Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez put a racial spin Wednesday on climate change and hurricanes, attributing emissions from “predominantly white” corporations and communities for juicing recent storms that cost “predominantly black and brown lives” in Louisiana and Puerto Rico.
Even as House Republicans argued that cheap electricity from fossil fuels has helped lift more than a billion people out of poverty around the world, the New York Democrat asked a witness about whether “the Global South and communities of color” bear the brunt of climate “havoc.”
“[T]he people that are producing climate change, the folks that are responsible for the largest amount of emissions, or communities, or corporations, they tend to be predominantly white, correct?” she asked at a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on civil rights and civil liberties.
The National Wildlife Federation’s Mustafa Ali replied that “yes, and every study backs that up I know no one is intentionally trying to kill people and hurt people.”
“My own grandfather died in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria,” said Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, referring to the 2017 Puerto Rico storm that ultimately left about 3,000 dead. “We can’t act as though the inertia and history of colonization doesn’t play a role in this.”
Rep. Chip Roy, Texas Republican, pointed out that the deadliest hurricane in North American history remains the 1900 Great Galveston Storm, which killed between 6,000 and 12,000 people, making landfall well before the rise of atmospheric carbon-dioxide emissions. . . . Global climate-related deaths — those from floods, hurricanes, drought, wildfires and other “extreme weather” events — plummeted by about 95% from 1920-2018, according to data compiled by the Copenhagen Consensus Center’s Bjorn Lomborg.
Can someone please point out to Ms. Ocasio-Cortez that she is from New York City, a community wholly dependent for its existence on food and other products imported by truck, by rail and by ships? How long could New York City exist without fossil fuels? A week, at most?
The principal student newspaper at Harvard University is being forced by student activists to defend the standard journalistic practice of asking subjects of stories for comment.
The Crimson, according to a “Note to Readers” published Tuesday, was publicly condemned by the group Act on a Dream and 10 other student groups for seeking comment from Immigration and Customs Enforcement for a Sept. 13 article about an Act protest calling for the agency to be abolished.
More than 650 people have signed a petition, which condemns getting comment from ICE as “cultural insensitivity.”
“In this political climate, a request for comment is virtually the same as tipping [ICE] off, regardless of how they are contacted,” reads the petition, which demands that the Crimson “reexamine and interrogate policies that place students under threat” and apologize for “the harm they inflicted” on illegal-immigrant students.
Act on a Dream also took to Twitter to “call on our peers and fellow student organizations to boycott @thecrimson and decline any interviews or requests for comment until they change their reckless policy that requires calling ICE in their reporting.”
We call on our peers and fellow student organizations to boycott @thecrimson and decline any interviews or requests for comment until they change their reckless policy that requires calling ICE in their reporting.
The Crimson letter defended contacting ICE but only after assuaging some of Act on a Dream’s concerns and treating its demand for one-sided stories as serious.
“Let us be clear: In The Crimson’s communication with ICE’s media office, the reporters did not provide the names or immigration statuses of any individual at the protest. We did not give ICE forewarning of the protest, nor did we seek to interfere with the protest as it was occurring. Indeed, it is The Crimson’s practice to wait until a protest concludes before asking for comment from the target of the protest — a rule which was followed here. The Crimson’s outreach to ICE only consisted of public information and a broad summary of protestors’ criticisms. As noted in the story, ICE did not respond to a request for comment,” wrote Crimson President Kristine E. Guillaume and Managing Editor Angela N. Fu.
The drip, drip, drip of revelations in Rep. Katie Hill’s scandal continues, and I’m not going to show you all the photos of the bisexual California Democrat who was in a three-way “throuple” relationship with her ex-husband and a young female campaign aide. But if you don’t want to click through to the Daily Mail story, I’ll summarize by saying she’s got an Iron Cross tattoo in her groin area, and photos showing her naked butt were posted to a “wife-sharing” site. There are also more screen-caps of text messages, including one in which the campaign aide, Morgan Desjardins, declares she is still “in love” with the congresswoman. Also, Desjardins wasn’t Hill and her husband’s first three-way:
A former tenant of the estranged couple said Hill and Heslep, had a ‘sexual relationship’ with a 21-year-old woman in 2010, the same year they were married.
Michael Pace, a Los Angeles-based technology analyst, said he rented a room in the couple’s Santa Clarita ranch and ‘walked in on the three of them’ multiple times.
‘I can absolutely confirm stuff like this went on even back then,’ Pace told DailyMail.com.
‘I left the house after six months because of all the weird sexual stuff going on in the open.
‘I walked in on the three of them in some very weird situations a few times so I know there was a sexual relationship going on.’
How many times do I have to say it? Never trust a bisexual.
Katie Hill: Does drugs, has multiple inappropriate sexual relationships with employees, posts exhibitionist pictures on Reddit, does "wifesharing," etc. etc.
Media: She's living her best life, give her some privacy.
One of the great tragedies of 20th-century history is how the advocates of appeasement in Great Britain permitted Hitler to build Nazi Germany’s war machine and expand his power all through the 1930s — “Peace for our time,” to quote Neville Chamberlain’s infamous phrase — rather than recognizing the Nazi threat for what it was. The appeasers had frozen Winston Churchill out of power and, during his “wilderness years” he was viewed as a disgrunted warmonger because of his repeated (and, as it turned out, entirely accurate) warnings about Hitler’s true purposes. That sad story is best told in A.L. Rowse’s Appeasement: A Study in Political Decline, 1933-34. A Shakespearean scholar, Rouse was a fellow of All Soul’s College, where he was a personal acquaintance of many of the leading advocates of appeasement. This allowed him first-hand insights into what went wrong in British leadership in the 1930s, and Rowse makes a key point: Chamberlain and the other appeasers didn’t know a word of German; Churchill did. Thus, Churchill had read Mein Kampf in the original text, and was also able to read and hear what the Nazis were telling the German people, rather than being deceived by the English-language “peace” propaganda that was emanating from Berlin.
I’ve mentioned this before, but a quick shorthand I use (borrowed from someone else) when evaluating people is if they Know What Time It Is, or if they Don’t Know What Time It Is.
The pablum issuing from NeverTrumpers and Neocons is just creating a pleasant illusion in which it’s 2003 forever and the only thing that should really matter is whether we are “consistent” on Trump and Clinton, preferring that political Neverland to the actual America we find ourselves in in 2019, pretending away unpalatable truths in favor of pleasant fantasies, continuing to pretend that everything’s great (and that which is not great can just be saved by another round of tax cuts and trade deals), and that the left isn’t scary at all — that’s just Evil Trump trying to convince you that they’re really serious about their openly announced plans to seize America’s guns and force churches to perform gay marriages, or go to prison.
They’re not serious about that! That’s just some heated political rhetoric.
NeverTrump is pretty sure that the left is quite sensible, really, when you get past their bluster, rather like that misunderstood fellow in Berlin, Mr. Hitler.
This is absolutely accurate. Like the appeasers of the 1930s, our “Respectable Republican” types are unwilling to recognize the seriousness of the threat with which we are now confronted. They think some kind of bipartisan compromise with the Left is possible, like Ronald Reagan shaking hands with Tip O’Neill in 1982 when, in fact, today’s Democrats are implacable totalitarians who will not be satisfied by any compromise. These are the Drag Queen Story Time Democrats, the Green New Deal Democrats, the enemies of every traditional freedom that the American people cherish, and they will stop at nothing to gain the power they need to impose their radical agenda on everybody else.
Besides her admitted three-way “throuple” relationship with a female campaign staffer and her ex-husband, and the alleged affair with one of her male congressional staffers, now there are text messages indicating that Rep. Katie Hill (D-Calif.) may be suffering from bipolar disorder and exhibits symptoms of a chronic drinking problem:
In the four-part Vice documentary, “She’s Running,” which chronicled Rep. Katie Hill’s 2018 campaign, Hill and her staffers are often shown grabbing a drink, and the campaign headquarters featured an impressive “liquor” closet.
When Hill arrived in Washington, D.C., celebratory beverages continued to be a part of her life.
In text messages provided to RedState of conversations between Hill, her estranged husband, and their former throuple partner, by June 2019 all three were expressing concern about Hill’s drinking and its impact on her mental health and work performance.
During the last week of May, Hill was at home in the 25th District for Memorial Day events and visiting constituents before heading up to San Francisco to attend the California Democratic Party convention. Over the course of that week, Hill told Heslep and her female staffer that she wanted to end the throuple relationship to focus on “this important work” of impeaching President Trump.
At the convention, Hill was one of the main speakers and also had a big reason to celebrate – her friend Rusty Hicks was elected as party chair (after Eric Baumann was forced out amid sexual assault charges).
Kenny Heslep, Hill’s husband, didn’t accompany her to the convention, but the two were texting throughout the weekend. . . .
The next screenshot reveals that Hill didn’t return to her room until after 3:30 a.m., and she admitted to Heslep that she’s drunk. . . .
The Lydia to which Hill is referring is her psychiatrist. Heslep asks if Hill was talking to Lydia about the split-up. . . .
Hill tells Heslep that she doesn’t know where she’d been precisely, but in general to bars and a Mexican late night restaurant. She reiterates that she had been talking to Lydia “about drinking a lot.” . . .
On June 3rd, the female staffer confronted Rep. Hill about her drinking and reveals that Hill missed her flight and hid that fact from Kenny. . . .
Just a few days later – the day after her wedding anniversary – Hill missed another flight between Washington, D.C., and California, as a staffer named Cat told Hill’s throuple partner. Heslep asks, “Does anyone find it odd how many she’s been missing lately?” . . .
In addition to the text messages reviewed by RedState about Hill’s alcohol use, an elected official from a jurisdiction in Hill’s district told RedState on condition of anonymity that Hill was observed at a local event in mid-July visibly intoxicated, and that one of Hill’s staffers pulled Hill aside, saying, “We need to leave. You shouldn’t be here right now.” Hill then left the event without incident.
Like millions of Americans, Rep. Hill has been open about the fact that she lives with depression, as she tweeted on October 10th. . . .
In addition to regular appointments with her psychologist, Hill sometimes takes the prescription medication trazodone to manage manic episodes, according to the text messages.
Read the whole thing, which is full of screen-caps of text messages verifying all of this. We are not supposed to “stigmatize” mental illness, but I think electing crazy people to Congress is not a good idea, especially when the kooks are bisexual alcoholics. But in a representative form of government, maybe lunatics in her California district decided they wanted one of their own to represent them Washington?
Monday we brought you the story of Rep. Katie Hill (D-Calif.) whose nude photograph, depicting her brushing the hair of a 22-year-old female campaign staffer, is apparently evidence in her husband’s divorce case against her. Hill’s husband also alleges that she engaged in an affair with a male congressional staffer, Graham Kelly. So it would appear that Rep. Hill is further confirmation of my advice: Never trust a bisexual.
Democratic California Rep. Katie Hill on Tuesday denied having an extramarital affair with a male congressional staffer, but did not deny having such an affair with a female campaign staffer.
Hill blamed her ongoing “divorce from an abusive husband” for allegations that she had affairs with the two staffers in a statement released to Politico….
Hill called allegations that she was having an affair with legislative director Graham Kelly “absolutely false,” but didn’t deny having an affair with the female campaign staffer. The first-term congresswoman blamed a “coordinated effort to try to destroy me and people close to me” for the affair allegations.
“Intimate photos of me and another individual were published by Republican operatives on the internet without my consent,” she said, adding that she “notified Capitol Hill police who are investigating the situation and potential legal violations of those who posted and distributed the photos, and therefore will have no further comment on the digital materials.”
In other words, Hill is playing the victim. It’s a “coordinated effort” by her “abusive husband” and “Republican operatives.” And while Hill admits she had a three-way with her husband and the female campaign staffer, she denies sleeping with her male congressional staffer. Ace says:
I think she’s denying the heterosexual affair, but not the gay one, not just because there’s dramatic visual proof of the latter, but also because being gay is now just generally a defense against anything, as is being an illegal alien.
She’ll run on “persecution.” And whenever you ask her about it, she’ll respond, “I can’t answer, it’s persecution,” and the media will let her get away with that, the same as they’ve allowed Ilhan “Omar” Nur Said get away with her brother-marrying and Kuffir-banging for years.
Actually, there’s another reason why Hill might deny the affair with her male congressional aide: House Rule XXIII, clause 18(a).
Ted Deutch (D-FL), Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Ethics, released the following statement late on Wednesday:
The Committee is aware of public allegations that Representative Katie Hill may have engaged in a sexual relationship with an individual on her congressional staff, in violation of House Rule XXIII, clause 18(a). The Committee, pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a), has begun an investigation and will gather additional information regarding the allegations.
The Committee notes that the mere fact that it is investigating these allegations, and publicly disclosing its review, does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred, or reflect any judgment on behalf of the Committee. No other public comment will be made on this matter except in accordance with Committee rules. . . .
“If Congresswoman Hill is engaged in a romantic relationship with one of her paid staffers, that is a clear-cut ethics violation,” a senior congressional staffer told Breitbart News this week. “These rules are in place to ensure Congress is a workplace free from abuse and sexual misconduct. The reports paint a troubling pattern that deserve a full investigation.”
It’s an ethics violation for a member of Congress to have sex with a congressional aide, whereas no such rule applies to campaign staffers.
Nevertheless, whatever the House Ethics Committee does, the important takeaway from this story is: Never trust a bisexual.
UPDATE: How did I miss this? In 2018, when Hill ran for Congress against a conservative Republican, she did so as an avowed bisexual:
As a bisexual woman married to a man, she has faced some pressure to be closeted, along with biphobia. Being out “was a huge decision early on,” she says, as many people urged her to hide her bi identity. But, she says, “I’ve been out as being bi since I was a teenager, right after high school.” She decided that remaining out was part of being “an honest, transparent politician.”
During the primary, she notes, she was accused of pretending to be bi in order to get endorsements from LGBTQ organizations (she has the backing of several, such as Victory Fund and the Human Rights Campaign). In the general election campaign, she’s heard some biphobic comments, with people saying she’s making her sexuality an issue. “I’m not making it an issue,” she says. “It’s just who I am.”
Yes, ma’am. Indeed, we see that now: “It’s just who I am.”
Hey since I broke this and I'm the one being threatened with jail time and my kids harassed at work and school I'd love for my piece to be tweeted ? https://t.co/kF8kcKpk0V
