Connect with us

Politics

Exclusive: Speaker McCarthy Brutalizes Reporter Who Whined About Schiff, Swalwell Getting Booted from Intel Committee – TalkOfNews.com

Published

on

Speaker McCarthy Brutalizes Reporter Who Whined About Schiff, Swalwell Getting Booted from Intel Committee

#Speaker #McCarthy #Brutalizes #Reporter #Whined #Schiff #Swalwell #Booted #Intel #Committee

By Dr. Derek Ellerman

I’m sincerely hoping that you’ll hear this a lot out of me: Credit where it’s due! 

I don’t trust Kevin McCarthy any farther than I can throw him, which is only about 7-8 yards since I am freakishly strong, but it’s important to not just attack politicians when they’re wrong, but to praise them when they’re right. 

For some reason, famed economist James Buchanan gets plaudits for his Public Choice Theory, which essentially states that, like all people, politicians also pursue their self-interest. Common sense to most people, but nevertheless, important and largely ignored on the right.

If you want politicians to do what you want, you need both the carrot and the stick. Those of us with a little more mental firepower recognize this as operant conditioning

At any rate, Speaker McCarthy deserves plaudits for not only giving Russiagate conspiracy theorists the boot from the House Intel Committee, but perhaps more importantly, for absolutely wrecking a goofball reporter who was trying to whine about it. 

RELATED: Former FBI Agent Involved in Trump/Russia Probe Indicted for… Working for Russia

McCarthy Lets ‘Em Have It

Speaker McCarthy, thankfully, seems to have learned from the Trump playbook – which is to say, mainstream “journalists” are not reporters, but transparently stenographers for the DNC and Langley. They are not good-faith actors just looking out for the people. 

Very, very much the opposite, I’m afraid. 

To wit: in a showdown with a reporter, who of course tried to “whatabout” by asking about Republican George Santos, who appears to be even more impressive than Frank Abignale, Jr., McCarthy was asked:

“Because you have direct power over who goes on the Intelligence Committee, and you also … (unintelligible) you have saying lying to us is something that means you should be removed from the Intelligence Committee why is it not… (something unintelligible about George Santos…” the reporter mumbled. 

You can see McCarthy just getting ready, answering that Santos was elected by his district, before getting cut off again. 

That’s when the new Speaker jumped in: “Let me be very clear and respectful to you. You asked me a question. When I answer it, it’s the answer to your question. You don’t get to determine whether I answer your question or not, OK? In all respect. Thank you.”

Over the shouts of other reporters, McCarthy continued:

“No, no, let’s answer her question. You just raised a question, I’m going to be very clear with you. The Intel Committee is different. You know why? Because what happens in the Intel Committee, you don’t know. What happens in the Intel Committee, of the secrets that are going on in the world, other Members of Congress don’t know. What did Adam Schiff do as the Chairman of the Intel Committee? What Adam Schiff did was use his power as Chairman, and lied to the American public, even the Inspector General said it.”

He continued, “When (former Rep.) Devin Nunes put out a memo, he said it was false. When we had a laptop (Hunter Biden’s laptop), he used it before an election to be politics and say that it was false, and said it was the Russians, when he knew different. When he knew the intel.”

“When you talk to John Ratcliffe, DNI, he came out ahead of time and said there’s no intel to prove that. And he (Schiff) used his position as Chairman, knowing he has information the rest of America does not, and lied to the American public,” McCarthy pointed out.

It only gets better from there. McCarthy also raised other crucial points, but you’ll have to watch since The Political Insider is a small, independent outlet and they don’t have staff available for translations.

WATCH: 

Advertisement

RELATED: CJ Pearson Challenges Joy Reid to Debate on Critical Race Theory, Says CRT is ‘Black Supremacy’

A New Day? New GOP?

Now as I mentioned earlier, McCarthy deserves praise for just nailing the fake news with both barrels. If you want him (and others) to continue this behavior, give them praise. Show them some positive reinforcement. 

And don’t get me wrong, I’m a total cynic. I don’t believe for a second that McCarthy and his GOP are going to actually follow through on the more concrete promises. But that’s a time for another day. 

On this day, I’m going to celebrate when a politician who isn’t named Donald Trump or Ron Paul actually does the right thing. 

I suggest that you do the same. That is, if you want to see more of this. 

Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”


Advertisement

Politics

Exclusive: Today in Supreme Court History: January 26, 1832 – TalkOfNews.com

Published

on

By

Today in Supreme Court History: January 26, 1832

#Today #Supreme #Court #History #January

1/26/1832: Justice George Shiras Jr.’s birthday.

Justice George Shiras Jr.

The post Today in Supreme Court History: January 26, 1832 appeared first on Reason.com.

Continue Reading

Politics

Exclusive: Liberals Are Mad That McCarthy Named MAGA Republicans to Subcommittees on COVID and Government Weaponization – Good – TalkOfNews.com

Published

on

By

Liberals Are Mad That McCarthy Named MAGA Republicans to Subcommittees on COVID and Government Weaponization – Good

#Liberals #Mad #McCarthy #Named #MAGA #Republicans #Subcommittees #COVID #Government #Weaponization #Good

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy announced members named to two select subcommittees – one investigating the origins of COVID and another looking into the weaponization of the federal government – and Democrats are livid over the addition of certain MAGA lawmakers.

“The government has a responsibility to serve the American people, not go after them,” McCarthy said in a statement.

“The Members selected to serve on these subcommittees will work to stop the weaponization of the federal government and will also finally get answers to the Covid origins and the federal government’s gain of function research that contributed to the pandemic,” he added.

McCarthy notes that the weaponization subcommittee is necessary because congressional Democrats and the Biden administration engaged in a “dangerous pattern of the government being used to target political opponents while they neglected their most basic responsibilities.”

RELATED: Conservative Victory: Dan Crenshaw Loses Race To Chair Homeland Security Committee to Freedom Caucus Member Green

MAGA Members Named to House Select Subcommittees

A couple of names that showed up on the House select subcommittees raised the ire of Democrats, particularly those associated with the MAGA movement.

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) continued reaping the fruits of a kinship with McCarthy that would make Frank Luntz blush, being named to the COVID-19 subcommittee.

Greene celebrated the appointment, stating her intention to investigate the role of gain-of-function research, the Democrat “authoritarian” lockdowns, the ineffective vaccines forced on the American people, and Dr. Anthony Fauci’s role.

Greene will also be sitting on the House Homeland Security and Oversight Committees.

Also named to the COVID subcommittee is former White House physician Ronny Jackson (R-TX), who has consistently challenged President Biden to undergo a mental fitness evaluation.

Jim Jordan (R-OH) will chair the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government after being rejected by former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to serve on the January 6th panel.

RELATED: White House Terrified of MAGA Republicans Being Named to Committees Investigating Biden Administration

Liberals Aren’t Happy

Liberals on social media responded with outrage over MAGA Republicans representing their constituents on the select subcommittees.

Because see, it would be better to have completely partisan sham committees like the January 6th debacle.

Advertisement

Democratic Congressman Don Beyer dismissed both panels as “devoted to conspiracy theories.”

This is fine by us, since these days “conspiracy theories” mostly just means “the media hasn’t admitted it yet.”

House Judiciary Democrats lambasted McCarthy for having “sold out our democracy to empower MAGA extremists.”

Richard Stengel, a former Obama administration official, also took the dismissive ‘conspiracy theory’ path.

The ‘Weaponization’ subcommittee, Stengel claims, is “a body that creates rather than investigates conspiracy theories and which will eventually undermine itself.”

We literally just watched the January 6th sham create highly directed and produced filmography rather than evidence, doctored actual evidence, created conspiracy theories, and admitted they wanted to tell people what they should believe.

If Democrats are mad about MAGA Republicans serving on committees to provide a counterpoint to Democrat and media lies, then McCarthy is most definitely doing the right thing.

Advertisement

Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”


Continue Reading

Politics

Exclusive: Why older mass shooters like the California gunmen are so rare – TalkOfNews.com

Published

on

By

Why older mass shooters like the California gunmen are so rare

#older #mass #shooters #California #gunmen #rare

The gunmen in both of the recent shootings in Monterey Park and Half Moon Bay, California, had an unusual profile compared to most perpetrators of violent crime: They were both senior citizens.

The Monterey Park gunman, who killed 11 and injured nine before fatally shooting himself, was 72. The Half Moon Bay gunman, who killed seven people before he was arrested in what police have characterized as an act of workplace violence, is 66.

Mass shooters of that age are rare, especially those with no prior criminal record, as was the case with the Half Moon Bay gunman. (The Monterey Park gunman had one arrest in 1990 for illegal possession of a firearm.) According to data from the National Institute of Justice, mass shooters between 1966 and 2021 were on average 34 years old, and those over the age of 60 accounted for a little over 3 percent of all mass shootings, which are defined as shootings in which four or more people are killed.

The notion that people “age out of crime” is one of the most well-documented phenomena in the field of criminology. The California shootings should be seen as exceptions to that principle, not as nullifying examples, according to Ashley Nellis, co-director of research for the Sentencing Project, which advocates for criminal justice reform.

“The predictability of age is probably the most reliable point of data that we have about people who commit violent crime. Young people are just substantially more likely, and by extension, older people are substantially unlikely, to commit crime,” Nellis said. “It’s certainly a cautionary note to anybody who would be jumping to make policy based on these two events.”

Research has repeatedly shown that criminal activity increases throughout teen years, reaches its highest point at age 17, the oldest that someone can be charged with a juvenile crime, and subsides thereafter throughout life. Property crime peaks at a slightly younger age than violent crime. But even chronic offenders would be statistically likely to stop committing crime by around the age of 40, Nellis said.

There are a lot of theories as to why that might be. Typical milestones associated with getting older, like graduating or getting married, may put people on a trajectory that veers away from criminality. Brain development isn’t complete until the mid-20s, hindering decision-making that might lead to crime and risky behavior. Young people have less financial security, and people in poverty are more likely to commit crimes. Some crimes might be physically demanding, and older people just might not have the strength to carry them out.

But both gunmen in the California shootings buck the archetype of a violent criminal, and their motives still aren’t entirely clear. Investigators have said that the Monterey Park shooter frequented the dance studio where he killed his victims and that the Half Moon Bay gunman, who lived and worked as a forklift driver at a mushroom farm, was angry at the coworkers he shot. Previously, there have been mass shooters as old as 70, including a gunman who opened fire at a church in Vestavia Hills, Alabama, and killed three people last June.

Though age can sometimes factor into the decision to impose a less harsh sentence on young offenders, the Half Moon Bay shooter’s advanced age won’t have any bearing on the length of his sentence, as is standard practice in the US.

Advertisement

He will be charged with seven counts of murder and one count of attempted murder, with a special circumstance allegation of multiple murder and sentencing enhancements for each count because of his use of a firearm, the San Mateo County district attorney announced Wednesday. If convicted on those charges, he could be facing up to life in prison without the possibility of parole. (He won’t face the death penalty, given that California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, placed a moratorium on executions in the state in 2019.)

Life sentences without parole have become increasingly common in the US over the last few decades. But Nellis argues the age of older offenders like the Half Moon Bay shooter should be considered a mitigating factor when making sentencing decisions — especially given that the use of executive clemency to release them early has become nonexistent, as she writes in a 2022 report.

“Regardless of age, somebody who does commit an act of violence like this is likely to be rehabilitated, be reformed, be ready to return to society within 10 years,” she said.

Recidivism is unlikely among older people, according to data from the US Sentencing Commission, and keeping them in prison comes at a high taxpayer cost, which includes health care bills that balloon at the end of life. It’s difficult to say how much those who’ll decide the fate of the Half Moon Bay suspect will take that data into account; his initial arraignment is Wednesday.

Continue Reading

Exclusive

Copyright © 2022 Talk Of News.