Democrat Sen. Kamala Harris Spends Big With Media Firm That Boosted Bernie Sanders’s National Profile

Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris (Calif.) has paid the online media firm that helped propel Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders during his dark horse run for the 2016 Democratic primary more than $400,000 this year, filings show. Revolution Messaging LLC, a Washington, D.C.-based progressive online media firm founded by Scott Goodstein, an online director for Obama for America in 2008, was instrumental in helping push Sanders’s message out and raise his profile during his race against Hillary Clinton by creating his digital and branding strategy. “In the spring of 2015, before the campaign launched, we knew Bernie Sanders was a leader who stood on the right side of history,” the group wrote in their case study. “But Bernie was polling around 3 percent, had no establishment support, little name recognition and was running against a popular and ‘inevitable’ Democratic primary opponent. We had our work cut out for us. With no offline fundraising team, no Super PAC, and no Wall Street money, we would have to raise almost all of the campaign’s money from small-dollar donations.” Revolution ultimately helped Sanders raise $218 million online and has won numerous awards for their work on behalf of his campaign. Harris, who is commonly floated as a potential candidate for president in 2020, paid the firm large sums of money for the likes of advertising despite not being up for reelection in her home state of California until 2022. Harris’s Senate campaign began paying Revolution Messaging in July 2016, Federal Election Commission records show. From July 7 to Election Day, the campaign paid the firm $381,632 for advertising and campaign consulting. From Election Day to the end of the year, an additional $122,000 in payments from Harris’s campaign were made to Revolution. “Kamala Harris’ U.S. Senate campaign knew it needed to use social media as a way to channel her authentic voice and connect with voters,” Revolution writes of their work on the campaign. “We were honored to partner with her campaign to turn around its anemic social media growth and transform its Facebook and Twitter accounts into a powerful bully pulpit.” “Inspired by effective methods from the Bernie Sanders campaign, our social media team knew that creativity, authenticity and timeliness were necessities,” they continue. “Halloween memes, story collections, petitions, and capitalizing on small, but timely moments helped distill Harris’ authentic voice and quickly double social media followers.” The large disbursements from Harris’ campaign to Revolution have continued this year. Kamala Harris reported spending nearly $300,000 on the firm’s services during the first quarter, which runs from Jan. 1 to March 31. A majority of this amount ($265,000) has gone towards web advertisements. Throughout the second quarter, which spans from April 1 to July 31, Harris’s campaign paid another $110,000 to Revolution with nearly $70,000 of this amount going to advertising. Harris’s campaign has spent a total of $407,530 with Revolution so far this year.

Clearly Sen. Harris (D-CA) is making a run for president…

Charlotte Democrat defends saying Trump supporters have ‘no place’ in city council

A city council member in North Carolina has doubled down on a controversial statement declaring supporters of President Trump have “no place” in Charlotte’s government. Charlotte City Council member Dimple Ajmera, a Democrat running for an at-large seat in the council, said during a recent WCNC discussion that any supporters of the president or his “cronies” should “be voted out of our council.” “Look at all our Republicans that are supporting Trump, I think they should have no place on city council whatsoever or the mayor’s race,” she said. Ms. Ajmera’s comments riled members of a local Republican group, who are planning to stage a sit-in protest at a city council meeting on Monday, WCNC reported. Ms. Ajmera defended her views in a statement released by her campaign Tuesday. “The Ajmera Campaign strongly reiterates its position that President Trump’s negative agenda of petty divisiveness, disrespect of women, his harsh and dangerous policies against minorities, immigrants, the sick and disabled runs absolutely counter to the values that we need [to] solve the issues of economic mobility for all people, public safety and improved infrastructure,” the statement said. “We have full and absolute faith in the voters of Charlotte that rejected ‘Trump Values’ in near totality in 2016. If the 2017 City Council race is a referendum on Trump’s values, then we accept that challenge.” “I stand by my words,” Ms. Ajmera added in a WCNC interview. “Trump is very divisive and negative.”

And you’re not, Ma’am?  Wow… What a brazen, and fascist, hypocrite!!  I thought liberals wanted “inclusion,” and were “open-minded?”  As usual, they’re all for free speech…until it contradicts what they believe.  Then, they not only want to censor you, they don’t want you involved in the process whatsoever.  Again, another example which illustrates that it is liberals who are the real/true fascists.

Opinion/Analysis: REVEALED: How Approval Polls and ‘Junk’ Journalism are Fake Views Pushed by Fake News

” Polls are deployed only when they might prove useful — that is, helpful to the powers that be in their question to maintain their position and influence.” — Christopher Hitchens, Harper’s Magazine, 1992 The latest rod by which to beat the President of the United States is a Washington Post/ABC News poll showing Mr. Trump’s approval ratings languishing at 36 per cent. Americans across the board appear, on first take, to be well out of love with the new President. But the “small print” on the polls reveals something quite disturbing about the methodology of the group responsible. The poll was performed by AbtAssociates — a swamp dweller-staffed research and policy shop in Cambridge, MA. AbtAssociates board members include former Bob Dole, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Planned Parenthood, World Bank, and Deloitte staffers. In other words, it is a microcosm of the party of Davos. But that in itself doesn’t rule AbtAssociates out from doing decent work. What might, however, is the underlying philosophy behind political polling, and the methodology they use to conduct it. WaPo/ABC polling obviously predicted the U.S. election incorrectly. They’ll point to the “margin of error” and claim they were aiming to predict the popular vote, of course. But this still led to them presenting Mrs. Clinton as the presumptive winner. Them, and basically everyone else, which is unsurprising, given the way these things work. The latest headlines — which themselves have seeded hundreds of articles in the press about the matter — are about President Trump’s unpopularity, born out of a poll of just 1,001 people. That’s an average of 20 people per state in the U.S. they hold up as “representative”. The representative element comes from projecting this data out using pollster voodoo. This is what you’re really paying for when you commission a poll. Anyone can survey 1,001 people, but these guys claim to know the “right” people, and then be able to project their views out onto the whole nation. Then we go into the data tables. Since this time last year they have over-represented Democrat voters in their studies. For this latest one, 35 per cent of their respondents were Democrats, 23 per cent were Republicans, 35 per cent were Independents (who in turn lean towards voting Democrat), six per cent said ‘Other’, and two per cent had no opinion on the matter. Interviews, they add, were conducted in English and Spanish, and demographic questions they asked are not included in the data.

How convenient..  Things to keep in mind the next time you see another “breaking news” poll on CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS/NPR or MSNBC, if you actually watch those channels for news.  To read the rest of this eye-opening op/ed by Raheem Kassam, click on the text above.

Trump’s 1st Qtr. Salary to Go to Fix Antietam Battlefield

The Interior Department announced that it will be using the $78,333 given to them by President Trump to revitalize an important Civil War landmark, according to the Washington Times. Earlier this year, Trump promised to donate his salary to various projects and organizations. He previously presented a check to Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke in April, directing that the funds be used by the National Park Service. Zinke said he would be using the funds to renovate Maryland’s Antietam National Battlefield, a few miles outside Harper’s Ferry, W.V. Antietam, known in the South as the Battle of Sharpsburg, took place in September 1862 and was the bloodiest single day in the entire war. The battle was an important victory for the Union, as it stopped the Confederates’ first drive toward the North. More than 5,600 troops alone were killed along a strip of road nicknamed “Bloody Lane,” as Union Gen. Israel Richardson met Confederate Gen. Richard Anderson’s troops in the peak of the conflict. The announcement came 154 years to the week that the war turned all but completely in the Union’s favor just 40 miles to the north in Gettysburg, Pa.

How cool is this?!?  Can you even imagine someone like Obama or Hillary giving their salary back?  No.  Of course not!  So, major kudos to Pres. Trump for donating his salary for the improvement of this historic Civil War battlefield!  Excellent!!   🙂

Coulter: Republican Obstructionists ‘Hate Trump Every Bit as Much as MSNBC Does’

Tuesday on Fox Business Network’s “Varney & Company,” conservative columnist Ann Coulter said Republicans on Capitol Hill were “slow-walking” President Donald Trump’s agenda. She went on to add that they “hate Trump every bit as much as MSNBC does.” Coulter said, “I do think we’re getting a little Republican obstructionism with Trump as well. Come on. It takes 51 votes to confirm a nominee, so they put in, what, these blue slips and say, ‘no I’m holding.’ A one-person filibuster? No. McConnell should say you’ve taken this too far. We’re not going to let you put in your blue slips or yellow slips or whatever they call them and have one person stop a nominee. In one case, Thom Tillis, he is going precisely against the Trump agenda. He refuses to confirm the head of the Immigration Service unless he can get a bunch more cheap foreign workers for the Chamber of Commerce.” She continued, “McConnell could do something, and also I think some of these Republicans like Tillis ought to be called out.” Coulter added, “A lot of them really, really hate Trump every bit as much as MSNBC does and they’re slow-walking everything, and they are not helping him.”

Agreed!  As usual, Ann Coulter nails it.  There are a LOT of Republicans in the House and Senate who are doing whatever they can to undermine President Trump, and his agenda, so they can distance themselves from him during the upcoming midterm election cycle.  This Rep. Thorn Tillis (R-NC) is just one of many.  In the Senate, the #1 name that comes to mind, of course, is Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).  He’s truly obnoxious…

Gregg Jarrett: Donald Trump Jr. has broken no law

Erasmus, the noted classical scholar, described lawyers this way: A most learned species of profoundly ignorant men. He had a point. How else do you explain the wild pronouncements of lawyers like Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, former White House ethics lawyer Richard Painter and Senator Tim Kaine, D-Virginia? Each have suggested Donald Trump Jr. committed treason by meeting with a Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya. All three lawyers earned their degrees at Harvard or Yale. Yet, they appear to have slept through their class on constitutional law. Treason is defined in Article 3 of the Constitution and codified in 18 USC 2381: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, either levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort with the U.S. or elsewhere.” Meeting with a Russian lawyer is not treason. The U.S. is not at war with Russia. Even if the president’s son received information from the Russian government or otherwise collaborated with foreign officials, it constitutes neither waging war against the U.S. nor aiding the enemy. If it were otherwise, a myriad of Republican and Democratic Senators who admit meeting with the Russian Ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, might be somehow guilty of treason. In these meetings, information is surely exchanged. No one has ever suggested it rises to the level of criminality. Indeed, it is what diplomats and foreign officials do. It is what our own officials do in foreign lands. Even if the Trump campaign had acted on information provided by the Russian lawyer, it would still not constitute treason. Even conspiring to subvert the government does not rise to the level of treason. Under our Constitution, Americans are permitted to speak against the government, undermine political opponents, support harmful policies or even place the interests of another nation ahead of those of the U.S. You would think these lawyers, however misguided by their political prejudices, would nevertheless comprehend such a fundamental principle of constitutional and statutory law. Clearly, they do not. Each harbor their own biases which have blinded them to the law. Tribe and Painter sued President Trump within days of his taking office. They claim his many business dealings violate the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. Their case is without merit. Kaine might be described as a “sore loser,” having lost the presidential election as Hillary Clinton’s vice presidential running mate. Before perpetuating the treason canard, these lawyers should reread the famous 1953 case of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. They were convicted of espionage after providing nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union. They were not charged with treason because the U.S. was not “at war” with the Soviets. So let’s dispense with all this silliness over treason. Now, amid the cacophony of claims that the Trump campaign committed the criminal offense of “collusion” with the Russians, no one has managed to point to a statute that makes colluding with a foreign government in a political campaign a crime. Why? Because it cannot be found anywhere in America’s criminal codes. As explained in an earlier column, “collusion” is a loaded word conjuring all manner of incriminating behavior. Yet, it exists only in anti-trust laws which forbid price fixing and other anti-competitive activities under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Collusion has nothing whatsoever to do with elections and political campaigns. Of course, that inconvenient fact has not stopped politicians, pundits and journalists from either misunderstanding the concept and/or misconstruing its application to the Trump-Russia hysteria. It also renders special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation meaningless. He is tasked with finding a crime that does not exist in the law. It is a legal impossibility. The only conceivable crime tangentially related to collusion is found at 18 USC 371, entitled “Conspiracy to Defraud the United States.” It makes it a felony for two or more persons to enter into an agreement to interfere or obstruct a lawful function of the government. An election would be a lawful government function. However, it must be done by “deceitful or dishonest means.” So let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Russian lawyer provided information damaging to the Clinton campaign and the Trump campaign then acted on the material by disseminating it to the public. How is that deceitful or dishonest? It is not. But this is not what happened, as best we know. According to Trump Jr., the lawyer offered no information at all. Indeed, the lawyer insists the subject of the campaign was never broached. Let’s play another “what if.” What if the Russian lawyer handed Trump Jr. a file and said, “here is information which we hacked from the DNC and the Clinton campaign?” If the president’s son accepted the file, then he could be accused of knowingly receiving stolen property. But again, there is no evidence this ever happened. It is worth remembering that the hacked information was not made public by Wikileaks until after the June 9th meeting. Months later, in October, the U.S. government officially acknowledged Russian interference in the election. There is one final law to be considered. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, soliciting and/or receiving foreign donations is prohibited (11 CFR 110.20). This includes “money or other thing of value.” Is information, by itself, a “thing of value?” One could attempt to make that argument, but it has never been interpreted that way. To the contrary, the law specifically states that “services” are not contributions and that foreign nationals are permitted to volunteer their services to U.S. political campaigns. Moreover, campaign election laws are rarely the subject of criminal prosecutions. The vast majority of cases are civil violations resulting in fines. But again, both Trump Jr. and the Russian lawyer agree that no information related to the presidential campaign was conveyed. If true, this statute is inapplicable. As much as President Trump’s opponents may wish it to be, it is not a crime to meet with a Russian. Nor is it a crime to meet with a Russian lawyer or government official. Even gathering information from a foreign source is permissible. Unwise and ill-advised, yes. Illegal, no. Until such time as Congress decides to pass a bill – and the president signs it into law – criminalizing “collusion” with a foreign government in an American political campaign … no law has been broken here.

Case closed!  Please feel free to forward this outstanding legal analysis by former defense attorney, and current Fox News anchor Gregg Jarrett, on to family members, friends and others who have been sucked into this Russia hysteria promulgated by the dominantly liberal mainstream media.

Top Lawmaker Demands Investigation into Comey, Former Obama Officials for Leaks of Classified Intel

The chairman of the House National Security Subcommittee is calling on the Department of Justice to launch a formal investigation into former FBI Director James Comey’s alleged leak of classified information, according to an exclusive interview with the Washington Free Beacon in which the lawmaker also called on the Trump administration to purge all former Obama administration holdovers from government. Rep. Ron DeSantis (R., Fla.), a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and chair of its National Security subcommittee, is urging Attorney General Jeff Sessions to launch a full scale investigation into Comey’s handling of a series of potentially classified memos that were leaked to the press earlier this year. Comey admitted in testimony before Congress that he leaked these memos in order to spur an investigation into the Trump administration’s alleged collusion with Russia during the 2016 campaign. Reports alleging these memos contained classified information has riled congressional Republicans and spurred new calls for an investigation into Comey. DeSantis also called on the Trump administration to purge all former Obama administration officials still working in the government, claiming that the holdovers and their allies outside the White House are responsible for an unprecedented series of national security leaks aimed at damaging the Trump administration’s national security apparatus. DeSantis named Ben Rhodes—the former National Security Council official responsible for creating an in-house “echo chamber” meant to mislead reporters and the public about the landmark nuclear deal with Iran—as a primary source of these leaks and urged the House Intelligence Committee to call Rhodes and other former Obama officials to testify publicly about any role they may be playing in spreading classified information to reporters. Comey’s behavior warrants a DOJ investigation due to the former FBI director’s admittance that he disclosed private information to the public in order to damage the Trump administration, according to DeSantis. “Congress needs to press Sessions and other people to make sure they are investigating this because the American people need the truth,” DeSantis told the Free Beacon in a wide-ranging interview. “If he did violate any laws, he needs to be held accountable. If you’re violating laws in service of doing political warfare, that is just absolutely unacceptable, particularly for someone who held such a high position in the government.” Comey has gone on record stating that he “leaked in order to trigger a special counsel, which in some ways is pretty extraordinary,” DeSantis noted. Comey’s actions raise further questions about his ethics, DeSantis said. “Not only is he leaking this stuff, not only were the memos done in the course of his employment and likely government property, he may have disclosed classified information in this quest to basically wage a vendetta against the president because the president fired him and to try and create a special counsel,” DeSantis said. “This guy is really a creature of the swamp. He maneuvers around D.C. in ways that are very similar to how D.C. insiders operate,” DeSantis said of Comey. “He’s one of the best in those regards.” DeSantis and other lawmakers are now seeking copies of Comey’s complete memos in order to review whether classified information may have been leaked to the press in violation of U.S. law.

Drip, drip…  This story continues to develop.  To read the rest of this article, click on the text above.