Ted Cruz or Obama's Anti-Texas Beto?

If you want more of Obama just vote for Beto Ketchup! Watch the two Videos to see how much he cares for Texas

Anti-America CNN Fake News Cartoons

Kobach accuses CNN's Jeffrey Toobin of advancing 'racist argument' in fight over voter-ID laws

Speaking to Fox News' "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on Thursday, Kansas Republican gubernatorial candidate Kris Kobach accused CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin of advancing a "racist argument" -- just one day after Toobin charged that Kobach wanted to "stop black people and poor people from voting."
In a fiery on-air debate with Kobach on CNN, Toobin flatly claimed that Kobach, who currently serves as Kansas secretary of state, consistently has aimed to disenfranchise minorities.
"Kris has devoted his career to stopping black people and poor people from voting -- I mean, that's been your goal for decades," Toobin said.
The GOP gubernatorial nominee has been a staunch advocate of voter-ID laws. This summer, in a harshly worded ruling, a federal judge struck down a Kobach-backed proof-of-citizenship law that required voters to show proof of citizenship at the ballot box. The law was a violation of federal law and the Constitution, the judge ruled. (Recently enacted voter ID laws in other states, including Texas, have seen more success in the courts.)
FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS KANSAS' TOP PROSECUTOR TO UNDERGO LEGAL TRAINING AFTER TOSSING VOTER-ID LAW
"That is an outrageous accusation," Kobach responded to Toobin. "Oh, so if you like photo ID, you're trying to stop people of color from voting?"
"Absolutely," Toobin shot back.
On Thursday, Kobach tried to turn the tables on Toobin, alleging that he actually was advancing racist stereotypes.
"The argument itself is a racist one," Kobach told host Tucker Carlson. "The argument is that somehow because of your skin color, you are less likely to have in your wallet a photo ID, or you're less likely to be able to go to a government office and get a free photo ID -- it's a ridiculous argument, it's been disproven empirically in state after state, but the hard left, and increasingly the entire left, keeps making the argument."
A 2017 study conducted by three political science professors and published in The Journal of Politics found "that strict identification laws have a differentially negative impact on the turnout of racial and ethnic minorities in primaries and general elections."
The study, which was also promoted by The Washington Post, continued: "We also find that voter ID laws skew democracy toward those on the political right."
CLICK FOR COMPLETE FOX NEWS MIDTERMS COVERAGE
However, a follow-up study by top professors at Stanford, Yale, and the University of Pennsylvania concluded that the 2017 study was unreliable and that voter ID laws didn't have nearly as much of an impact.
"Maybe it's not racist for your bank to insist on an ID when you cash a check," Kobach told Carlson. "It must be racist. Nevermind that it's an incoherent statement."
He added: "Now, even to suggest that voter fraud exists -- which it does, and we've prosecuted many cases in my office as secretary of state in Kansas -- is racist. ... If you want to enforce our laws, you must be a racist. If you want to stop the caravan, you must be a racist. It just cuts off the debate completely."
Kobach is locked in a tight race with Democrat Laura Kelly. Fox News currently rates the race a toss-up.

More blame a divided America on the media than on Trump

If there is one overriding theme to the coverage of Donald Trump's presidency, it's that he is dividing the country, tearing it apart, fueling the rage and possibly even political violence.
Strip away objections to his policies, to his personality, to his Twitter insults, to his spur-of-the-moment management style, and it comes down to the journalistic view that the president has done almost nothing to unite America.
A major problem with this mindset is that most of those in the media fail to consider that their business is also contributing to the deepening divisions.
That simply doesn't comport with their self-image. Most journalists believe they are neutral seekers of truth. Most commentators believe they are offering honest opinions (and, increasingly, that the other side is lying).
But in the hyperpolarized Trump era, with so much bitingly negative coverage of the president, the media are increasingly viewed by major chunks of the country as part of the problem.
Now I don't dispute for a second that Trump has largely chosen to play to his base. He has made only limited attempts to work with Democrats on issues like health care and tax cuts, and when he has, such as on the dreamers, it has usually come to naught. That approach has been even more pronounced in the final days of the midterms, especially on immigration.
And when there have been racially charged eruptions, such as Charlottesville, Trump's comments have managed to inflame rather than soothe much of the public.
But a new poll by Politico and Morning Consult contains some pretty troubling news for the press as well as the president.
Just 30 percent of voters surveyed say Trump has done more to unite the country, while 56 percent say he's done more to divide it.
But in a bigger vote of no-confidence, 64 percent say the national media have done more to divide the nation, and just 17 percent say they've done more to unite it.
Put another way, the media are 47 percent underwater on the question, compared to 26 percent underwater for Trump, who has a fiercely loyal base.
As you might expect, there's a huge partisan divide when it comes to the president. A sweeping 88 percent of Democrats say he's done more to divide the country, while 25 percent of Republicans say the same. (So do 54 percent of independents.)
But again, the numbers are even worse for the fourth estate. Some 80 percent of Republicans say the media have done more to divide America, and 46 percent of Democrats agree (as do 67 percent of independents).
This is sobering stuff. The entire national debate has been framed by the media around Trump stoking the flames of divisiveness, not the other way around.
The president, of course, has hit back hard, as in this tweet:
"The Fake News is doing everything in their power to blame Republicans, Conservatives and me for the division and hatred that has been going on for so long in our Country. Actually, it is their Fake & Dishonest reporting which is causing problems far greater than they understand!"
But the press has largely dismissed such accusations as mere deflection.
I do think some pundits really overreached in trying to blame Trump, directly or indirectly, for the serial pipe bomber and the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting. And perhaps that influenced the poll findings.
What would be best for an angry and divided country is if both sides would tone it down. But I see very little prospect of that happening.

Tammy Bruce: The Democrats' never-ending meltdown

Just when you think you’ve seen the ultimate meltdown of the Democratic Party, there’s always more.
The hearing for Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh was an utter debacle for the Democrats. But it also provided an opportunity for reassessing their view of the world and attitude about the American people. They clearly chose not to do so and are now doubling down on hate.
The obviously new narrative from the Democratic Party and their enablers is the insane insistence that President Donald Trump is responsible for the horrible Pittsburgh synagogue massacre and is a dangerous and horrific artifact of desperate people who seek to use every human crisis as a political opportunity.
Trump is a politician and has terrific people surrounding him. He has shown us for over two years now that he can handle the slings and arrows of the dying establishment machine. But the more troubling and sinister messaging has emerged against voters who chose freely in 2016 to not support the status quo.
In the aftermath of the synagogue massacre, two people fanatically opposed to the president have gone on national television and compared the president and his voters, in one case, to the Islamic State terrorist group (also known as ISIS) and, in the other, claimed the president and his supporters of having “blood on their hands.”
On Monday at CNN, just two days after the synagogue horror, GQ columnist Julia Ioffe made headlines. During a debate segment she said, “I think this president, one of the things that he really launched his presidential run on is talking about Islamic radicalization. And this president has radicalized so many more people than ISIS ever did.”
David Urban, a Trump supporter and another guest on the panel, confronted her on-air for the remark. After Jake Tapper declined to push back on the claim, Ms. Ioffe doubled-down on comparing supporters of the president to the blood-thirsty terrorists, “ISIS had like 10,000 members. I think the president has far more supporters who espouse an equally hateful ideology,” Ioffe retorted.
In the aftermath, outrage at the remark grew, and Ms. Ioffe apologized in the non-apology sort of way by explaining it was “hyperbole” fueled by the “emotional and painful time.”
Newsflash for Ioffe: That massacre was and is emotional and painful for all of us. This was not a poor choice of words, a mistake we all can make. This was an accusation, which she reinforced even after being confronted about it in real time.
Also within two days of the mass murder, Steve Schmidt, chairman of the John McCain 2008 campaign and hater of Mr. Trump, went on MSNBC to discuss the massacre, and instead used the horror to unleash a screed against those whom he despises. He declared the president and others “had blood on their hands.” Without any pushback from host Chris Hayes, he said Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway and “the vile president that she serves, abetted by Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh and Breitbart and NewBusters and Judicial Watch and all the rest of them, have blood on their hands. For the incitements that they have made that have triggered and radicalized these crazy people. It is deliberate …”
This frenzy to cast fellow Americans as dangerous terrorists because you disagree with them politically is beyond any normal or acceptable political discourse. It’s one thing to target the direct political opponent with rhetoric that is unseemly. But here we have the failing establishment, both Democrats and in some cases Republicans, choosing to malign the actual voters in the week leading up to an election.
Hillary Clinton’s declaration that the president’s supporters were “deplorable” and “not American” was the moment the losers in 2016 decided a scorched earth campaign punishing those who did not comply would be their new strategy.
It is now apparent Rep. Maxine Waters of California was not a rogue congresswoman calling for the harassment of Republicans; she was simply carrying forward the official Democratic torch.
What would possess the Democrats to think that attacking the American people would be their salvation? We may have received a clue as to their expectations when Clinton said that the instability would stop when they regained the House of Representatives.
In 2016, the American public saw through the attempts to gaslight them into believing things that aren’t true. One of those false assertions is how the Democratic Party cares about the American people and are champions on the issues we care about.
Their latest accusations, attitude and lack of any coherent position on policy for this country, proves not just the chaotic incompetence now destroying that side of the aisle, but makes clear their actual malevolence toward the citizen. After all, we are the ones who fired them, and we are the ones they are determined to punish.
When the midterm comes along the Democrats are going to find that we are not ISIS, or Nazis, or racists, or terrorists. We are Americans. We are moms and dads, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, and best friends. We are voters and families who look to the future and want it to be the best it can be. Next week, we must trust and urge the American people to not reward those who condemn people for rejecting the status quo, and deciding to stand for freedom, fairness and a renewed American future.

Pelosi subpoena threat 'illegal,' Trump says, will take to Supreme Court

President Donald Trump -- in an exclusive interview with The Washington Times on Thursday -- denounced House Minority Leader Nancy’s threat to subpoena the president if Democrats win Congress -- calling the threat 'illegal,' before vowing to take the fight to the Supreme Court.
Pelosi, 78, made the comment during a CNN campaign forum last week.
"Subpoena power is interesting, to use it or not to use it," Pelosi said. "It's a great arrow to have in your quiver in terms of negotiating on other subjects."
TRUMP SAYS GOP WANTS 'STRONG BORDERS, NO CHAOS AND NO CARAVANS' AT MISSOURI RALLY
Trump accused Pelosi of trying to leverage her role as speaker to negotiate.
Trump shrugged off the Democrat's threat of impeachment, noting that the process would take two years to get to the Supreme Court.
"That alone takes two years to get it to the Supreme Court -- that statement -- before you do anything," Trump said, vowing to meet any threats with litigation.
"They can play that game, but I can play that game also," he said.
The heated rhetoric comes amid a final push by Republicans and Democrats to control Congress after the midterm election. Forecasts indicate Democrats will take back the House while Republicans will retain control of the Senate.
Trump launched an eight-state campaign tour on Wednesday in a final push to endorse Senate Republicans and GOP gubernatorial candidates. Trump will tour the nation, landing him in Senate battlefields such as Indiana, Missouri, and Florida along with contests for governor in Georgia and Ohio.

Dumb Democrat Cartoons

Secret Nixon 'Watergate Road Map,' newly unsealed, could provide guidance for Mueller probe, analysts say

Highly secretive documents finally released Wednesday, including a draft of a would-be criminal indictment against former President Richard Nixon, could provide guidance for Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into President Trump, according to a group of legal analysts that sued to unearth the materials.
Specifically, the materials from Nixon special prosecutor Leon Jaworski are strikingly sparse and predominately factual, which could counsel Mueller against issuing long-winded legal conclusions or opinions. And the documents have largely been kept out of the public eye for decades, avoiding the political spectacle of the report released by independent counsel Ken Starr decades later, after his investigation of former President Bill Clinton.
Stephen Bates, who worked for Starr, and legal bloggers Jack Goldsmith and Benjamin Wittes won their battle to force the National Archives to unseal the so-called "Watergate Road Map" and its related documents last month in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, as they argued that the materials had significant political implications today that overrode any government interest in keeping them secret.
"As Mueller reportedly contemplates writing a 'report' on possible presidential obstruction of justice, there are two models available to him to the extent that he is contemplating an impeachment referral of some kind," the three analysts wrote on their blog in September. "One of those, the Starr Report, is well-understood and regarded by many commentators in a negative light. The other, the Road Map, remains secret more than 40 years after its transmission to Congress. Few people have even heard of it."
The salacious Starr report, released in September 1998, became both a political football and wrecking ball upon its release, with critics charging that it was an overtly political document. The beginning of the report contained something of a disclaimer, noting that "many of the details" contained inside "reveal highly personal information; many are sexually explicit. This is unfortunate, but it is essential."

"The document is ... keenly relevant to current discussions of how Mueller should proceed."
— Stephen Bates, Jack Goldsmith and Benjamin Wittes

But unlike the Starr report, the low-key Watergate Road Map is "almost entirely non-argumentative," the writers posted on Lawfare late Wednesday. "In this regard it is a world away from the Starr Report, which laid out a lengthy narrative and then included a set of legal interpretations arguing that the facts reported might be grounds for impeachment. The Road Map entirely lacks a thesis."
The legal analysts argued that the Watergate Road Map could offer insight into the ongoing legal debate as to whether a president constitutionally could be charged with obstruction of justice at all, as well as whether it would be appropriate under the special counsel statutes for Mueller to issue a public or confidential report on his findings -- should he issue a report at all.
"The document is ... keenly relevant to current discussions of how Mueller should proceed," Bates, Goldsmith, and Wittes added. "It is possible that it is even relevant to discussions taking place within the Mueller investigation itself."
The key takeaways for Mueller, the three legal analysts wrote after reviewing the Watergate Road Map: "First, less really is more. The document is powerful because it is so spare; because it is trying to inform, not to persuade; because it utterly lacks rhetorical excess."
Next: The "Road Map is extremely careful not to do — or seem to do — Congress’s job for it," they added. "[T]he Road Map simply gave Congress information to use as members saw fit and assiduously avoided instruction or didactic messaging as to how to put that information to use."
And finally: "The Road Map teaches an important lesson about restraint. ... Leon Jaworski wrote a meticulous 55-page document that contains not a word of excess. He transmitted it to Congress, where it did not leak. It is powerful partly because it is so by-the-book. Kind of like Bob Mueller." (Unlike the Starr report, which was written from the prosecutor's perspective, the Watergate Road Map released Wednesday is not written in Jaworski's voice. Instead, it is a court document, like the indictment.)
The records in the Watergate Road Map initially were provided to Congress under seal 45 years ago, on the order of federal appellate Judge John Sirica, after special prosecutor Jaworski argued he theoretically had enough evidence for criminal charges again Nixon, even though the Constitution seemingly did not permit a sitting president to face a criminal indictment.
FBI NOTIFIED OF ALLEGED SCHEME TO PAY WOMEN TO MAKE FALSE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST MUELLER
Sirica authorized the documents' confidential release to Congress in March 1974, after Congress already had initiated impeachment proceedings. Nixon ultimately resigned on Aug. 8, 1974, facing almost-certain impeachment and removal.
The draft indictment against Nixon contained charges of bribery, conspiracy, obstruction of justice and obstruction of a criminal probe -- and seven Nixon aides who were charged later were similarly hit with obstruction counts.
The indictment, which included in the top-right corner a handwritten notation that it was a "draft," read: “[F]rom on or about March 21, 1973…Richard M. Nixon unlawfully, willfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate and agree together and with co-conspirators... to commit bribery... obstruct justice... and obstruct a criminal investigation.”
However, prominent legal analysts, including Harvard professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz, as well as the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, have long argued that a sitting president cannot be indicted -- even if he commits a crime.
"The grand jury was able to discern that Nixon himself was a criminal, and the only reason that they did not indict him is because there was a question of whether or not a sitting president could be indicted," University of Virginia Miller Center historian Ken Hughes said in an interview.
Speaking to Fox News' "The Ingraham Angle" exclusively on Monday, President Trump voiced his continued frustration with Mueller's probe, which he has long called a partisan "witch hunt" led by Democratic lawyers upset that he had won the 2016 presidential election. However, he also indicated that he might offer some cooperation as the investigation appears to wind down.
CLICK FOR FULL RECAP OF TRUMP-INGRAHAM INTERVIEW
"It’s ridiculous that I have to do anything, because I didn’t do anything, but yes, we will probably do something, yes we will respond to questions," Trump told host Laura Ingraham.