RED SCARE, leftist style: People talk at parties and forums, including senators and Russian ambassadors!

It's like the new Red Scare coming out of the Democratic leadership. Sen Schumer and Rep. Pelosi are asking for AG Sessions to RESIGN because he talked to a Russian ambassador while being a senator. 

Schumer sang another tune when Obama was president and AG Lynch met with Bill Clinton (just to trade recipes or something, on a tarmac). 

In the midst of all this Democratic Red Scare, I thought this was cute: A nice little hit job on AG Sessions, judging by the manner it was structured. The paragraphs below were saved for last in this story here. 

Flores has said the senator had "over 25 conversations (last year) with foreign ambassadors as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, including the British, Korean, Japanese, Polish, Indian, Chinese, Canadian, Australian, German and Russian ambassadors.''
"He was asked during the (confirmation) hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign — not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee,'' she said.

Nothing of that context was mentioned in the beginning of the article, or the middle. In journalism, that's called bullshit. OK, it's bullshit anywhere. It is not objective reporting. It's burying facts. It's typical American left reporting.

Sessions has recused himself from probes into Russia over the alleged Russian hacks of the U.S. election (but voter fraud never happens). And then, there's this story: Exclusive: Two other Trump advisers also spoke with Russian envoy during GOP convention

Sessions was a surrogate of Trump, it's said. Well, he was an advisor. If it turns out that he did talk of Trump matters at an informal session of an event on the outskirts of the RNC, then we're talking news. If he didn't, then we're talking WASTE OF TIME.

Piling onto everyone in a Republican administration is what USA Today and most mainstream outlets do these days.

Meh.


 - jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

A florist is slammed by a Supreme Court. Lesson? If you disagree with modern liberalism, you better lie.

The Washington Supreme Court, progressive ideals, and the off-the-rails gay equality movement all demand dishonesty. Unless, that is, you agree with them at every turn. Or else.

Setting aside that I have thought that gay couples deserve familial rights for many years, Washington sets aside First Amendment rights (no, we're not talking even about hate speech or some dislike of gays here, but a religious idea about marriage) in the name of "equality" of marriage. The rainbow White House was stupid. This is shameful.

The courts have informed us, as with the recent bakery lawsuit that ensured that bakery would have to close down, that if you have any issue with servicing a gay marriage, you better lie about it. Why? If you're honest, as both the florist and the baker were to their longtime customers, about religious views that you believe direct you to not do work for gay marriages, no matter your business, then the law will embrace that with a rope and hang you. 

The following argument was rejected by the Wash. Supreme (from NY Times):

A lawyer for Ms. Stutzman, Kristen Waggoner, said the court had erred both in interpreting the law and in the specifics of the case. The same-sex couple were not refused service because they were gay, Ms. Waggoner said, but only turned away for a specific ceremony that Ms. Stutzman could not abide because of the dictates of her conscience. Voters in Washington approved a same-sex marriage law in 2012. 

Because a flower arrangement is an artistic expression, Ms. Waggoner said, the court effectively ruled that the state could regulate, with punitive government authority, what artists may sell. 

“All creative professional expression is at risk,” Ms. Waggoner said in a telephone call with reporters.

I reiterate that this florist, with no hateful intent, was honest about why she didn't want to prepare the flowers. And for that honesty, she paid the price.

This is not an orchestrated denial of services and threats, and vitriol. This is not lunch counters in Alabama in the 1960s. The irony, of course, is that the Wash. Supreme says that it is, in their decision.


Florist Discriminated Against Gay Couple, Washington Supreme Court Rules - The New York Times


- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)