity of their ballot,” McKoon wrote, adding that it “seriously erodes fundamental trust in our electoral process” at a time of shaky public confidence in the government. (Greg Bluestein) http://politics.blog.myajc.com/2017/10/27/fallout-from-ksu-data-erasure-likely-to-be-political-rather-than-legal/ I’m glad non-conservatives don’t have to worry. October 27, 2017 1:15 PM Log in to Reply Dave Bearse Reynolds isn’t continuing to make tin foil for nothing. October 27, 2017 9:43 PM Log in to Reply Andrew C. Pope White House wants everyone to believe Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein’s accusers. However, when it comes to the 13 women who’ve accused Trump (a guy who straight up admitted he sexually assaults women) the White House’s official position is that all of them are lying. Btw, Trump never followed through on that promise to sue them for defamation. October 27, 2017 8:13 PM Log in to Reply Dave Bearse An instance where he didn’t follow through from BS through lies to attack. I feel you, but I think you’re being played. A one sentence response the statement you support open borders in response to discussing deportation is that those that oppose additional gun control think the mentally unstable have the right to purchase guns. October 27, 2017 9:51 PM Log in to Reply Benevolus Manafort and Flynn are most exposed of course. I don’t know how it plays out with the obstruction of justice charges though. Is that hard to prove? Trump basically admitted it. October 27, 2017 8:48 PM Log in to Reply Noway2016 What are the charges each might face? Manafort? Flynn? I say nothing to do with campaign. Not sure about Manafort but Flynn maybe not being truthful on security paperwork but nothing to do with Trump. Opinion? October 28, 2017 9:47 AM Log in to Reply Ellynn This is leverage. Manafort investigations have been on going since 2015 with illegal ties to Russian and Ukraine. That would explain the quickness of an indictment. He also has ties to the Russian banks that were about to tried for money laundering (Banks had ties to Trump and Kushner company projects or funding) by the NY federal AG when he was fired then Sessions settled a month later for a small fine. The New York state AG can also charge Manafort on any banking related issue, since the Russian banks have their US HQ in New York City – Trump can’t pardon state charges. Flynn has federal issues about lying to the FBI about talking to Russian ambassadors during the campaign, his son has some possible issues, plus defense department protocol around his activities for Russian and Turkish interests, before and during the campaign. Low hanging fruit that has connections to the campaign, but the two were present during some alleged issues, and can confirm or lead towards other campaign issues. October 28, 2017 10:36 AM Log in to Reply Noway2016 Stir that pot! Stir that pot! Stir that pot! Sanitize that history!!! Yessiree, Bob!! Everything ‘z gonna be alllllllllll better now! https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/357608-george-washingtons-virginia-church-taking-down-his-memorial%3famp October 28, 2017 8:40 AM Log in to Reply Andrew C. Pope It’s a private institution that you don’t even attend. Ever since Trump was elected, you’ve become such an easily triggered snowflake. I swear, it’s like you deplorables just go out searching for things to be offended by. October 28, 2017 10:16 AM Log in to Reply Ellynn They are taking down statues of Washington and Lee that flank an alter in a private church. Congregations move statuary all the time. The statue of St Frances has been moved 4 times in my lifetime at my home church in Wisconsin. It’s not even in the church anymore, it’s in the lobby of the school. Where is your outrage for St Frances? October 28, 2017 10:55 AM Log in to Reply Andrew C. Pope Time for another iteration of the World’s Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party (screw you, Michael Adams, I’ll call it what I want!) our annual reminder that the State of Florida and its flagship university are abomonations that should be cast into oblivion. Go Dawgs! October 28, 2017 10:18 AM Log in to Reply Ellynn This is a good read. http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/453210/trump-republican-snowflake-caucus-loyalty-not-agenda-important-trump?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=171027_G-File&utm_term=GFile October 28, 2017 11:34 AM Log in to Reply Dave Bearse From the link: “Everyone’s talking about the civil war in the Republican Party. It seems more like a surrender to us.” — Weekly Standard “And, finally, there’s the fact that, like Trump, many of these people don’t care about policy either. As Michael Brendan Dougherty recently pointed out, the culture-war spats and nasty personal fights are to a very real extent Trump’s true agenda, or at least it’s what people who love the Trump Show love about the Trump Show.” . . Can you ever trust any Republican for whom Trump’s “accomplishments” warrant complicit quiet? And with others there’s no conclusion beyond willful obliviousness. October 28, 2017 12:29 PM Log in to Reply Dave Bearse Came across this while completing reading for the day and thought of the preceding Weekly Standard quote: “I don’t know if you’re paying attention, but internal strife is tearing the Republican Party apart at the seams. It’s like a new Civil War, only neither side is trying to help black people.” —Stephen Colbert October 28, 2017 1:11 PM Log in to Reply Noway2016 Other news for The Libs: just saw Hannity movie!! Let There Be Light! Moving and inspirational!! Taking America back…one ticket at a time!! October 28, 2017 2:33 PM Log in to Reply Add a Comment Cancel replyYou must be logged in to post a comment.