Posted on 11/13/2018 1:29:54 PM PST by Louis Foxwell
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
The chair of the Democratic Caucus is one of those influential positions that nobody thinks twice about.
In 2016, Rep. Linda Sanchez got to be the vice-chair of the Democratic Caucus and her appointment was touted as an identity politics first. To get the job, Rep. Sanchez had to beat out Rep. Barbara Lee, an admirer of murderous Communist dictator Fidel Castro. And Sanchez only beat out Lee by two votes.
Together with sister, Loretta Sanchez, who had warned, "the Vietnamese and the Republicans are... trying to take this seat", the Sanchez sisters were also the only disgraceful sister duo in the House.
Rep. Sanchez had set her sights on serving as the chair of the Democratic Caucus, a position formerly held by luminaries like Senator Bob Menendez, Rep. John Larson, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, and Dan Rostenkowski, sent to prison for mail fraud. But then her husband was indicted on corruption charges.
Sanchez announced that she was dropping out of the contest to due to “an unexpected family matter.”
”Earlier today I learned that my husband is facing charges in Connecticut,” Sanchez stated. “After careful consideration of the time and energy being in leadership demands, I have decided that my focus now needs to be on my son, my family, and my constituents in California."
James Sullivan, Sanchez’s husband, who served as the chair of the Connecticut Municipal Electric Energy Corporation, along with others is accused of misusing $800K from CMEEC on trips to the Kentucky Derby and luxury golf resorts, chartered planes and high end hotels.
The Justice Department press release mentions, “trips for Sullivan and his family members to attend the Kentucky Derby in 2013, 2014, and 2015, and airfare for a flight for Sullivan’s wife to travel to Key West, Florida, in December 2014.”
That refers to Rep. Linda Sanchez, whose House Democrats bio claims that she had fought to help “hard working people get ahead”. Or at least the hard working horses at the Kentucky Derby
It’s best to focus on the needs of your constituents in California when flying to Florida and Kentucky at the expense of homeowners in Connecticut and the Department of Energy is no longer an option.
Sanchez’s office had claimed that the Kentucky Derby trip had been okayed by the House Ethics Committee whose approval she had sought “out of an abundance of caution”.
And then the FBI investigation began.
But that’s not the end of that scandal.
Norwich Public Utilities had also paid out $35,000 to settle a harassment complaint against Sanchez's husband by a female employee.
The love story of Sanchez and Sullivan was the usual romantic Democrat tale of crony love at taxpayer expense. Sullivan met Sanchez trip to lobby Congress for an exception for stimulus spending for the Metropolitan District Commission in Hartford.
Sullivan talked Rep. Larson into getting his guys a taste of that sweet stimulus spending. Then Rep. Larson introduced his new best friend to Rep. Sanchez and it was a match made in the swamp.
James Sullivan brought back $90 million back for the MDC and married his blushing bride in Rep. Larson’s office. Rep. Sanchez described their relationship as, “down to earth, committed and heartfelt.”
Now it’s Sullivan who might end up being committed.
Rep. Larson, a major stimulus booster, was the former chair and vice chair of the House Democratic Caucus. Sullivan’s relationship with Rep. Larson dated back to his college days. Sullivan had tried to run for Congress and his bio describes him as “long active in Democratic Party politics” and a "delegate to the 2000 Democratic National Convention." He won his primary and was backed by the New York Times.
Sullivan seemed to combine his lobbying with JMS Consulting while serving as a board member and chairman at the Connecticut Municipal Electric Energy Cooperative and a board member and chairman at Norwich Public Utilities. Sullivan had been paid to lobby for the Metropolitan District Commission.
While Sullivan was on the CMEEC board, MDC got into business with the CMEEC. Sullivan was also paid to lobby for Brightfields, a solar energy company, which partnered with CMEEC for the “largest solar and energy storage system in Connecticut”.
If Rep. Sanchez had been a Republican, the entanglement of a House vice-chair in vice would have been front page news. Instead it was carefully buried. There were few stories about it before the midterms.
And almost all the coverage has been local.
With Rep. Sanchez out, the Vice-Chair of the Democratic Caucus has become a two person race between Rep. Barbara Lee, an admirer of Fidel Castro, and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, who was paid $1.65 million by a law firm for which he worked, even while holding public office, allegedly without any clear sign of ever working on a case. Once in the House, Rep. Jeffries had vowed to tackle Republican corruption.
It’s a tough choice.
Rep. Barbara Lee is a radical leftist who praised Castro for having, “led a revolution in Cuba that led social improvements for his people.”
“We need to stop and pause and mourn his loss,” she had declared after his death.
Rep. Sanchez had only beaten out Rep. Lee for vice chair of the Democratic Caucus by two votes.
According to Jeffries, he received $1.52 million from a personal injury firm from the $25 million judgement for Eugene Sims, an armed criminal shot during a struggle over a gun with a police officer.
The race between Rep. Lee and Rep. Jeffries will divide the Congressional Black Caucus between its older hidebound members and a new generation of smoother activists. Either way though the position will belong to the Progressive Caucus: Lee, Jeffries and Sanchez are all members of the radical lefty club.
But some members are more radical than others.
If Rep. Barbara Lee becomes the next House Democratic Caucus chair, she will be its most “progressive” yet. Lee has a history with the Black Panthers and of collaborating with Communists. When Rep. Lee accuses Trump of colluding with Russia, it’s coming from a woman who did collude with the USSR.
“Outraged by President Trump’s 2 hr meeting w/Putin, the man who orchestrated attacks on our democracy. Where do his loyalties lie?” Rep. Lee demanded.
That might be a better question to ask a politician who aided Communist regimes throughout the Cold War, and who was publicly supported by the Communist Party in the United States. She’s an opponent of Israel, and opposed military action after 9/11. She’s also the likely next House Dem Caucus chair.
Rep. Lee used to serve on the board of a Soviet front group. Now she’ll be near the top of the Dems.
The new Democrat House will be divided between corrupt crooks and crooked Communists. The nearly $1 billion that bought them the House in the midterms will be used to steal trillions at taxpayer expense.
Edwin Edwards had famously run against a neo-Nazi on the slogan, "Vote For the Crook. It's Important." The Democrats may have lost their chance to vote for the crook. They’re stuck with the Communist.
Front Page mag - A Project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center
Daniel Greenfield Ping List Notification of new articles.
I am posting Greenfield's articles from FrontPage and the Sultan Knish blog. FReepmail or drop me a comment to get on or off the Greenfield ping list.
The Point is a collection of short articles posted on FrontPageMag by Greenfield on current topics. I recommend an occasional look at the Sultan Knish blog. It is a rich source of materials, links and more from one of the preeminent writers of our age.
FrontPage is a basic resource for conservative thought.
Lou
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
To get on or off the Greenfield ping list please reply to this post or notify me by Freepmail.
Louis Foxwell
They need to appoint that ditz from Brooklyn to some high profile position. She will be a wonderful spokesperson for the party. The more facetime she can get, the better for us in 2020.
What's in NY water, between Cortez and Gillibrand they still can't get to 60 IQ points combined.
Weren't they in effect no different than someone handing the keys to a powerful car to a teenager, but first warning them of the potential dangers? And then, after the car is wrapped around a tree, they plead innocence by claiming they provided adequate warning and advice.
To wit, Adams et al knew the system was gamed from the git go, notwithstanding their attempted face saving gestures. Once you abandon monarchy, a republican system cannot resist dilution - there is simply no bulwark to prevent expansion of the franchise. Eventually, whether sooner or later, a society reaches the point we're currently at that is accelerating toward dissolution.
Since there's no recovery, there can only be a crack up and then re-set. Complaining about the obvious is just a waste of energy. Today is our future.
Yes; all the monarchies of Europe are doing so very well these days.
How long have the major republics been extant? Now, how long did traditional monarchies last?
Second, would you agree/admit that all major republics are on a one-way street? If so, how long would you give them - including the US? So, if we add the past history to expected longevity, what's the total elapsed time?
Last question: when the crack up comes, what type of system will be proposed/established after the re-set? Universal suffrage allowing once again to permit criminals and incompetents to raid the public treasury?
How are we supposed to tell the difference?
What We Can Expect With a Democrat-Marxist Controlled House of Representatives….
The Conservative Treehouse/The Last Refuge | November 8, 2018 | Sundance
Posted on 11/13/2018 1:05:55 PM PST by Ancesthntr
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3705533/posts
Republican House will be divided between corrupt crooks and crooked Globalists.
While the past has historically been a benchmark and general indicator of future development, the situation today is uniquely influenced by the rise of ubiquitous personal computing and connectivity in the First World nations, affecting lesser-developed nations as well. There is increased volatility to a degree that makes ordinary prediction models unreliable. So I’m not going to try to quantify what will happen.
The explosion of data and the inability of gatekeepers to suppress information to the extent they did traditionally contains greater danger—everyone is now a criminal and is vulnerable to personal destruction; but in the social macro, technological information aggregation also drives its own solutions, by forcing a new kind of transparency. Solutions get demanded. Criminals get caught.
I dread the emerging supercomputer systems of the coming decades because I do sense we are close to the end times predicted by scripture, in which everyone will have either a chip or some other tracking tech resulting in no privacy, no individual agency, and worldwide oppression. The most primitive peoples will have more freedom for longer than the people of the highly developed technosocieties.
I suppose every age thinks their is heading into the end times; but there have never before existed the means for worldwide instantaneous communications that exist today. However, scripture also predicts a divine solution to the anticipated period of tribulation. Therefore, I’ve put my energy into scripture study now that retirement affords me the time; clearly, political solutions will be increasingly temporary and unmoored from objective standards.
The U.S. has done quite well. It has had a pretty stable government and incredible increases in prosperity and technology for 240 years.
No monarchy has lasted as long in the modern era.
The House of Saud in its present incarnation in Saudi Arabia only dates back to 1902.
The U.S. government was designed to overcome the problems with democracy of which you speak.
I do not know how much longer it will last.
We may be able to regain some control. If raiding the public treasury brings down the state in the modern era, it has not done so for 70 years. We may be able to avoid it for a considerable time yet.
The problem with monarchies in the modern age is they cannot stamp out opposition and have the benefits of technology at the same time. It was technological advances that brought down the monarchies.
I do not see a solution, but the Chinese are experimenting with a combination of Orwell, Brave New World, meritocracy, and oligopoly.
I wish I had 50 years to see how they and we do.
Please leave me on all 2nd amendment lists, No matter What unless I die. I have a strong sense of “belonging” when I am with a group talking and working on issues so near and dear to my heart. Keep up the really necessary and good work. Hugs, Bodega
this is my second request to stay on the Greenfield list. I gasp when I read about the crooks and communists. Are we not stup in certain areas to not ferret this stuff out? And why would any American vote for any these people, anyway.
My recommendation is that we send them all to Gabon along with the UN. Let them figure out what is valuable to each of them Very clearly an American citizenship and life is not.
In this way, Trump could designate Rand Paul as Caesar, adopt him as his son, from which then he would assume the title Augustus. Btw, it should be noted in no way was the heir unilaterally selected. Almost every emperor came from the military, and it was the military that granted (implicit) approval. If not, there was a steady flow of assassinations that soon set the table right.
China is essentially modeling their current system of governance along these lines.
It's difficult to measure the stability of current republics vs ancient empires. For one, the current iteration of the US has only been extant since 1865. From there, it took less than 50 years for a raft of amendments and laws (eg Fed Res act) to be implemented that have created the environment today. As many observers have noted over the centuries, this course is essentially a one-way street. That is, there is no recovery.
Rather, the only solution is a re-set. How that comes about is a question of personality. Personally, I don't think Trump is willing to go there (witness the lack of prosecutions or any real hard-ball action against the deep state.) So, the situation will continue to deteriorate to the point where patriots will be fighting for their very lives against genocidal racists.
I think nationalists will ultimately prevail, both here and in Europe. But after the dust settles, I'm sure there will be serious concerns about ever allowing universal suffrage; the temptation is just too great. Even if there are strong moral codes against the process, satan's minions - those who seek power by appealing to the chaff - would eventually corrupt the body politic, just like they have today. And then, once they reach a tipping point where they are close to 50%, the gloves come off and wide-open lawlessness ensues.
To be honest, I had hope for Trump, but I've reached the conclusion it's not going to happen under his leadership. That means, buckle up and enjoy the ride.
Just for that I will put you on the list twice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.