Sarah Palin Praises UK Voters For Leaving European Union

Sarah Palin

[From article]
Sarah Palin has congratulated the UK on voting to leave the European Union and has urged the United States to emulate the spirit of their transatlantic ally and leave the United Nations.
The former Governor of Alaska posted a picture of Margaret Thatcher to Facebook and quoted the former prime minister and conservative hero writing, 'liberty is fundamental'.
Praising the 'smart' British for their leap into the dark with the so-called Brexit, Palin declared voters in the UK had turned away from the 'apocalyptic One World Government'.
Palin then appeared to erroneously compare the European Union - a political and economic union of 28-nation states - to the United Nations - which is diplomatic body of 193-nations set up to promote global peace after World War Two.
She demanded the United States extricate itself from the UN, which 'dissolves a nation's self determination and sovereignty.'

Indeed, it has been a tumultuous week in the UK, to say the least, but Sarah Palin is reassuring those who voted to leave the EU that they made the right choice.
The UK voted to leave the European Union by 51 per cent and will begin the process of separating itself from the politico-economic union of 28 member states that are located primarily in Europe.
The decision, the first of its kind in the UK, has caused turmoil in the country and rocked the stock market nationally.
It has also caused rifts in the UK between migrants, who as members of the EU have free movement among the country, and British nationals.
With a picture of former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and a quote reading 'liberty is fundamental', Palin offered her thoughts on the UK's decision to leave to EU.
'Congratulations, smart Brits. Good on you for ignoring all the fear mongering from special interest globalists who tend to aim for that apocalyptic One World Government that dissolves a nation’s self-determination and sovereignty… the EU being a One World Government mini-me,' she wrote.
Palin is alluding to the United Nations when she mentions the 'one world government'.
She believes the UN has put 'shackles' on the U.S.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3661016/Sarah-Palin-congratulates-UK-European-Union-Brexit-urges-U-S-follow-suit-abandon-UN.html

Sarah Palin congratulates the UK on Brexit and urges the U.S. to 'follow suit' and abandon the UN
Sarah Palin took to Facebook to praise those who voted for the Brexit
On Friday she posted a picture of Margaret Thatcher and a quote
She said America should follow suit and vote to leave the United Nations
By KALHAN ROSENBLATT FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 13:55 EST, 26 June 2016 | UPDATED: 19:26 EST, 26 June 2016

Iceland Elects History Professor President, in Anti Establishment Vote

President elect Gudni Johannesson (L) speaks next to his wife Eliza Reid at an election party in Reykjavik, on June 25, 2016 

(AFP Photo/Halldor Kolbeins)

[From article]

History professor Gudni Johannesson won Iceland's presidential election after riding a wave of anti-establishment sentiment, final results showed Sunday, although the vote was eclipsed by the country's eagerly-anticipated Euro football match.
The political newcomer, who won with 39.1 percent of votes, was trailed by businesswoman Halla Tomasdottir, also without party affiliation, who took 29.4 percent, according to results announced on public television channel RUV.
Johannesson only decided to run for the presidency after the so-called Panama Papers leak in April which detailed offshore accounts and implicated several senior Icelandic politicians, including the prime minister who was forced to resign.
Throughout the campaign, Johannesson emphasised his non-partisan vision of the presidency, and vowed to restore faith in the political system after years of public anger toward politicians over scandals and financial woes.
The victory was especially sweet for the history professor and political commentator, who has never held public office and has no party affiliation, as he celebrated his 48th birthday Sunday.
David Oddsson, a former conservative prime minister who had been Johannesson's closest rival throughout most of the campaign, garnered just 13 percent of votes.
"The representative of the old era... has been rejected, people are looking to the future," University of Akureyri political science professor Gretar Eythorsson told AFP.
The president in Iceland holds a largely ceremonial position. More important legislative elections are due in the autumn.
[. . .]
Britain's vote to leave the European Union also headlined the news on the eve of the election in Iceland, which itself had applied for EU membership in 2009 after suffering a devastating financial crisis in 2008, but abandoned the bid six years later.
Like most of Iceland's voters, Johannesson is opposed to EU membership.
In a final debate on Friday, he said Brexit changes "much for the better for us Icelanders," suggesting the European Economic Area agreement that non-EU members Norway and Iceland have with the EU could play a more important role with Britain on board.
[. . .]
Current president Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, 73, is stepping down after five straight terms spanning 20 years.
"I think we will see a different kind of president. Johannesson is not likely to be as political as Grimsson sometimes was," Eythorsson said.
Grimsson is the only Icelandic president to have exercised his right to veto bills in parliament, doing so three times over two decades.
Johannesson was until recently known to Icelanders as one of the country's most prominent political commentators from the University of Iceland.
In a nation basking in a strong economy, low unemployment and robust purchasing power, Johannesson's views are generally seen as moderate and centrist.
Casting his ballot Saturday, Johannesson told AFP he was satisfied he had "managed to present to the people my vision of the presidency".
[. . .]
Turnout in the election was also higher than in the last vote four years ago, at nearly 76 percent.
Johannesson officially takes over the post on August 1.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/johannesson-leads-icelands-presidential-vote-partial-result-000003789.html?ref=gs

Political novice wins Iceland presidency with 39 percent
Haukur Holm
June 26, 2016

Effects of UK Vote To Leave European Union

Treatment of those who voted to leave the EU sounds like the way that Cambridge, MA residents and politicians act toward critics and those who disagree with their extremist policies. 

[Comment rom Douglas Mayfield graduate of Harvard University]
The EU is run by appointed bureaucrats who do not have to face the public or be elected. In my view, the people who voted to leave the EU are sick of rule by fiat. If members of Parliament don't get this, let's hope the Brits kick them out, too.

[From article]
For a long time, Britons who wanted their country to leave the European Union were regarded almost as mentally ill by those who wanted it to stay. The leavers didn’t have an opinion; they had a pathology. Since one doesn’t argue with pathology, it wasn’t necessary for the remainers to answer the leavers with more than sneers and derision.
Even after the vote, the attitude persists. Those who voted to leave are described as, ipso facto, small-minded, xenophobic, and fearful of the future. Those who voted to stay are described as, ipso facto, open-minded, cosmopolitan, and forward-looking. The BBC itself suggested as much on its website. In short, the desire to leave was a return to the insularity that resulted in the famous—though apocryphal—newspaper headline: fog in the channel: continent cut off.
If insularity is indeed on the rise, it is affecting increasing numbers of Europeans. According to the latest polls, nearly a half of the Italians and Dutch want their countries to leave. Discontent with the Union is also widespread in other countries. The French have a poorer opinion of the European Union than do the British, but because the French believe it to be reformable, fewer want to leave. Before the vote, the danger of Brexit to the integrity of the European Union was described in the French media in pathological terms, as a possible “contagion,” rather than merely an example to be followed
[. . .]



The vote might also lead to a unification of Ireland, for the Northern Irish also voted to remain in Europe. Sinn Fein has already called for a referendum on unification. Such unification would be a great blessing for England, but not necessarily for Ireland.
One possible reason for the success of the Brexit campaign was President Obama’s ill-conceived intervention, when he threatened that if Britain voted to leave the Union, it would have to go to the “back of the queue” as far as any trade agreements are concerned. This sounded like bullying, and was not well-received by much of the British population, which had already been subjected to quite a lot of such bullying from others. If I were an American, I shouldn’t have been pleased with it either, for Obama spoke not as a president with a few months left in office, but as a president-for-life, or at least one with the right to decide his successor’s policy.
[. . .]



Among the many subjects not properly discussed during the campaign was whether large and fundamental political changes should be made based on 50 percent-plus-one of the votes cast in a single plebiscite. The House of Commons is not constitutionally bound by the results, and most members of Parliament support remaining in the European Union. They could argue, not without plausibility, that a vote representing no more than three-eighths of the total electorate isn’t quite the groundswell of opinion that should be required for fundamental change. If they acted on this argument, however, violence might erupt.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/brexits-complicated-aftermath-14590.html

Brexit’s Complicated Aftermath
What comes next? Nobody really knows.
Theodore Dalrymple
June 24, 2016

Democratic U.S. Rep. Convicted Of Racketeering, After Son Was Sentenced To Five Years For Bank and Tax Fraud

Longtime Democratic representative Chaka Fattah was convicted Tuesday to charges stemming from his efforts to repay an illegal $1 million campaign loan.

[From article]
A veteran Pennsylvania congressman was convicted Tuesday in a racketeering case that largely centered on various efforts to repay an illegal $1 million campaign loan related to his unsuccessful 2007 mayoral bid.
U.S. Rep. Chaka Fattah was found guilty of all counts against him, including racketeering, fraud and money laundering. His lawyers had argued that the schemes were engineered without Fattah's knowledge by two political consultants who pleaded guilty in the case.
The 59-year-old Democrat had been in Congress since 1995 and served on the powerful House Appropriations Committee. But he lost the April primary and his bid for his 12th term. His current term ends Jan. 2.
Fattah had little reaction to the verdict, but he kept a smile on his face as he conferred with his lawyers afterward.
He will remain free on bail. A judge set sentencing for Oct. 4.
Fattah told reporters as he was leaving the courtroom: "Well, it's a tough day, but I do want to thank the jurors for their service." He said he will confer with his lawyers on the next step.
Prosecutors said Fattah routed federal grant money and nonprofit funds through his consultants to pay back the illegal loan.
His wife, Philadelphia TV news anchor Renee Chenault-Fattah, took a leave after her husband's indictment and then quit in February. She was cited in the case over the sham sale of her Porsche, which prosecutors said was a bribe. But she was never charged with any wronging, and she said the sale was legitimate.
In a related case, his son, Chaka "Chip" Fattah Jr., was convicted on charges of bank and tax fraud and sentenced in February to five years in prison. A jury found he took part in a scheme as a subcontractor to defraud the Philadelphia school district.
Justice Department lawyer Jonathan Kravis said in his closing argument that Chaka Fattah Sr. used federal grants and nonprofit funds to enrich his family and friends.
Defense lawyers acknowledged Fattah might have gotten himself in financial trouble after a costly mayoral bid, but they said any help from friends amounted to gifts, not bribes.
Many of them came from co-defendant Herbert Vederman, a wealthy friend who had dreams of scoring an ambassadorship. U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, a Democrat, testified that he never took the pitch from Fattah too seriously, even though Fattah once bent the president's ear about it. Democrat Ed Rendell, a former mayor and governor, was called to defend Vederman, his former deputy mayor. He said Vederman was qualified for the job and accused prosecutors of cynically misreading the help he lent Fattah.
Vederman helped support Fattah's South African nanny and paid $18,000 for a Porsche owned by Fattah's TV anchor wife.
"The nanny, the Porsche and the Poconos, they weren't part of a bribery scheme," Fattah lawyer Samuel Silver argued in closings. "Those were all overreaches by the prosecution."
The campaign loan was just one of several schemes prosecutors outlined during the trial. They say Fattah was aided in his endeavors by current and former staffers who ran his district office or the nonprofits; by Vederman, who now lives in Palm Beach, Florida; and by political consultants Greg Naylor and Thomas Lindenfeld, who pleaded guilty.
The other co-defendants are Bonnie Bowser, of Philadelphia, who ran his district office; Karen Nicholas, of Williamstown, New Jersey, who ran the education nonprofit Fattah started; and Robert Brand, of Philadelphia, a businessman married to a former Fattah staffer. The jury on Tuesday came back with a mixed verdict for them.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-3652804/Verdict-reached-Pennsylvania-congressmans-bribery-case.html

Democratic congressman Chaka Fattah convicted on racketeering, fraud and money laundering charges for using federal grant money to pay back an illegal campaign loan
Fatah was elected in 1995
He was put on the powerful House Appropriations Committee
'The nanny, the Porsche and the Poconos'
Lawmaker ran into financial trouble after failed bid for mayor of Philadelphia
Defense claims Fattah accepted help from a friend, but not bribes
His son also was convicted in a related case
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
Daily Mail (UK)
PUBLISHED: 12:12 EST, 21 June 2016 | UPDATED: 13:09 EST, 21 June 2016

Are U.S. Voters Useful Idiots?

http://www.teamnetworks.net/photo/7362/beware-the-useful-idiots-that-follow-saul-alinsky/

Beware the Useful Idiots That Follow Saul Alinsky

November 12, 2015

Fighting Money in Politics

This below image and text were received from Cambridge, MA City Councilor Nadeem Mazen. The wealthiest person in Cambridge, MA is the corporation officially known as The President and Fellows of Harvard College. Harvard University has a $37 billion endowment. Do they use any of it to influence elections and policy decision makers? Does their wealth influence the court system? Harvard has three full time lobbyists in Washington, DC. Most of the city councilors and many city employees are Harvard graduates. The university controls city and state government. Does Harvard's money corrupt what the prominent university does? Mazen does not say. 



Earlier this year a prominent Harvard University Law School professor of ethics, Lawrence Lessig, chose to run for President during his leave of absence. He began using his offices for his campaign in apparent direct violation of IRS laws, US Treasury department laws, city and state tax laws. One of his hired consultants at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University may also have used his office for the campaign. His company address is in California. Then a woman professor at the Harvard Center for Government and International Studies published an essay in the Washington Post attacking Donald Trump. Was this another illegal use of the University's 501(c)(3) tax exemption? Did their $37 billion endowment encourage their alleged transgressions? Mazeen does not speak about these events.



The Ethics professor decided to run after he raised more than $1 million for his campaign. But he dropped out shortly after he announced. He is allowed by state and US law to keep the money he raised for future campaigns. Did I mention the reason he gave for running was to fight corrupt campaign finance practices? Mazeen does not address this as an abuse. Ex-MA State Senator Jarrett Barrios, left his senate seat with $500,000 in campaign funds which he kept. Barrios is now the CEO of the Massachusetts Red Cross and earns over $300,000 a year in salary, plus unknown  benefits. The goal of ending campaign finance abuses attracts a certain nobility among politicians. 



Usually emails from high minded city councilors include invitations to fund raising parties. Do they all oppose money in politics while they want you to give them your money? Are they "not politicians" as former Governor Patrick of Massachusetts used to announce, saying "I am not a politician."? 



Help Get Money Out of Politics
We have been working hard to reform campaign finance in Cambridge and push back against special interests but we need your help! Join the Team Nadeem Campaign Finance Working Group to fight for publicly-financed elections alongside other committed local activists.

US Attorney, District Attorney Investigate Suspicious Brooklyn Library Deal By Mayor Of New York

[From article]
The $52 million deal to redevelop the Brooklyn Heights library into a luxury condo tower, which City Hall awarded to a de Blasio pal who offered less money for the city-owned land than two other bidders, has attracted the attention of federal and city prosecutors, The Post has learned.
The joint probe comes three months after The Post revealed the sweetheart scheme and marks the seventh pay-to-play scandal engulfing the de Blasio administration.
Mayor de Blasio’s latest imbroglio has investigators questioning why the city chose Hudson Cos. to buy the Brooklyn Public Library branch on Clinton Street and build a 36-story condo on top of it despite submitting a bid that was $6 million less than a competitor’s.
The offices of US Attorney Preet Bharara and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance sent subpoenas to several of the 14 developers that bid on the project, sources familiar with the investigation said.
One of the subpoenas went to Toll Brothers President David Von Spreckelsen, a source said. Toll Brothers offered $1 million more than Hudson, the sources said.
Hudson President David Kramer is “one of many people being looked at” but has not been subpoenaed, the sources said.
[. . .]



Hoping to raise money to refurbish its system, the Brooklyn Public Library approached the city to draw up a request for proposals for the development of the site.
The city and library jointly released the RFP in June 2013.
The city Economic Development Corp. vetted the bids on behalf of the library.
Kramer proposed a 30-story residential skyscraper — with 114 units of affordable housing sited two miles away. The plan included space for the library on the ground floor and $40 million of the $52 million bid to spruce up other branches. He also planned to relocate the library to a space on Remsen Street in July 2016 for the four-year construction period.
At least two competing developers not only offered to pay the library more money, but several proposed to build affordable units on the site.
Brooklyn-based Second Development Services offered the library $6 million more than did Hudson and 117 affordable units.
One competing bidder described the process as rigged to benefit de Blasio’s friends.
[. . .]
A friend of the mayor for more than a decade, Kramer and his wife have given $9,125 to de Blasio’s political campaigns since 2007. De Blasio has refunded $6,325 of that money without giving an explanation on city campaign filings.
De Blasio kept another $4,850 that came from Hudson employees, records show.
Kramer and his project architect, Jonathan Marvel, also hosted fund-raisers for de Blasio’s mayoral campaign, including an October 2013 soirée for which Marvel invited the city’s biggest developers.
Six weeks after de Blasio was sworn in, Hudson coughed up $5,000 to the Campaign for One New York, a charity promoting the mayor’s agenda. Marvel Architects added $2,000 in June 2015.
Toll Brothers also has given CONY two $25,000 donations.

http://nypost.com/2016/05/22/feds-da-probe-de-blasios-52m-deal-to-turn-library-into-condo/

Feds, DA probe de Blasio’s $52M deal to turn library into condo
By Aaron Short
New York Post
May 22, 2016 | 12:26am

Pat Buchanan Reveals Why Romney's Stop Trump Effort is Misguided

Mitt Romney (right), leads the stop Donald Trump (left) Campaign

[From article]
Reince Priebus was commenting on a Washington Post story about Mitt Romney and William Kristol’s plot to recruit a third-party conservative candidate to sink Donald Trump.
Several big-name Republican “consultants” and “strategists” are said to be on board. Understandably so, given the bucks involved.
With the kind of cash that sloshes around in a presidential campaign, there should be no shortage of super PAC parasites at the enlistment office.
[. . .]
If Romney believes that Trump is an unacceptable nominee and would be an intolerable president, and that Republicans have a moral obligation to prevent this, why does Romney not man up and take on the assignment himself?
[. . .]
His father shared Romney’s mindset: If the voters have made a mistake, you are not obligated to support it. Just days after Sen. Barry Goldwater locked up the Republican nomination in the California primary, Gov. George Romney was at the Cleveland governors conference plotting to stop him.
Richard Nixon arrived to encourage Romney to step out onto the tracks in front of the Goldwater express. Romney thought better of taking Nixon’s counsel. But he did join Gov. Nelson Rockefeller in denouncing his own party for coddling extremists, and refused to endorse Goldwater, as son Mitt is refusing to endorse Trump.
It was after that Cleveland Convention that Nixon ruefully told me, “Buchanan, whenever you hear of a group forming up to stop X, be sure to put your money on X.”
[. . .]
But whatever you say about the political savvy of George Romney, he was stubborn as a bull in his convictions, and he had the courage to go down to defeat fighting for them.
[. . .]
The Romney-Kristol collusion thus overlaps nicely with the interests of the Clinton campaign and the agenda of the Beltway media elite.
By scheming to divide the Republican base, they are colluding to bring about the defeat of the Republican Party. And that means Bill and Hillary Clinton back in the White House.
[. . .]
Either Trump or Clinton is going to be the next president. [. . .] The Romney-Kristol cabal is Hillary Clinton’s fifth column inside the Republican Party.

http://buchanan.org/blog/mitt-suicide-mission-125247

Is Mitt on a Suicide Mission?
Monday - May 16, 2016 at 10:08 pm
Patrick J. Buchanan

George Will Indicates He Is Unlike Edmund Burke, I.e., Not A Populist

Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

[From article]
Today we are being treated to the sight of conservative George Will of the Washington Post, denouncing Donald Trump to the bitter end. Mr. Will is the WaPo's nod to Madisonian democracy, which feels safe enough to the lefties of the WaPo – because who is going to bring James Madison back to life today?
Mr. Will is there like a gold ormulu clock on the mantelpiece, to show the intellectual diversity of the WaPo. He writes and speaks in whole sentences, but secretly, my hero George Will is a member of the Whig Party, the founding elite of the United States.
Now, I admire Mr. Will as one kind of true conservative, believe it or not. But he is not a Burkean conservative, because Edmund Burke (1729-1797) was actually a populist intellectual.
Burke believed in the intuitive wisdom and good sense of ordinary people. I'm afraid that Mr. Will sneers at popular conservatives because they are...well, popular. Like GOP winner Donald Trump, who talks the earthy language of Queens, New York.


Donald Trump

Trump is attractive to voters who are sick and tired of being preached at and lied to by our mis-educated elites. Trump is not as intellectual as Ted Cruz. Intellectuals are good for Supreme Court justices, and Cruz knows his constitutional law.
But Trump understands and likes people, which is not the same thing.
Conservatives have long been divided between intuitive people and intellectuals. Thomas Jefferson was an intellectual. Andrew Jackson was an intuitive conservative.
Abe Lincoln was a very rare politician who had a liking and appreciation for everyday people but could still make eloquent speeches that educated Americans could love. Ben Franklin was also able to bridge popularity and intellect. But Alexander Hamilton famously said, "The People? Sir, the People is a Great Beast!"
In some way George Will is more of a Hamiltonian. Nothing wrong with that, but Mr. Will consistently fails to understand the Donald Trumps of this world. Ronald Reagan and Harry Truman had sound intuitions about people. Woodrow Wilson was an intellectual.
In truth, Trump understands sophisticated ideas also, and he can talk in complete sentences. We can see that as he is making his "pivot" to more conventional politics. But Mr. Trump loves to outrage the Hamiltonians in Washington, D.C., who are still freaked out by the prospect of a practical person getting a chance.
Burke was an Irishman who served in the British Parliament, a life history that might explain his hatred for tyranny and his love and respect for human intuition. Ireland in his time was miserably poor, generally uneducated, and badly exploited by English landlords, but still rich in human talent. Burke empathized with the poor and powerless, but he also admired the decency and good sense of most people.



In Burke's time, throngs of impoverished Irish fled to Britain, America, Australia, India and New Zealand, which is why so many American politicians have Irish roots.
Burke supported the American Revolution, because he saw the Constitution as an extension of British rights and freedoms, earned over the centuries in power struggles against tyrants. But the key to Burke was his faith in the good judgment of everyday people.
That's what he wrote about in his most famous paragraph, comparing the grasshoppers of the chattering classes to the mass of ordinary people, "reposed beneath the shadow of the British oak."
His advice was not to pay much attention to screaming headlines, but to put your trust in the intuitive good sense of the people.
Because half a dozen grasshoppers under a fern make the field ring with their importunate chink, whilst thousands of great cattle, reposed beneath the shadow of the British oak, chew the cud and are silent, pray do not imagine that those who make the noise are the only inhabitants of the field.
Trump is a practical man. George Will is a classic intellectual. They don't need to fight each other, because a viable world needs both kinds of people.
But maybe it's time for conservative intellectuals to stop sulking and get with the program. Worse things than Trump have happened to this country – like the last seven years of Obama, or (heaven forefend!) the next eight years of Hillary.
Today we have a choice, not an echo.
You may not love the choice, but consider the alternative.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/05/george_will_takes_on_edmund_burke.html

May 6, 2016
George Will Takes On Edmund Burke
By James Lewis

U.S. Troops Support Trump Over Clinton By Large Margin

[From article]
In a new survey of American military personnel, Donald Trump emerged as active-duty service members' preference to become the next U.S. president, topping Hillary Clinton by more than a 2-to-1 margin. However, in the latest Military Times election survey, more than one in five troops said they’d rather not vote in November if they have to choose between just those two candidates.
But given only those choices, 21 percent of the service members surveyed said they would abstain from voting.More than 54 percent of the 951 troops Military Times surveyed said they would vote for Trump, the presumed Republican presidential nominee, over Clinton, the Democratic front-runner. Only about 25 percent said they would vote for Clinton in that matchup.
[. . .]
Military personnel also demonstrated strong support for Trump in a Military Times reader survey conducted in March. Trump was the most popular candidate among the six presidential candidates remaining then, and the clear choice among Republican service members.
[. . .]
“The candidates left just don’t understand the military,” said Army Capt. Christian Pardo, who said he would not vote for any of the major party candidates left. “The military perspective on some of their policies are just so far out there.”
[. . .]
The sample is not a perfect representation of the military as a whole; it over-represents officers and noncommissioned officers, and under-represents junior enlisted personnel. However, it is representative of the more senior and career-oriented members of the force who run the military's day-to-day operations and carry out its policies.

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/election/2016/05/09/military-times-survey-donald-trump-beats-hillary-clinton/84132402/

Military Times survey: Troops prefer Trump to Clinton by a huge margin
Leo Shane III and George R. Altman

Military Times

2:54 p.m. EDT May 9, 2016

London's New Mayor Attacks Trump, Who Praises The Election of Openly Muslim Politician

Photo: AP; Reuters
[From article]
Newly elected London Mayor Sadiq Khan slammed Donald Trump on Tuesday, after the presumptive GOP presidential nominee said the Brit would likely be exempt from his proposed ban on Muslims entering the US.
“Donald Trump’s ignorant view of Islam could make both our countries less safe — it risks alienating mainstream Muslims around the world and plays into the hands of the extremists,” according to a statement from Khan, the son of Pakistani immigrants.
The London pol has repeatedly assailed Trump’s call to ban Muslims from entering the United States — a prohibition which, in theory, would bar Khan, London’s first Muslim mayor, from coming to American shores.
“This isn’t just about me — it’s about my friends, my family and everyone who comes from a background similar to mine, anywhere in the world,” Khan said.
He continued: “Donald Trump and those around him think that Western liberal values are incompatible with mainstream Islam — London has proved him wrong.”
Trump said Monday he was “happy” that Khan was elected.
“I think it’s a very good thing,” the mogul said. “I hope he does a very good job because, frankly, that would be very, very good.”

http://nypost.com/2016/05/10/londons-new-muslim-mayor-slams-trump/

London’s new Muslim mayor slams Trump
By David K. Li
New York Post
May 10, 2016 | 9:48am

New York City Mayor Investigated By Four Agencies For Corruption

Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney SDNY

[From article]
At least five investigations are underway concerning corruption in or around New York City mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration. So far, the investigations have revealed that two members of the mayor’s inaugural committee gave lavish gifts to top NYPD brass in exchange for favors, including the opportunity to hang around in police circles and get speedy access to gun permits. A lobbyist with close ties to de Blasio was involved in a shady real estate deal that leveraged city approval to make millions for inside investors. Next, it emerged that the mayor’s closest advisors had asked major donors to funnel money through county political committees to Democratic candidates for state senate in 2014. This kind of fundraising is against the law if the donations are coordinated. Investigators are also looking into coordination between the mayor’s 2013 campaign, his political nonprofit organization the Campaign for One New York, and the operations of anti-horse-carriage group NYCLASS, which was organized as an independent campaign group. Finally, authorities are examining allegations that “straw donors” contributed large sums to de Blasio’s mayoral campaign.
A range of entities are investigating these overlapping charges, including the office of Manhattan district attorney Cyrus Vance; the New York State Board of Elections; New York State’s Joint Commission on Public Ethics (JCOPE); and U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, among others. In sum, every law enforcement agency with oversight over New York City government is asserting shared jurisdiction and examining some piece of what is shaping up to be one of the largest municipal political scandals in history.



In response, Mayor de Blasio has taken a page from his former boss Hillary Clinton’s playbook and claimed that the whole thing is a frame-up orchestrated by his political enemies. [. . .] The implication is that Governor Andrew Cuomo—a fellow Democrat but otherwise no friend of de Blasio’s—is directing JCOPE’s probe. JCOPE is a legally constituted state commission empowered to investigate matters pertaining to ethics and lobbying; no provision exists by which officials can opt out of its investigations. And the idea that Bharara is taking his marching orders from Albany is ludicrous: there is every reason to assume that Cuomo himself may be in Bharara’s sights.
De Blasio suggests that he has been targeted on ideological grounds, because he has spoken so much truth to power. [. . .] Going further to burnish his revolutionary credentials and solidify his support among African-American voters, de Blasio praised the election of Sadiq Khan (“this ray of light”) as mayor of London. “A lot of people in this room have studied history and know something about colonialism and imperialism,” he said. “How wonderful—yes, a bit ironic—but more important a statement of progress that the place that used to be the capital of colonialism has elected a Muslim man as its mayor.”
In radio interviews, de Blasio has complained about unfair double standards. [. . .] a lot of people are doing a lot worse and not getting much examination.”
[. . .]



Perhaps trying to rally progressives and divert attention from his proliferating scandals, de Blasio renewed calls for a boycott of fast-food restaurant Chick-Fil-A, whose owner reportedly opposes same-sex marriage. [. . .] Several Chick-Fil-A franchises operate in Manhattan, and more are scheduled to open; protests were originally organized against the restaurant in New York City in 2012, prior to its expansion here.
[. . .]



As investigations and allegations of the mayor’s corruption continue to mount, expect him to continue blaming others, making vainglorious noises about his commitment to righteousness, and practicing clumsy legerdemain to divert attention from his problems. It has always been clear that de Blasio is not an effective manager of the city; what’s also becoming apparent is that he is not even good at managing his own image.

http://city-journal.org/html/deflecting-de-blasio-14438.html

Deflecting with De Blasio
The progressive New York City mayor tries to draw attention away from his administration’s mounting scandals.
Seth Barron
May 9, 2016

* * *



[From article]
This was how the mayor welcomed them on Monday: “I’m certainly not going to patronize them and I wouldn’t urge any other New Yorker to patronize them.”
Chick-Fil-A will survive. But as long as de Blasio’s trashing eateries in order to stroke special interests — common sense be damned — why won’t he take on other restaurants which might offend certain ethnic and gender sensitivities?
Italian-American joints often hang photos of Italian mobster-playing actors such as Marlon Brando and James Gandolfini, and even of real-life murderer John Gotti. The stereotype-promoting pictures at Capri on Mulberry Street left this Italian-American mortally wounded. The attitude of the mayor, my fellow paisano? Omerta.
You’d at least think a restaurant which posed a clear and present danger to public safety might draw his ire. But when the Carnegie Deli reopened recently after a 10-month shutdown, he cheerily tweeted a celebratory photo of a pastrami sandwich.
Never mind that Carnegie Deli was closed by city officials for illegally siphoning gas — the same kind of stunt which blew up an East Village building last year, killing two people and injuring 19.
But de Blasio prefers to pick and choose only those eatery beefs that satisfy his appetite for sucking up.

http://nypost.com/2016/05/08/de-blasios-chick-fil-a-boycott-is-a-clucking-travesty/

De Blasio’s Chick-Fil-A boycott is a clucking travesty
By Steve Cuozzo
May 8, 2016 | 11:21am

New York Post

* * *

http://nypost.com/2016/05/06/de-blasio-blames-cuomo-for-state-ethics-probe/

De Blasio says ethics probe is a witch hunt led by Cuomo
By Yoav Gonen, Kirstan Conley and Danika Fears
New York Post
May 6, 2016 | 7:32pm

Trump's Victory Should Not Be Compromised

Donald Trump

[From article]

“The two living Republican past presidents, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, have no plans to endorse Trump, according to their spokesmen.” 

[. . .]


George Herbert Walker Bush

The Bushes have many fine qualities. Losing well, however, is not one of them.
And they have to know, whether they concede it or not, that Trump’s triumph is a sweeping repudiation of Bush Republicanism by the same party that nominated them four times for the presidency.
Not only was son and brother, Jeb, humiliated and chased out of the race early, but Trump won his nomination by denouncing as rotten to the core the primary fruits of signature Bush policies.
Twelve million aliens are here illegally, said Trump, because the Bushes failed to secure America’s borders.


George W. Bush

America has run up $12 trillion in trade deficits and been displaced as the world’s first manufacturing power by China, said Trump, because of the lousy trade deals backed by Bush Republicans.
The greatest strategic blunder in U.S. history, said Trump, was the Bush II decision to invade Iraq to disarm it of nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.
The war Bush began, says Trump, produced 5,000 American dead, scores of thousands wounded, trillions of dollars wasted, and a Middle East sunk in civil-sectarian war, chaos and fanaticism.
That is a savage indictment of the Bush legacy. And a Republican electorate, in the largest turnout in primary history, nodded, “Amen to that, brother!”
[. . .]
What the Trump campaign revealed, as Republicans and even Democrats moved toward him on trade, immigration and foreign policy, is that Bush Republicanism and neoconservatism not only suffered a decisive defeat, they had a sword run right through them.
They are as dead as emperor-worship in Japan.
Trump won the nomination, he won the argument, and he won the debate. The party is now with Trump — on the issues. For GOP elites, there can be no going back to what the grass roots rejected.
[. . .]


John Ellis Bush

While he ought to keep an open door to those he defeated, the greatest mistake he could make would be to seek the support of the establishment he crushed by compromising on the issues that brought out his crowds and brought him his victories and nomination.
[. . .]
Hubert Humphrey closed a 15-point gap in the Gallup poll on Oct. 1 to reach a 43-43 photo finish with Richard Nixon in 1968.
President Gerald Ford was down 33 points to Jimmy Carter in mid-July 1976, but lost by only 2 points on Election Day.
In February 1980, Ronald Reagan was 29 points behind Jimmy Carter, whom he would crush 51-41 in a 44-state landslide.
Gov. Michael Dukakis left his Atlanta convention 17 points ahead of Vice President George H. W. Bush in 1988. Five weeks later, Labor Day, Bush had an eight-point lead he never lost, and swept 40 states.
What this suggests is extraordinary volatility of the electorate in the modern age. As this year has shown, that has not changed.
[. . .]
Ultimately, the Great Unifier upon whom the Republican Party may reliably depend is the nominee of the Democratic Party — Director James Comey and his FBI consenting — Hillary Rodham Clinton.

http://buchanan.org/blog/bush-republicanism-dead-gone-125196

Bush Republicanism Is Dead and Gone
Thursday - May 5, 2016 at 10:11 pm
Patrick J. Buchanan

U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan Out On Long Limb, Making Demands

Left to right. Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater

[From article]
Forty-eight hours after Donald Trump wrapped up the Republican nomination with a smashing victory in the Indiana primary, House Speaker Paul Ryan announced that he could not yet support Trump.
In millennial teen-talk, Ryan told CNN’s Jake Tapper, “I’m just not ready to do that at this point. I’m not there right now.”
“[T]he bulk of the burden of unifying the party” falls on Trump, added Ryan. Trump must unify “all wings of the Republican Party, and the conservative movement.” Trump must run a campaign that we can “be proud to support and proud to be a part of.”
Then, maybe, our Hamlet of the House can be persuaded to support the elected nominee of his own party.
Excuse me, but upon what meat has this our Caesar fed?
Ryan is a congressman from Wisconsin. He has never won a statewide election. As number two on Mitt Romney’s ticket, he got waxed by Joe Biden. He was compromise choice as speaker, only after John Boehner went into in his Brer Rabbit “Zip-a-dee-doo-dah” routine.
Who made Ryan the conscience of conservatism?
Who made Ryan keeper of the keys of true Republicanism?
Trump “inherits something … that’s very special to a lot of us,” said Ryan, “the party of Lincoln and Reagan and Jack Kemp.”
But Trump did not “inherit” anything. He won the nomination of the Republican Party in an epic battle in the most wide-open race ever, in which Trump generated the largest turnout and greatest vote totals in the history of Republican primaries.
[. . .]
The hubris here astonishes. A Republican establishment that has been beaten as badly as Carthage in the Third Punic War is now making demands on Scipio Africanus and the victorious Romans.
[. . .]
Someone should instruct Paul Ryan that losers do not make demands. They make requests. They make pleas.
[. . .]
Ryan is saying he is ambivalent over whether he will accept the verdict of the Cleveland convention — of which he is the chairman.
If Ryan holds to his refusal to accept the decision of the Republican majority in the primaries, he should be removed from that role. And if Ryan does not come out of Thursday’s meeting with the Donald, endorsing him, the presumptive nominee should turn to Paul Ryan, and, in two words, tell him, “You’re fired!”
Trump cannot allow the establishment to claw back in the cloakrooms of Capitol Hill what he won on a political battlefield. He cannot allow a discredited establishment to dictate the issues he may run on.
That would be a betrayal of the troops who brought Trump victory after victory in the primaries.
[. . .]


Nelson A. Rockefeller

Paul Ryan is the Nelson Rockefeller of his generation.
In 1960, Gov. Rockefeller refused to challenge Vice President Nixon in the primaries. When Nixon went to Rockefeller’s New York apartment to persuade him to join the ticket, Rocky refused, but demanded concessions in the platform, to which Nixon acceded.
[. . .]

Only the appearance of Sen. Barry Goldwater at the podium to tell conservatives to “grow up. We can take this party back,” halted a suicidal drive to take the nomination away from Nixon.
After Goldwater won the nomination in the 1964 California primary by defeating Rockefeller, Rocky arrived at the San Francisco convention to demand that a plank equating the John Birch Society with the Communist Party and Ku Klux Klan be written into Goldwater’s platform. Hooted and rejected, Rocky went home and refused to endorse the nominee, who went down to a crushing defeat by LBJ.
Nixon, a party loyalist, campaigned across the country for Barry and his doomed party.
In 1968, Nixon got his reward, the nomination, with Goldwater’s support. And Govs. Rockefeller and George Romney, who had done the Paul Ryan thing, never came close.
[. . .]
This is one Private Ryan we cannot save.

http://buchanan.org/blog/promoted-private-ryan-125221

Who Promoted Private Ryan?
Monday - May 9, 2016 at 7:37 pm
Patrick J. Buchanan

Austin, Texas Votes To Require Fingerprinting of Uber, Lyft Drivers

[From article]
Ride-sharing services Uber and Lyft are set to quit the Texas city of Austin after voters said fingerprinting should be part of driver background checks, reports said.
The companies had poured $8.6 million into a campaign to keep fingerprinting, which can be expensive and time-consuming, out of driver checks.
Results from the vote on Proposition One -- the most expensive campaign in city history -- showed 56 percent in favor of fingerprint checks, compared 44 percent against, according to the Austin American-Statesman newspaper.



The vote came after the City Council passed an ordinance in December that, among other rules for ride-sharing companies, required their drivers to undergo fingerprint-based background checks by February 1, 2017.

Uber and Lyft announced after the results of Saturday's vote that they were set to suspend operations in Austin, the capital city of Texas, on Monday morning.
"Disappointment does not begin to describe how we feel about shutting down operations in Austin," Uber Austin general manager Chris Nakutis said in a statement.
"We hope the City Council will reconsider their ordinance so we can work together to make the streets of Austin a safer place for everyone."
Lyft added in its own statement: "We're very disappointed to leave the Lyft Austin community -- and we hope to come back soon. If you'd like to help make Austin rideshare-friendly again, reach out to your City Council member and tell them."
Currently, New York and Houston are the only US cities that require fingerprinting for ride-sharing drivers, media reports said.

Uber has threatened to pull out of Houston if fingerprinting rules aren't changed, saying they hamper driver recruitment.
Business is booming for ride-sharing companies but they face tricky regulatory issues in cities around the world.
They are up against stiff resistance from traditional taxi drivers, as well as bans in some places over safety concerns and questions over legal issues, including taxes.
On Wednesday, San Francisco-based Uber announced a policy board that includes a former European Commission vice president to help the company overcome regulatory and other hurdles.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/uber-lyft-set-leave-texas-city-over-fingerprinting-075141677.html?ref=gs

Uber, Lyft set to leave Texas city over fingerprinting rule
AFP
May 8, 2016

Trump, Clinton Most Despised Candidates in History

Photo: AP; UPI
[From article]

No presidential candidate in polling history has been as hated by voters as Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are now.
But a review of the last eight presidential elections reveals that the most hated candidate in the spring almost always ends up winning in November.
This year’s top candidates have smashed all records for voter disdain. Clinton is “strongly disliked” by 37 percent of voters, topping the 32 percent who couldn’t stand George W. Bush in 2004.
And the disapproval of Trump has never before been seen in presidential politics, with 53 percent rating him “strongly unfavorable.”
The numbers were crunched by FiveThirtyEight, which released a set of charts comparing the “strongly unfavorable” ratings of presidential candidates stretching back to 1984.
Blame the huge disapproval numbers on a polarized electorate and the celebrity status of the front-runners.
But such negative numbers at this stage do not spell ballot-box doom.
Over the last 32 years, all but one of the major candidates who had a strong-disapproval rating higher than his opponent during primary season went on to win the popular vote.
[. . .]

While Trump might take heart from this historical lesson, he shouldn’t go measuring the Oval Office curtains just yet. There’s another set of numbers to take into account.

It’s net favorability — or the difference between the number of those who strongly disapprove and strongly approve of the candidate.
Since 1996, the candidate with the higher net strong-favorability number at this stage of the campaign has gone on to win the election.
Trump and Clinton set records here, too: both have the lowest net favorability numbers ever measured. Clinton’s minus-20 would be by far the lowest in history — if not for Trump’s, which is even worse at minus-41.

http://nypost.com/2016/05/08/trump-and-clinton-are-the-most-despised-candidates-in-history/

Trump and Clinton are the most despised candidates in history
By Mary Kay Linge
New York Post
May 8, 2016 | 2:47am

http://nyp.st/1Xf4SQa

Forty Percent of London Population Born Outside UK, Openly Muslim Mayor Elected

Sadiq Khan and his wife, Saadiya, arrive to cast their votes in the local elections, in Tooting, south London. 
Photograph: Stefan Wermuth/Reuters

[From article]
In London, the religion of the Labour candidate for the city’s mayor became an issue only when his Conservative opponent made it one, by attempting to link his rival to Islamist extremism in a campaign criticised as divisive and racist.
Abroad, however, it seems the faith and family background of Sadiq Khan is seen through a somewhat different prism: in much foreign media coverage of the elections, it was more important than his politics.
[. . .]
Le Monde went out of its way to note that Khan, “the son of an immigrant bus driver from Pakistan”, described his moderate Islamic faith as “part of my identity” – adding that his opponent Zac Goldsmith was “the son of a Franco-British billionaire of Jewish origin”.
Khan’s religion was prominent in media coverage of the election in the Netherlands, where Ahmed Aboutaleb has been the Muslim mayor of the country’s second largest city, Rotterdam, since 2009. The headline of the authoritative NRC Handsblad was: “The green millionaire v the leftwing Muslim”, while the right leaning De Telegraaf chose simply: “London could get its first Muslim mayor”.
In Germany, Süddeutsche Zeitung remarked – although not in its headline – that London seemed on course for its first Muslim mayor, while Switzerland’s Le Temps noted that the duel between the sons of “a billionaire, and a bus driver” could see the city becoming “the first European capital to be run by a Muslim”.
[. . .]
in a city in which almost 40% of residents were born outside the UK, and whose Muslim population makes up 12% of the total (and more than 30% in some boroughs), the popular image of Pakistan was more usually to do with corner shops and academic excellence.
But perhaps the most striking example of how differently much of the world sees London – and the importance of religion – from the way the city plainly sees itself came from the US, where Donald Trump caused uproar with a call for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the country.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/06/london-mayor-global-press-reaction-sadiq-khan-curiosity-ignorance

Global press reaction to Sadiq Khan a mix of curiosity and ignorance
Labour candidate for London mayor judged by his faith, rather than actions or politics, in several European and US
Jon Henley

@jonhenley
Friday 6 May 2016 15.11 EDT

London, UK Elects First Openly Muslim Mayor

Mr Khan and his family were met by a huge group of reporters as he arrived at London's City Hall for tonight's declaration of the crucial mayoral race.

[From article]

Sadiq Khan was declared the first Muslim Mayor of London tonight after comfortably defeating Tory rival Zac Goldsmith.
In a glimmer of light for Jeremy Corbyn from an otherwise dire set of election results, emerging results at City Hall made it clear there was no route to victory for Mr Goldsmith.
The official declaration was originally due around 6pm but 'discrepancies' in the count pushed the final result back.
As midnight approached there was still no official declaration and suggestions that glitches in the electronic counting system might delay the final result.
LBC's political editor Theo Usherwood tweeted: 'I am hearing the problem with the count is more significant than was first let on.
'The computer which counts the votes has apparently allocated them to the wrong party. We are apparently talking hundreds of votes in each of the 72 parliamentary constituencies.'
A London Elects spokesman said: 'We have to take the time to resolve these issues. We are working towards a declaration at midnight. I apologise.'
But elections expert Michael Thrasher declared the contest was over based on figures already released which showed it was impossible for Mr Goldsmith to catch up on second preferences.
The bitterly contested battle had seen Mr Goldsmith and David Cameron repeatedly raise Mr Khan's ties to extremists.
But the interventions did not sway voters in the capital – and the Prime Minister is now facing a massive Conservative backlash over the tactics.
Mr Corbyn welcomed the victory by tweeting: 'Can't wait to work with you to create a London that is fair for all.'
[. . .]
Mr Khan scored more than a million votes on the first round alone and appeared likely to rack up the largest individual mandate in British electoral history once second preference votes were included.
Steven Norris, a former MP and mayoral candidate, insisted it was 'no use having a dog whistle when everybody can hear it' as he led criticism of Mr Goldsmith's campaign.
Andrew Boff, the Conservative leader on the Greater London assembly, said the strategy had been a mistake and could damage relations with the Muslim community.
Roger Evans, a deputy to Boris Johnson at City Hall, also weighed in, warning that Mr Goldsmith's campaign would leave a 'negative legacy'.
In a remarkable broadside on the Tory mayoral candidate, Mr Boff said his party's tactics could damage relations with the Muslim community.
Roger Evans, a deputy to Mr Johnson, also weighed in, warning that Mr Goldsmith's campaign would leave a 'negative legacy'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3576676/Counting-begins-London-Sadiq-Khan-looks-likely-City-Hall-senior-Tories-blast-Zac-Goldsmith-s-divisive-campaign.html

while the Tories go to war over Zac Goldsmith's 'outrageous' and 'divisive' campaign
Sadiq Khan scored more than a million votes on the first round of the result
Data revealed Zac Goldsmith had no route to victory ahead of final scores
Khan won more votes as an individual British politician than anyone ever
As he faces defeat Goldsmith has come under fire from his own side
Andrew Boff, Tory leader on the London Assembly, and former deputy mayor Roger Evans have slammed Goldsmith's negative tactics
Official announcement delayed by glitches in electronic counting system
By JAMES TAPSFIELD, POLITICAL EDITOR FOR MAILONLINE and TIM SCULTHORPE, MAILONLINE DEPUTY POLITICAL EDITOR and MARTIN ROBINSON, UK CHIEF REPORTER FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 03:58 EST, 6 May 2016 | UPDATED: 18:00 EST, 6 May 2016

State Political Parties Make Their Own Rules

[From article]
This cycle has seen the rise of Donald Trump, a candidate who doesn't fit the central casting mold. He is unusual and bold, brash and unapologetic in his statements. Yet he is not without precedent. We are witnessing the rebirth of the populists, nothing more.
The political structure with which most of us are familiar is in truth a relatively new thing. People think of primaries as full-blown elections. They are not. The word that appropriately precedes "primaries" is "party." These are party primaries, designed by political parties to choose the candidate behind whom the party intends to coalesce support for the real election – the general election.
For most of our nation's history, primaries were not the method of choice for determining nominees.
[. . .]
Parties can choose their nominees in whatever methods that state chooses – with a party primary election, a caucus or convention, or, as done in Colorado, with a decision by party leadership. As long as the established rules are followed, these choices are the business of the party, not the general public, who gets their say in November.
This is one of the reasons our founding fathers eschewed party structures, hoping instead for ideological constructs based on merit and competence, not on membership. In other words, they wanted the best candidate to emerge from among many by virtue of having been lifted above the others by a groundswell of public support.
[. . .]



There are those who believe that each of us should be empowered to make his own decisions – for good or ill – finding our path to success or failure depending on our own efforts. Government exists to ensure we have that freedom by protecting the rights with which we entered this world from infringement by those who would "stack the deck" through corruption rather than merit.
The other side views individuals as messy pieces within a larger collective. Individual liberty must be suborned to collective goals, as determined by a central group of planners, who presumably know better than you how your life ought to be lived. To these, government exists to establish the definitions of success and then ensure that people receive it equally.
Of course, these myopic "Solomons" never assign such restrictions to themselves, as that would be far too limiting for them to achieve their utopian goals, which thankfully makes them easier to spot, as their neon hypocrisy shines like a "vacancy" sign on a lonely nighttime highway.
[. . .]
Whenever we resort to absolutes to make sense of a circumstance that are anything but absolute, we are setting ourselves up to be either proven wrong in an embarrassingly public way or proven right at the cost of losing close friends and associates.
There is very little in this life that is all of one thing and none of another – and nothing illustrates this more than politics, where little is ever as it seems anyway.
The parties make their rules and choose their methods for determining a nominee. One candidate making more effective use of those rules isn't "cheating" or "stealing"; he is merely making more effective use of the rules, just as their opponent might've.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/04/what_we_sow_in_spring_we_shall_reap_in_fall.html

April 20, 2016
What We Sow in Spring, We Shall Reap in Fall
By Joe Herring

New York City Mayor Going Down Under Threats of Impeachment, Prosecution

[From article]

Less than a week ago, Mayor de Blasio was offering aid to Ecuadorians after the earthquake there. Now a political earthquake is rocking City Hall and the mayor is the one who needs help.
The report from the state Board of Elections that accuses him and his team of “willful and flagrant” violations of campaign-finance laws immediately changes everything.
The veneer of business as usual is shredded. Never again can de Blasio wave off questions about the mushrooming investigations of his administration. As revelations pile up day after day, allies will desert him and the Putz will find himself a very lonely man.
There is no way to sugarcoat the facts: de Blasio is in trouble. Maybe very big trouble.
His City Hall is being depicted as the seat of a criminal enterprise. And so far, he offers nothing resembling a convincing ­denial.
[. . .]

election report were all there is, it would still be a problem. It calls one of the campaign violations a possible felony and refers its findings to Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. for prosecution. That explains why Vance recently partnered up with US Attorney Preet Bharara in the multipronged probe, effectively doubling the number of prosecutors and investigators.
And that gets to the heart of de Blasio’s vulnerability. His 2014 Senate effort wasn’t unique. It is just one example of how he has done business since the day he won the election in 2013.
Think of it as de Blasio’s Big Idea. While denouncing income inequality, he was determined to harvest big bucks from unions and private firms that had business before the city, and then to use that money to carry out his “progressive agenda.”
He raised as much as $40 million and deposited it in various slush funds he formed, including the Campaign for One New York, which he started before he even took the oath of office.
The money would be managed by a small team of insiders. Some were on the city payroll, but most were in favored law firms, public relations and consultant shops. In effect, de Blasio outsourced a permanent political operation to be the vanguard of his administration.
The money would come from real-estate developers, yellow-taxi medallion owners, teachers unions and anybody else willing to play ball in hopes the mayor would ­return the favors.
Oh, and one more thing: de Blasio would do much of the fund-raising himself, meeting with donors in large groups or ­one-on-one.

http://nypost.com/2016/04/24/the-mayor-is-going-down/

The mayor is going down!
By Michael Goodwin
New York Post
April 24, 2016 | 2:10am

* * *

[From article]

“If he cares about this city the way he says he does, he needs to step down immediately and save us the continued national embarrassment,” said Tony Herbert, a former member of Al Sharpton’s National Action Network. “There are a lot of levels to this corruption”
Herbert and John Rodriguez, who heads a community-police relations group in Brooklyn, stood outside City Hall Park on Sunday to slam de Blasio for presiding over several scandals that have rocked the city’s political firmament.
Both conceded they don’t expect Hizzoner to drop the reins of city government without a fight so they’re exploring how to jump-start the impeachment process.
“The mayor is compromised. He has also compromised the integrity of the City of New York,” Herbert said. “You can not honestly represent this city, having these criminal investigations on your back.”
City, state and federal investigators are probing de Blasio and his top aides in several areas, including their fundraising efforts for the 2014 state Senate races, donors whoallegedly traded gifts for police favors, and a Lower East Side land deal that resulting in an assisted care facility being sold to build luxury apartments.

Herbert and Rodriguez said they’re unsure how impeaching a sitting mayor in New York City would work, but they aren’t the first to suggest de Blasio’s ouster. One change.org petitioner who attracted 250 supporters called for his impeachment a year ago for not being supportive of cops. Another moveon.org petition calling on his resignation received over 50,000 signatures in 2014 — before he had completed his first year in office.
Herbert suggested even more New Yorkers would back such an impeachment push now, citing three anti-de Blasio websites with thousands of supporters.
A de Blasio spokeswoman declined to comment on the nascent impeachment effort, but defended his efforts.

http://nypost.com/2016/04/24/activists-call-for-de-blasio-to-step-down/

Activists call for de Blasio to step down
By Michael Gartland
New York Post
April 24, 2016 | 2:01pm