Tara Palmeri: EXCLUSIVE: Deciding Vote Blocking Epstein Files Tied To Ghislaine Maxwell

"What hidden connections could a U.S. senator have to Jeffrey Epstein’s inner circle?

In this exclusive episode, reporter and researcher Abi Baker and I to dive into my bombshell investigation from The Red Letter, uncovering Senator Lisa Murkowski’s ties to Ghislaine Maxwell and her husband, Scott Borgerson, through elite Arctic Circle conferences and powerful Alaskan donors. You can read the full investigation here:Tara Palmeri.

We break down how Murkowski, the deciding vote against releasing the Epstein files, shares a tangled web of connections with Maxwell. From Senate hearings to high-profile events, we reveal the details and ask why transparency remains elusive. Check out the full story at TaraPalmeri.com and join us for part one of our series, The Reckoning, as we hold those blocking the Epstein files accountable.

How do Murkowski’s ties to Maxwell influence her vote on the Epstein files—drop your thoughts in the comments below." 

Source:Tara Palmeri I believe with the scoop of the day.

From Tara Palmeri

Also from Tara Palmeri:

"How one survivor is exposing Senator Lisa Murkowski’s quiet ties to Ghislaine Maxwell and her husband Scott Borgerson.

Here’s the thing about the victims of Jeffrey Epstein: they’re not going away. In fact, they’re hellbent on forcing Congress to pay attention after being ignored for decades. That’s why I’m launching The Reckoning, a series spotlighting how survivors are taking justice into their own hands because no one else will. These reports will track how they’re breaking chains of silence and demanding accountability from leaders while the Justice Department still refuses to release the Epstein files.

Part one of the series zeroes in on Epstein survivor and Alaskan Marijke Chartouni, who has turned her attention to Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the deciding vote on September 10 to block the release of the Epstein files. Chartouni uncovered Murkowski’s longstanding ties to Ghislaine Maxwell’s husband, Scott Borgerson, and the many occasions Murkowski appeared on stage with Maxwell at ocean-advocacy conferences. They were appearances that, intentionally or not, helped launder Maxwell’s name even as she was publicly linked to Epstein...

From Tara Palmeri

As I wrote about this 2 weeks ago: 

"Senator Murkowski making the case for Congressional term limits with just this 1 statement right here: 

"The amendment was a surprise and disrupted the normal process of working on the defense bill."

This is what you can sound like when you've been in Congress for over 20 years: you run out of good policy arguments to vote against something that could hurt you with your right-wing, if you vote against them and instead rely on procedure, because you don't want to offend other voters in your state, or hurt your credibility in Washington...

From The New Democrat

So what Tara Palmeri and her associate discovered through their investigation, would explain why Senator Lisa Murkowski sounded like a senator who was just wrapping up a 20 hour filibuster and instead of just reading out of the local Washington phonebook, or reading from a children's book, or the ingredients from a bunch of can goods... she instead says: 

"The amendment was a surprise and disrupted the normal process of working on the defense bill."

That was the official reason for why Senator Murkowski voted against the release of the Epstein files, 18 days ago. But the real reason looks like that this distinguished Senator is probably in the Epstein files, or at least in the Ghislaine Maxwell files. Because she has a working relationship with Maxwell's ex-husband, Scott Borgerson. 

Now, if there is evidence that Mr. Borgerson is, or was a campaign contributor to 1 of Senator Murkowksi's campaigns, that would be what we call in Washington a smoking gun. But at least we now know the real reason why she voted against the release of the Epstein files. And it has nothing to do with Congressional procedures and rules. 

This Murkowski-Borgerson connection, you could say this is 1 reason why people hate Congress and their representatives. 1 problem with that: the people keep voting for the same people over and over who are primarily, if not exclusively interested in their own political careers. So who's fault is that? 

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Michele Tafoya: Kimmel Wasn't Silenced

"I wish that FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, whom I recently hosted on my podcast, had not spoken the way he did about Jimmy Kimmel’s reprehensible — and false — remarks on last Monday’s edition of his late-night show.

Optics matter, and Carr’s language sounded like a threat.

But ultimately, it was Disney/ABC that suspended Jimmy Kimmel’s show, not the federal government.

We may never know the precise details of the decisions made by Kimmel’s bosses. But what we do know is that the First Amendment was not violated.

Enshrined in the Bill of Rights is this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress made no law that led to Kimmel’s suspension.

Free Speech allows you to say whatever you want. But there may be consequences for what your words. The government can’t punish you, but your employer has the legal right to suspend or terminate you for saying something that does not align with their values.

The outcry over Kimmel’s suspension has been predictably over-the-top. And it has also been rooted in misinformation about the First Amendment.

Kimmel was misinforming his audience on publicly owned airwaves, which are licensed by the FCC. The stations complained. Action was taken.

Kimmel has not been silenced, as many Hollywood and political screamers have ridiculously and falsely claimed. Kimmel can go to Satellite radio, cable television, the Internet, or anywhere else he wants and continue his career. Hell, he can go on tour and perform live.

The First Amendment has NOT been violated. Jimmy Kimmel has NOT been silenced.

And something else can also be true: no one is entitled to a late-night show on network television. Nothing in the Constitution gives anyone that privilege."

Source:Substack Michele Tafoya. Don't let her adorable disposition fool you.

From Michele Tafoya

As I wrote about this 10 days ago: 

"I mean assuming we survive the Trump Administration (perhaps I should start praying for that everyday) and the next President (hopefully starting in January, 2029) is a pro-Constitution, pro-rule of law... pro-law & order, (if you will President) does MAGA really want a Democratic administration, going after the Greg Gutfeld's, the Sean Hannity's, the Jesse Watters, the Laura Ingraham's? Because they all have bad habits of flat-out lying, or not even knowing what they're even talking about, when they do their commentaries (advertised as news) every night to their audiences. 

I would bet anything that 4 years from now, if there is a Democratic administration at that point, MAGA and company will start pretending to be "champions of free speech again", if a Democratic led FCC starts targeting their commentators... 

From The New Democrat

To be completely fair... all cards on the table, (as they say... somewhere) this blog post from Michele Tafoya, was published 8 days ago. Which is a day before ABC announced that Jimmy Kimmel Live is coming back and his first show back would be that Tuesday night. And she obviously didn't know that the Kimmel suspension was about to be over.

But as Michele Tafoya said: 

"I wish that FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, whom I recently hosted on my podcast, had not spoken the way he did about Jimmy Kimmel’s reprehensible — and false — remarks on last Monday’s edition of his late-night show.

Optics matter, and Carr’s language sounded like a threat.

But ultimately, it was Disney/ABC that suspended Jimmy Kimmel’s show, not the federal government.... 

ABC only suspended Jimmy Jimmel after: 

"On Wednesday - Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Brendan Carr, a Trump appointee, publicly criticized ABC for Kimmel's remarks, threatening regulatory action.

That same day - The suspension followed decisions by major station owners like Sinclair and Nexstar to preempt the show on their local ABC affiliates.

On Thursday - aboard Air Force One, Trump told reporters that networks giving him bad press "maybe" deserve to have their licenses taken away.

Trump also stated that it would be "up to Brendan Carr" to make such a decision, calling the FCC chairman "outstanding" and a "patriot...

From The New Democrat

So Kimmel was only suspended after the FCC threatened to pull ABC's broadcasting license. Does Michele Tafoya want to talk about this story from the perspective of a defense lawyer, (which she's not) or from the perspective of a journalist (which she's also not)? The journalist gets all the relevant facts that they can and puts them out there. The partisan commentator (which is something that Michele Tafoya is clearly more than qualified to be) just puts out the facts that best supports whatever partisan argument that they're making. Just like with a defense lawyer who only as their client to represent. 

And her 2nd point: 

"Congress made no law that led to Kimmel’s suspension.

Free Speech allows you to say whatever you want. But there may be consequences for what your words. The government can’t punish you, but your employer has the legal right to suspend or terminate you for saying something that does not align with their values... 

She's technically correct that Congress didn't make any law on this case. What she's leaving out is that they didn't have to. The FCC can pull licenses of television networks, which is what they threatened to do in ABC's case, because of Jimmy Kimmel's comment about Charlie Kirk and MAGA. With ABC responding to that by suspending Jimmy Jimmy Live for about a week. So it was government pressure that led to the Kimmel suspension. 

And as Michele Tafoya also said: 

"The government can’t punish you, but your employer has the legal right to suspend or terminate you for saying something that does not align with their values...

"You employer has the legal right to suspend or terminate you for saying something that does not align with their values... 

Hate to break it to Tafoya, ABC is not a church, it's not a religion, not a religious organization. It's a for-profit company as a broadcast network. Like their parent company, Disney, ABC is in the business to make money. They suspended Kimmel because the FCC threatened pull their license had they not. They brought Kimmel back because of the outcry from the Kimmel suspension and they were losing money keeping Kimmel off the air. The same reason why Sinclair and Nexstar brought Kimmel back last Friday. 

This has nothing to do with "values". As my colleague Kire Schneider likes to say: "Money talks and bullshit walks". The "bullshit" here being the Kimmel suspension in the first place. The "money" part being all the money that Jimmy Kimmel brings to ABC, as well as Sinclair and Nexstar. $70 million a year alone, just from the TV show on ABC, for ABC, alone.

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, and Twitter.

Bill Scher: The Democrats’ Shutdown Strategy Is Bad

"The president’s decision to threaten mass layoffs of federal workers should prompt Democrats to shift course.

With little chance of passage for legislation to keep the federal government open before the new fiscal year begins on October 1, President Donald Trump instructed federal agencies to prepare for mass layoffs—not temporary layoffs during a typical government shutdown, but permanent layoffs that would leave thousands—maybe hundreds of thousands—of American workers unemployed.  

The Washington Post asserted that “the directive increases pressure on congressional Democrats.” This is incorrect. The directive is intended to pressure congressional Democrats because they don’t want to see the civil service decimated, but it does the opposite. By eagerly compounding the negative consequences of a shutdown, Trump is complicating any attempt to pin a shutdown solely on Democrats.  

Meanwhile, Democrats are flying close to the political sun by making policy demands in exchange for keeping the government open, focusing on the looming expiration of enhanced levels of Affordable Care Act subsidies. Last week, Senator Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on the Senate floor, “We want to keep the government open by engaging in bipartisan negotiations, where we can address some of the grave harms Donald Trump has caused to our healthcare system and help Americans with the cost of living.” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries also centered on health care, telling reporters on Wednesday, “Any agreement related to protecting the health care of the American people has to be ironclad and in legislation.” 

As I wrote earlier this month, every past attempt to use government shutdowns to extract policy concessions has failed, even when the policy demands are politically popular, because “shutdowns make people forget what you have to say. Public attention shifts to how shutdowns hurt average Americans and how one political party is willing to harm constituents to play political games. Once public opinion quickly turns, the shutdown agitators invariably realize the shutdown failed to provide negotiating leverage and eventually cave.” 

Democrats might take solace that Trump is blundering towards at least partial ownership of a shutdown, but they are still at high risk of owning a piece for themselves.

From The Washington Monthly

My counsel to Democrats was and is to walk away from the negotiating table completely, because Republicans have already broken faith by clawing back money from the last bipartisan spending deal. With Trump and his budget director explicitly trashing the idea of a bipartisan appropriations process, Democrats have additional ground to say: Republicans want to keep the government open by themselves, so any shutdown is their problem to solve, not ours. If that means Republicans need to suspend or end the filibuster to do it, that’s also on them. Last week, Trump even said of the opposition party, “Don’t even bother dealing with them.” 

In a New York Times column, Nate Silver argued Democrats should swap tariffs for health care as the issue to link to keeping the government open, since Trump’s tariffs are demonstrably unpopular and could “drive a greater wedge between Mr. Trump and congressional Republicans.” I believe this still violates the cardinal rule about shutdown demands: No matter how popular the demand is in a vacuum, that popularity will be overwhelmed by the unpopularity of the shutdown.  

Silver expressed sympathy for my proposal but fretted, “The message—actually, we’re not negotiating, we’re refusing to negotiate; you have your majorities and all of this is your problem—would require a lot of discipline in practice, and Democrats aren’t very good at that.” I disagree! It’s a simple message succinctly articulated by Nate Silver!  

It doesn’t need detailed policy explanations. Reporters can’t probe for weaknesses by suggesting hypothetical compromises. Once Democrats say they’ve walked away from a table that Republicans never invited them to join, there’s essentially nothing left for them to discuss or do. Media attention will quickly shift away from the Democrats, as the focus turns to: So, what will Republicans do to address this crisis? 

To quibble with Silver’s summation of the message, “we’re refusing to negotiate” should be replaced with “Trump is refusing to negotiate.” Combined with Trump’s mass layoff plan, this gives Schumer and Jeffries an off-ramp from their current doomed-to-fail strategy. Democratic policies that poll well cannot bring Trump to heel because the president is a budding authoritarian who ignores polls. If you propose an idea that helps people, he will counter with one that harms them and dare you to escalate further.  

If it wasn’t clear that Trump and his Republican allies were not good-faith negotiating partners before, it should be now. Forgive the glib sports analogy, but you can’t win a game with someone playing an entirely different game. So, stop playing...  

SourceThe Washington Monthly: 

"Democrats' Shutdown Strategy: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., hold a news conference on the GOP reconciliation bill, at the Capitol in Washington, on Wednesday. Schumer and Jeffries are gambling with government shutdown brinkmanship. But Trump’s plan for mass federal layoffs is proof he won’t negotiate in good faith, and the Democrats should walk away. Credit: Associated Press"

From The Washington Monthly

As I wrote about the almost Chuck Schumer government shutdown back in March: 

"So it looks like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and company have selected option a, which is to try to block this bill in hopes that Senate Majority Leader John Thune would sit down with Leader Schumer and they would work out a compromise. That's a really risky play. A lot of political incentive for the Majority Leader to say: 

"No. We're in charge, we won the elections, we have The White House and Congress. Go ahead and shut the government down and take the blame for it". 

Which would be my response even as a Democrat, (from a political standpoint) if the Democrats controlled The White House and Congress right now and someone was drunk, high, stupid, and crazy enough (trust me: plenty of people with all those characteristics at once in Washington) to elect me Senate Majority Leader. 

If John Thune doesn't compromise here, this would be the best case scenario: 

Senate Democrats relent and buck their leader and maybe 10 of them vote for cloture, just to avid the government shutdown on Friday. 

Worst case scenario: the government shuts down this weekend because Leader Schumer holds his members together and. So now we're in a shutdown next week and maybe Senate Democrats relent then because the politics here for them (especially if they're up for reelection in 26) is too bad for them...

From The New Democrat

And as I wrote about this last week: 

"There is a very good reason why we've only had 1 government shutdown that was pushed by the opposition party when they were also the minority parry in Congress, but had enough seats in the Senate to prevent funding bills from going through, with just a simple majority vote... at least in the Internet age: this would never work!!!

The Ezra Klein's, the Ron Filipkowski's, and anyone else on the activist far-left in America, will just say: 

"Republicans are in complete control of the government. Even a Senate Democratic led shutdown would be blamed on The White House and Congressional Republicans, because they are in complete control. And most Americans don't understand the cloture rule in the Senate". 

Fine. But there's 1 big problem with that: Most Americans still get their news from the media. The national Washington media understands Congressional rules and procedures that look like they could've been written in Greek or Arabic, as far as how complicated they are. 

The voters will learn very quickly that if the government shutdowns, it will be because of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and his Senate Democrats. If Leader Schumer lost his political brain in the Potomac River or some place... perhaps he went out drinking with Senator Markwayne Mullin 1 night and lost all his brain cells. (Inside Washington joke...

From The New Democrat

And just for a point of clarification: when I said last week about Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's political 'intelligence": "If Leader Schumer lost his political brain in the Potomac River or some place... perhaps he went out drinking with Senator Markwayne Mullin 1 night and lost all his brain cells. (Inside Washington joke...

Yeah. looks like I've overestimated Leader Schumer's political "intelligence" on government shutdowns... at least so far. he still has 4 days and some change to fold faster than the "House Freedom Caucus" when it comes to big government funding bills. Or, like a mouse who is surrounded by a pack of kitties. 

Or, maybe Leader Schumer did lose his political brain in the Potomac River 1 night. 

Or, Leader Schumer went out drinking with Senator Mullin (inside Washington joke) and gave up his political brain cells for all the alcohol that he could pay for. Perhaps Senator Mullin was an inside plant by The White House to get Leader Schumer drunk one night, so he would be political braindead to even contemplate doing this. (Ha, ha)

This is the point that I want Democrats, especially left-wing Democrats, who read this to focus on and it's from Bill Scher, who is no one's MAGA man or, even a conservative: 

"The president’s decision to threaten mass layoffs of federal workers should prompt Democrats to shift course.

With little chance of passage for legislation to keep the federal government open before the new fiscal year begins on October 1, President Donald Trump instructed federal agencies to prepare for mass layoffs—not temporary layoffs during a typical government shutdown, but permanent layoffs that would leave thousands—maybe hundreds of thousands—of American workers unemployed...

So, under The Anti-Deficiency Act, when the government shutdowns, the executive branch, under The White House and Office of Management Budget, gets to decide who is essential and who is nonessential, when it comes to the federal workforce. Meaning, who gets to show up to work, who has to stay home, who has to show up and work for free, during the shutdown. 

In case anyone who sees this, was born last night, (and if you are able to read before you even reach 1 day old, I'm fairly impressed) Donald John Trump is currently President of the United States and Russell Vought is currently the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Do you really want these two "gentlemen" in charge of what stays open and is closed, who gets to go to work, who stays home, who has to work for free, during a government shutdown? 

Mr. Vought is 1 of the chief authors of Project 2025, which is a document that lays out how a President Trump could claim and use more executive authority, then the Constitution currently gives the President of the United States. And how they could essentially get away with that. Is this who you want in charge of the government shutdown in Washington? 

At least if Congress passed a government funding bill, (whatever you actually think of the actual bill) there are laws there that the courts can protect, requiring the executive branch to spend this amount of money, with this amount of workers in place enforcing those spending requirements. But put Trump and Vought in charge, thanks to your shutdown, there's no one left in place who could even try to hold the President and OMB accountable during a shutdown. 

As Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said so himself back in March: 

"I believe it is my job to make the best choice for the country, to minimize the harms to the American people. Therefore, I will vote to keep the government open, and not shut it down.

A government shutdown would give President Trump and his allies "the keys to the city, state and country. While the CR bill is very bad, the potential for a shutdown has consequences for America that are much, much worse."

From CBS News

If you are a person of the Left, (whether you personally identity as center, left-wing, or far-left) and you think that shutting the government would be a good thing, because as actress/comedian Nancy Lee Grahn said the other day: 

"Democrats, the Republicans are gonna shut down the government which will cause unspeakable pain to Americans. Make them own it. And use that time to explain and educate the world in easy to understand language as to what the Republicans have done, and why THEY and their billionaire benficiaries and donors are to blame for everyone's pain." 

From Nancy Lee Grahn

Maybe you are a leftist who thinks this is your way to get back at Donald Trump: "Yeah, man... this is our chance to take a stand against the man!" Or in this case, The Donald. Perhaps unaware that 1969 ended 56 years ago and militant left-wing groups like The Weather Underground and Students For a Democratic Society went out of business not shortly after the 1960s ended... at least on our calendars. 

Or, as Nancy L. Grahn said: "Democrats, the Republicans are gonna shut down the government which will cause unspeakable pain to Americans. Make them own it... Which translate to, let the government shutdown and then try to put that blame on the Republicans for it.

And another thing; taking political advice from entertainers, like in Nancy Lee Grahn's case who is so good, it can be difficult to tell when she's being serious... that's like taking medical advice from your local mechanic and ignoring your doctor. Except in that case, you are only putting your own health a risk. But in this case, you are putting the country's economic health, as well as out system of checks and balances, at risk. 

Again, as Nancy L. Grahn said: "Democrats, the Republicans are gonna shut down the government which will cause unspeakable pain to Americans. Make them own it... If this is your line of political "thinking" right now, I have some really bad news for you.

Just think about how badly this week as gone for Trump and company: 

Jimmy Kimmel back on ABC

Democrats win their 2nd straight House election in 2 weeks, with overwhelming numbers

House Democrats and Representative Tom Massie (Republican, Kentucky) now have the votes in the House to pass the release of the Epstein files

Even Sinclair has brought back Jimmy Kimmel, with their announcement today. 

If Chuck Schumer and his Senate Democrats shutdown the government next Wednesday... the media is longer talking about: 

Jimmy Kimmel and what he has to say about MAGA and company. 

They're no longer talking about Epstein files. 

Or another bad inflation report for The White House, or another bad jobs report for The White House. 

All they're talking about next week, is the Schumer shutdown. And the American people will learn very quickly who's fault this is. They'll know that Congress can't pass a government funding bill, even though the House already passed 1, because Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer won't let his members vote for cloture on the House bill. Sorry for a lot of inside Washington lingo here. But this is where I live and work. 

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Salena Zito: Our Counterculture Revolution is Here & it is a Revival

"Something big is happening with America’s young people. It has been building for the past two years. It centers on faith, purpose, and a renewal toward more traditional American values. This new American youth counterculture movement looks very different from the one that burst onto the scene in the 1960s.

Sixty years ago, the youth movement on college campuses set out to upend our culture’s status quo — the rebellion created a seismic cultural and political shift away from post World War II traditionalism.

And for the next 60 years, we inched towards leftist ideologies that began with noble purposes such as the Civil Rights Act and equal pay for women. Then we went from center-left to leftist to far left. The ideology infiltrated all of the dominant cultural centers: government, institutions, technology, academia, corporations, Hollywood, and legacy media.

And church attendance across all faiths, particularly among our young people, plummeted.

Pretty soon, what was once the counterculture was now the status quo — it had the power and influence on society. It wasn’t until COVID and the unbearable totalitarianism of its impact on our society that people began to see that our dominant cultural power base needed a dose of its own medicine.

Every counterculture movement is a rebellion against the dominant culture. Now, our young people are leading the way by rejecting the conformity demanded by our culture and its elite gatekeepers who crush dissent from anyone who questions their authority.

What has been missing for many young people is a relationship with God. I first noticed this soft awakening in 2023 when walking across the Roberto Clemente Bridge here in Pittsburgh and saw hundreds of young people literally jumping in the water while religious music was playing on the shore line.

It was a spontaneous baptism that included hundreds of young people who decided this was the day they would accept Jesus into their lives. The moment was powerful and moving — just as powerful and moving as two Sundays ago when days after Charlie Kirk was assassinated, young people showed up at The Sanctuary Church in the Hill District of Pittsburgh. They came by the droves to express their faith.

“And what we are witnessing across this country is an awakening with our young people, a true revival.”

These moments are not anecdotal. Two recent reports have shown a dramatic shift among young people and their relationship with their faith. First, the Pew Research Center released a report showing that the decades-long decline in Americans identifying as Christian leveled off, followed by a survey done by the Barna Group that showed that downward trend is now in full reverse.

And who is driving the return to church? These reports show the rise in faith is being driven by those in their 20s and 30s.

“Since the pandemic Millennials and Gen Z have shown significant increases in commitment to Jesus,” the Barna Group study reads, “while Boomers and Gen X, especially women, have remained flat in their commitment levels to Jesus.”

Last Thursday, a remarkable moment happened on the campus of the University of Pittsburgh when 600 college students showed up for a first-ever “Pitt for Jesus” event. There, it was clear we are in the midst of a revival.

The event featured nearly 100 baptisms, live worship music, prayer, testimonies by athletes and a spiritual awakening among young people that was profound to experience.

Sunday’s memorial service for Charlie Kirk was an example of a large revival. These young people have behaved boldly since the horrid murder, but not in the way our current cultural curators find acceptable, as Erika Kirk said on Sunday.

“These past 10 days after Charlie’s assassination, we didn’t see violence. We didn’t see rioting. We didn’t see revolution. Instead, we saw what my husband always prayed he would see in this country. We saw... 

Source:Salena Zito is a syndicated, right-wing, political columnist.

From Salena Zito

So I guess my response to Salena Zito is a counterpoint to what she's arguing. I'll be the contrarian to what she's trying to argue here. 

She's essentially saying that church attendance is up and more American are finding God again because: 

"Since the pandemic Millennials and Gen Z have shown significant increases in commitment to Jesus,” the Barna Group study reads, “while Boomers and Gen X, especially women, have remained flat in their commitment levels to Jesus...

But according to the United Religious Initiative: 

"Jesus Christ's core religious philosophy, deeply rooted in his Jewish heritage, centered on the love of God and neighbor, emphasized a God of love and mercy, and taught a form of virtue ethics focused on compassion and selfless living, as best summarized by his command to love God and love your neighbor as yourself and his use of parables to convey moral lessons. His teachings also included radical ethical principles, such as the importance of seeking the Kingdom of God, giving to the needy, and pursuing peace and nonviolence, all presented within an apocalyptic framework of God's impending intervention in history... 

From the United Religious Initiative

Now, based on what I showed you from URI, does that sound like MAGA today? 

Does their Dear Leader Donald John Trump sound like a man who believes: 

"love of God and neighbor, emphasized a God of love and mercy, and taught a form of virtue ethics focused on compassion and selfless living, as best summarized by his command to love God and love your neighbor as yourself and his use of parables to convey moral lessons..."?

Is what you hear from FOX News, or Newsmax every night (assuming you even watch FOX News or Newsmax) sound like people who believe: 

"love of God and neighbor, emphasized a God of love and mercy, and taught a form of virtue ethics focused on compassion and selfless living, as best summarized by his command to love God and love your neighbor as yourself and his use of parables to convey moral lessons..."?

Do you think any of these MAGA podcasters, their reality TV stars, their religious zealots who bash people to their face, for being gay, or simply using their First Amendment of free speech, to speak out against the President of the United States... do those people sound like people who believe: 

"love of God and neighbor, emphasized a God of love and mercy, and taught a form of virtue ethics focused on compassion and selfless living..."?

Now maybe Salena Zito managed to find the last of the true believers (when it comes to Jesus Christ) on the far-right in America. But these folks aren't religious, as far as how they practice their own lives and what they believe. If they have a "God" at all, that person is Donald John Trump. Or, that's the person that they view as God. 

I don't agree with political satirist John Fugelsang on everything. He's way to the left of me and the rest of this blog, ideologically. But he's a helluva lot more Christian than Donald John Trump and his hardcore followers, could ever dream of being... even in their longest and best marijuana, or meth highs, and during their best drunk fantasies. And I'm going to give you a few of his quotes about people who claim to love the Bible, even though they've never even read the damn book, or understand it: 

John Fugelsang: The only way you can follow both Trump and Jesus is if you've never read either of their books. 

I've come to view Jesus much the way I view Elvis. I love the guy but the fan clubs really freak me out.

People get God and religion confused. I think God is a bit too hip to join any of his unauthorized fan clubs.

You can find the rest of his quotes on AZ Quotes

American fall into religious cults because they're lost and they find someone 1 day, or perhaps the actual cult leader, who sounds so pure and intelligent, that it's like hearing from Jesus Christ himself. But what they don't know, is the cult leader is not actually following the text of Jesus, or the Bible itself. He's at best taking samples of what Jesus said, or what's in the Bible and blowing them up to fit his own agenda. 

I don't enjoy calling people cultists, even for comedic reasons, but that's what Donald John Trump's base is. They seem him as the Son God (that they don't even believe in, or at least don't understand) and have decided to take every word and action that this man makes, regardless of what he says and does, and treat it like it's from the Son of God. Which is why he's always had hardcore base of 35% (give or take) and another 10-15% of the country with him on presidential election days, simply because they can't bring themselves to vote for a Democrat, for any reason whatsoever. 

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Chris Cillizza: Why Republicans Are Suddenly PANICKING Over Jeffrey Epstein

"Republicans in Washington are sounding the alarm over a move that could force the release of the Department of Justice’s files on Jeffrey Epstein. Kentucky Rep. Tom Massie says he now has the magic number — 218 votes — thanks to support from every Democrat plus a small group of breakaway Republicans like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Nancy Mace, and Lauren Boebert.

That means, for the first time, the House could vote on whether to compel the DOJ to make its Epstein investigation public — a vote Speaker Mike Johnson and GOP leadership have tried to block. So why are Republicans in such a panic? And what happens if this really goes to the floor... 

Source:Chris Cillizza talking about Donald Trump's big House fire.

From Chris Cillizza

The New Democrat has already made the case for why DOJ should have already released the Epstein files. As Fred Schneider said back in August: 

"The speculation (and I'm sure it's true) is that the reason why President Trump doesn't want his Attorney General Pam Bondi, to release the Epstein files, because he knows he's all over them and it would be very embarrassing for him. Even though there's probably nothing in them that could probably incriminate him of anything relating to Jeffrey Epstein. 

But my point is, for reasons that I've already laid out, is Donald Trump literally has nothing to lose here in releasing them. He's already the most unpopular 2nd term President, at least in the television and internet age. People who dislike and hate him now, won't dislike and hate him more after those files are released to the public. 

When the far-right of the Republican Party was talking about "family values", morality and character, the need for these things in our government, that was just something they used to attack Democrats. That's not what they care about. Someone could literally be a convicted felon, a serial liar and adulterer... if that person is on their side and represents their political values. And Mr. Trump's professional celebrity base, would probably just view him as a bigger "rockstar" and "badass", after the Epstein files are released...

From The New Democrat

And as Derik Schneider said 2 weeks later: 

"As far as the Epstein files, it's hard to imagine a sitting U.S. President being more unpopular than Donald John Trump. He's now in Joe Biden's range as far as political unpopularity, with his low 40s and upper 30s approval rating. Releasing the Epstein files even with him all over them, couldn't hurt himself anymore than what he's already done to his own political standing. If anything, it would probably just make him seem cooler with his reality TV base and perhaps even Independents who voted for him, because they think he's a "badass" or something: 

"Yeah!!! The Donald rolls with pimps and sex traffickers!!! He's even a bigger badass than we thought".

From The New Democrat

I'll get to what Chris Cillizza said... later. But first I want to make more of an observational and practical point about the problems with trying to govern a 435 member institution, with just a 3 seat majority (Speaker Mike Johnson must feel like he's president of a high school student council, instead of the U.S. House of Representatives) and the weakness of running a scorched-earth  political campaign, where the ultimate goal is just to have 1 more Electoral College vote, than your opponent. 

Just go back 20 years... President George W. Bush had a 15 seats majority in the House of Representatives. Even that, is a small majority, by modern standards, but if G.W. Bush was all over the Epstein files, like water in a pool, ketchup on fries, gold diggers on wealthy men, etc... (let your imagination run wild on that) imagine (if you will) that George and Jeff met somewhere in Texas in the 1970s... maybe Epstein visits Texas looking more more female recruits and they became friends during G.W.'s drinking days... 4 votes Republicans wouldn't be nearly enough to get a discharged petition passed about anything. House Democrats, or maverick Republicans, or a combination, would've need 16 House Republicans to vote with all 202 House Democrats, to pass a discharge petition about anything, back in 2005-06. 

But unlike Donald John Trump, George Walker Bush (whatever you think of the man personally and politically) was a big tent Republican. It wasn't just the far-right and center-right Republicans who didn't like him, but who voted for him anyway, and 1 more independent than what John Kerry got back in 2004. President Bush locked down all the Republican base and won the independents with a solid majority. Why? 

Because he was more trusted on national security than the Democrats

He was pro-legal immigration, who didn't scare minorities, gays, or women. 

He wasn't a wannabe dictator, or a criminal, not a convicted felon, or insurrectionist, fraudster, womanizer, etc.

At least before Hurricane Katrina, Americans tended to like G.W. Bush, at least personally, even though his 2nd term was very rough for him and his party, politically.  Donald Trump doesn't have any of the political attributes that even President Bush had. Outside of his Anglo-Saxon fundamentalist base, his professional, urban reality TV people, and his MAGA bros... no one in America even thinks that Donald J. Trump is even a decent man. 

So when you run a political campaign that's only geared to your base and no one else and you treat anyone who even dares question you, about anything, as nothing but traitors, criminals, and terrorists,... sure, you can win a presidential election doing that in our social media political climate, but your governing majority in Congress, will be very slim because you got the other half of the country and more people, who are always against you. 

You win the election going scorched-earth, but you don't expand your party, even in Congress. And when you get in trouble politically, like with the Epstein files, that puts pressure on your own party to do something about it. And when you are only working with a 3 seat majority in the House, out of 433 seated members, (as of today) it doesn't take much for your party to act against you, in the House. 

Now if anyone is still awake after reading all of that, I'll get into what Chris Cilliza is talking about as well. 

So with Adeliate Grijalva's (daughter of former U.S. Representative, the late Raul Grijalva) winning her father's old House seat, House Democrats now have 214 out of 433 seated members in the House. So, yes, unless Speaker Johnson calls for a permanent vacation and House recess for the rest of this Congress, Representative Massie will get his discharge petition sighed and passed, with the help from House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries delivering all 214 House Democrats to vote yes. 

But don't break out the cigars and champaign just yet. (Especially if you don't smoke or drink alcohol) The Mike Johnson permanent vacation and recess crack, is just a half-joke. The House Republican Leadership might try something like that, just to prevent the House from voting on this resolution. But it probably won't work. 

You can follow me on Facebook and Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Don Lemon: HOT TAKES! - Kamala Harris Book BOMBSHELL!

"Don Lemon breaks down the new revelations from Kamala Harris’s book, 107 Days. What does she reveal about her time in office, and what do these insights mean for how we understand the 2024 election?

Don digs into the details, discusses whether Harris should have taken a different approach, and explores what her reflections tell us about the past, and the path forward for Democrats." 

Source:Don Lemon being very candid about Vice President Kamala Harris's new book.

From Don Lemon

As Erik Schneider said back in December: 

"And then we get to Kamala Harris who for the most part inherited a strong campaign, as far as the organization, the people, the infrastructure, the finances. What she gave it, was energy, enthusiasm, and the only way I can put this but political adorableness, where she's just so cute and sweet as a person, it's really hard not to like her, if not love here. Assuming you are not a neanderthal jackass, who thinks that the only job that women should have, is to stay home and make their husbands happy. 

On the downside, Vice President Harris not just starts off Election 2024 as an unpopular Vice President, with a approval rating at around 35%, but where maybe 1/2 American voters (depending on what poll you look at) don't even know who she is, what she believes. 

I was calling for on my Threads page back in July, that Kamala Harris needs to do a series of townhalls, maybe a week after figuring out exactly what kind of presidential campaign she wanted to run and do those townhalls in just the swing states in the beginning. So people, especially Independents and Republicans who didn't want to vote for Donald Trump, as well as blue-collar Democrats who were considering voting for Donald Trump based on the economy, could get a good idea of who she and what here values are. 

The Vice President doesn't do any townhalls until October. It's September with CNN anchor Dana Bash, before she does any network interviews at all. So it's not just running for President late, which wasn't her fault, but starting out real late in the gates to even do an interview, that I think set her back. And her first townhall at all was in October with Univision News and CNN. 

And far as as the Harris Campaign's strategy, it seemed to be about maxing out yuppy, white-collar, especially female, yuppy, white-collar voters, of all political backgrounds, including urban and suburban Republican women, to vote for her. And hope African-Americans fall in line, where they were even dragging with President Biden, who did so well with them in 2020. And as far as blue-collar Democrats, I guess they left that up to Governor Tim Walz...

From The New Democrat

From ABC News: 

"Former Vice President Kamala Harris told "Good Morning America" on Tuesday that she does regret not personally challenging former President Joe Biden's decision to run for reelection.

In an interview with "Good Morning America" co-anchor Michael Strahan, Harris said it was "reckless" of her to not raise her concerns with Biden choosing to run for reelection.

"Do you regret not voicing your opinion in that moment?" Strahan asked Harris, who wrote in her campaign memoir "107 Days" out Tuesday that the reelection decision was Joe and Jill Biden's to make.

"Yes," Harris said, "and I, and I actually have reflected on that, and I've written about that."

"Would that have mattered if you did?" Strahan asked Harris...

From ABC News

I just want to start off with something that Don Lemon said and then I'll tell you what I think about all of this as well. Don Lemon: 

"I live in the real world. These are the people (referring to Donald Trump's voters) who voted for someone who pardoned the insurrectionists. These are the people... Americans, who voted for a person who is a convicted felon. So I would love to give my fellow Americans more credit than that. It is the choir that will probably vote for you. But to also win, you also need some converts. I mean people from the Right. You have to read the room, understand the time that we live in, how they're going to use it... 

So, that was Don Lemon's response to Pete Buttigieg's response to Vice President Harris explaining why she didn't pick him for her running mate, because she essentially didn't believe that the country was ready for a gay Vice President, especially serving the first female President of the United States. Which is what Kamala Harris would be right now, had she won the 2024 election. 

Just to pick up on Don Lemon's point here.... I don't know what the percentage of these voters are, but there's always going to be (and I'm in my late 40s now) a bloc of American voters who simply didn't get the memo that it's no longer 1955. And these folks are always going to have a problem with: 

minorities serving in the military 

women working at all 

African-Americans and other minorities voting, running for office, serving in high office

Gays living and working out-of-the-closet, etc.

And they're always going to be a big enough bloc of those voters, to swing any close election to the Right, if Democrats try to get to far in front of them culturally and try to force the New America that they hate, with all the diversity and freedom for all, downs their throats. And I'm sure Pete Buttigieg sounds really cool with younger, lefter, Democrats with his: 

"I give the American people a lot more credit than that". 

But he's not operating in the real political world with that attitude. The only world that he might be operating in with a line like that, is the 1 where he sees himself as the next President of the United States. Which might be the only thing that he's thinking about anyway, right now.

And no, I'm not saying minorities can't serve, or shouldn't run for high office. I'm just saying that when Democrats run for President, run for governor, they have to understand how dominant race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and culture, are still dominant with a major bloc of the American electorate. 

And moving on, we covered why Vice President Harris lost last year and early this year. But now I want to get into 1 of the mistakes that she actually admitted that she made. This is 1 is about her not intervening as President Biden's own, damn, Vice President and not trying to make any case to the President that he shouldn't run for reelection in 2024, especially after he announced that he would only be one-term President back in 2020... 

And we can all talk about not just hindsight, but political hindsight as well and I was looking for a clever quote online for this post about hindsight, but I didn't find anything that I like that much so I'll just tell you: 

With 20/20 hindsight, we could make learning a lot less interesting and make self-improvement a lot less necessary. Because there would be no more: "If I had only done this instead, then that would've happened and I would be a lot more successful now". But part of being human is learning about yourself, especially where you come up short, so you know how to get better. And "that's all fine and good". 

But Kamala Harris was President Joe Biden's Vice President for 4 years. He was already pretty unpopular after 2 years and going into year 4, he was looking at a mid 30s approval rating, while trying to run for reelection with that. 

The Vice President of the United States is only as valuable as the counsel and advice, the support that she or he can give the President. As much as Vice President J.D. Vance probably disagrees with this, the Vice President is not in office to verbally and publicly kiss the ass (to be frank) of the President everyday. 

There are times when the VP has to bring bad news, including about the President, to the President's attention, so the President has all the information and evidence available, to make the best decision about how to move forward, even as it relates to their own political career. 

Of course it would've come off as self-serving for a sitting Vice President of the United States, to tell her own President, that he shouldn't run for reelection again. But she wouldn't have had to tell President Biden: "Why don't she step down from the reelection effort, so I can run instead". 

What the Vice President could've done instead, was explain to President Biden this is why you shouldn't run for reelection, because you are going to get beat badly in November for a whole host of reasons. And just as important: you'll take down the Democratic Party with you and will be remembered as the political loser who didn't know how to quit when the time came. 

But Vice President Harris didn't do that. She stuck with White House line that everything is swell in Pleasantville. Or use a Naked Gun reference: "There's nothing to see here!!!" With burning buildings in the background.  And it cost her and her party, everything.

You can follow me on Facebook, and Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Connell McShane: ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ Returning To ABC

"The Walt Disney Company announced Monday it will resume production of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” on Tuesday after suspending the late-night talk show last week over what the company called “ill-timed and insensitive” comments regarding Charlie Kirk’s assassination." 

Source:News Nation with a look at Jimmy Kimmel Live. That's right, he ain't dead yet. 

From News Nation

As Ederik Schneider wrote about Jimmy Kimmel's suspension on Friday: 

"I mean assuming we survive the Trump Administration (perhaps I should start praying for that everyday) and the next President (hopefully starting in January, 2029) is a pro-Constitution, pro-rule of law... pro-law & order, (if you will President) does MAGA really want a Democratic administration, going after the Greg Gutfeld's, the Sean Hannity's, the Jesse Watters, the Laura Ingraham's? Because they all have bad habits of flat-out lying, or not even knowing what they're even talking about, when they do their commentaries (advertised as news) every night to their audiences. 

I would bet anything that 4 years from now, if there is a Democratic administration at that point, MAGA and company will start pretending to be "champions of free speech again", if a Democratic led FCC starts targeting their commentators... 

From The New Democrat

I would say that what ABC is doing here: "Is taking a strong stand for the First Amendment, the free press, after they realized the error of their ways and have decided to make amends with Jimmy Kimmel and every other comedian and commentator who has the big balls to say anything critical about Donald Trump, or any of his allies". But then I would be lying. And we don't do that here at The New Democrat. (At least when we're under oath) So I'm not going to start now. 

There's actually something else going on here. Perhaps this expression here is not 100% app, but there's the old expression: "Money talks and bullshit walks". 

The money part of this story is all the revenue that Jimmy Kimmel brings in for the American Broadcasting Company (that some know as just ABC) and the fact that ABC doesn't want to lose its $70 million a year, just from the show on air alone. And Ederik pointed out on Friday, they only suspended Kimmel's show because President Trump  and the FCC threaten to take away ABC's broadcasting license away, had they not had suspended Kimmel over his Charlie Kirk "MAGA gang" comments. 

The bullshit part in this story from the expression, "money talks and bullshit walks", is the fact that Jimmy Kimmel was suspended over a bad joke that he made about Charlie Kirk in relation to MAGA and the joke fell flat and offended a lot of people. 

Imagine if Johnny Carson, Dave Letterman, Dick Cavett, Jay Leno, etc, all got suspended over every bad joke that they made... we wouldn't have any full-time late night talk show hosts 20, 30, 40, years ago. we wouldn’t have any full-time late night talk show hosts 20, 30, 40, years ago, because they would all be getting suspended… perhaps after every show. The best comedian in the world is not going to be funny 100% of the time and at times will offend a lot of people, even when they're funny. 

But as long as money still talks in America and we're still at times able to give bullshit a kick in the ass and tell it to get the hell out of here, there will always be room in our country for the Jimmy Kimmel's and other comedians like him. 

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.