Mediaboss Marketing

UPDATED: SUNDAY, MARCH 5, 2017, 5:34 P.M.

HELENA Musician and political novice Rob Quist on Sunday captured the Democratic nomination for the May 25 special election to fill the states only congressional seat.

Quist prevailed over seven other candidates, including two experienced legislators who trailed the entertainer from the start of Sundays balloting in Helena.

Montana will be without a representative in the U.S. House until a successor is elected for Republican Rep. Ryan Zinke, who resigned his seat last week after being confirmed to lead the U.S. Interior Department.

I come here not as a career politician rising through the ranks, said Quist told delegates during opening speeches. As a poet-musician, I ask you to look outside the bubble of Helena to a man who has represented Montana from behind a different kind of microphone.

Quist is making his first run for office in his partys bid to recapture a seat that a Democrat has not held in 20 years.

State Reps. Kelly McCarthy and Rep. Amanda Curtis were also vying for the partys nomination.

McCarthy of Billings pitched himself to fellow Democrats as an experienced campaigner who is well-versed in policy and national security matters.

Curtis, the only woman vying for her partys nomination, sought to persuade delegates that her gender wont be a barrier in winning the seat.

Curtis was seeking to be only the second woman elected to Congress from the Treasure State. In 1917, Montana Republican Jeannette Rankin became the first woman to be elected to the U.S. Congress.

Quist, a singer and guitarist for the Mission Mountain Wood Band, said he has traveled to more than 40 counties in recent weeks to meet Democratic central committee members, who make up the bulk of convention delegates.

Ive been trying to make a personal connection with everybody who has to make a decision in this, he said.

Republicans hold their nominating convention Monday and will choose from six candidates, including Greg Gianforte, who was the partys nominee for governor in November.

Democrats are already attacking Gianforte, who has asserted that he has the necessary delegates to clinch the GOP nomination.

Quist said he was proud to carry the banner for the Montanas Democratic Party.

Quist will have to quickly unify Democrats not only in getting votes out but in getting contributions for his campaign.

Read the rest here:
Montana Democrats pick Quist to run for congressional seat - The Spokesman-Review

New York Times

Democrats Bet GOP Will Regret Opposing Scrutiny of Trump New York Times Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, arriving for a news conference last month in Washington with members of the chamber's Financial Services Committee. She has vowed a weekly vote on the release of President ... Can Democrats Turn Activism Into Votes? Special Elections Might Be A ClueNPR Special elections spark Democratic hopesPolitico Kathleen Parker: Dispirited Democrats desperately seek revivialThe Spokesman-Review The Hill -Townhall -Sacramento Bee all 5,652 news articles »

Read the original post:
Democrats Bet GOP Will Regret Opposing Scrutiny of Trump - New York Times

Mayor Bill Peduto and Sheriff Bill Mullen won the Allegheny County Democratic Committee endorsement Sunday, after a gathering of party elders at the IBEW Local #5 hall on the South Side.

Mr. Peduto beat his sole rival for the endorsement, District 1 City Councilwoman Darlene Harris, by a 372-245 margin.

"We took 60 percent of the vote, which is a pretty decisive victory," said Matt Merriman-Preston, a spokesman for the Peduto campaign. "It really speaks to the breadth of the mayor's support. People know that the mayor is continuing to deal with the challenges the city is facing, and they're pleased with what he's done so far."

This weekend, Mr. Peduto also formally garnered the support of a long-time ally, the service employees union.

Although Mr. Peduto has run for mayor twice before, in 2005 and 2013, this was the first time he sought the party's backing. Voters in the Democratic primary can and sometimes do ignore the endorsement, though the committees approval confers bragging rights, and the chance to appear on slate cards handed out at polling places.

Ms. Harris has not formally announced a mayoral campaign, even as she has sought the partys endorsement. She said Sundays result will play "a big part" in her decision about whether to launch a full-throated bid for office. As to her next step, she said, "I'll be making a decision on Tuesday," when election petitions are due.

Asked whether she was disappointed by the outcome, she said, "Why would I be? I didn't even announce I was running."

Another mayoral candidate, the Rev. John Welch, was escorted out of the IBEW hall after a brief sojourn inside in the morning.

Rev. Welch, of Homewood, was not seeking the endorsement, and as such was not entitled to appear at the event. He withdrew to the sidewalk outside. "I figured there would be some hospitality, he said. I had a chance to greet some people, and then I was greeted."

Sheriff Mullen, the top vote-getter on Sunday, garnered 1,137 votes, beating the 442 racked up by Pittsburgh homicide detective George Satler.

Sheriff Mullen said it was "gratifying to get the most votes. I had a lot of people working very hard."

"I was hoping to do better," said Detective Satler. "But I don't want to disappoint the more than 440 people who supported me. I will continue to run."

Sheriff Mullen took nothing for granted. While candidates often make last-ditch appeals to committee members by offering freebies before voting, Sheriff Mullens campaign provided an unusual boon: a golf cart to ferry less able-bodied committee members to the hall from the parking lots cross the street.

In other races, Anthony Coghill easily won the endorsement in City Council District 4, beating Gary McBurney. (Another contender, Ashleigh Deemer, did not seek the endorsement.) Pittsburgh school board member Terry Kennedy, who represents the 5th district, besting challenger Ghadah Makoshi. In Common Pleas Court races, Patrick Connelly and David Spurgeon won endorsement for the two judicial seats available.

"I think the results were predictable," said county committee chair Nancy Patton Mills. She called the event "exhausting and exhilarating at the same time. We had no issues. Everyone was cordial, and we're very proud of all the candidates.

Read more:
Peduto, Mullen win endorsements from county Democrats - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

|

Posted: Mar 05, 2017 12:01 AM

Now that President Trump has followed through on his campaign promise and started the deportation process for criminal illegal aliens, Democrats and the media are united in outrage. One talking point dominates all others: Immigrants have a much lower crime rate than Americans do, so its unfair to target them. This begs the question: To these liberals, how many American victims of illegal alien crime would it take to for it to matter to you?

There are regular reports of violent crimes committed by illegal aliens horrific gang-related murders have occurred recently in New York, Washington, D.C., and Houston but the true crime rate among illegal aliens is not known. Most states do not keep those records for reasons we can only guess, plus there is no way of knowing the real number of illegals in the country. That fact hasnt stopped liberal commentators and politicians from stating unequivocally that we Americans are the real crime problem in this country.

Although it may be true, and from a sheer numbers standpoint it undoubtedly is, its also irrelevant. Victims of crimes committed by illegal aliens would not have been victims if those people were not in this country. Every person murdered by an illegal alien would still be alive.

This is a simple fact those who spout this made-up statistic hope people dont realize, because their entire argument would fall apart if they did.

Kate Steinle, the young woman murdered in San Francisco by an illegal alien with multiple convictions and deportations, would not have been murdered that July day in 2015 if the man who did it had not been in the country illegally in the first place.

Democrats dont care. In addition to doing all they could to ignore Steinles murder, they even voted against Kates Law, which would impose a minimum sentence of five years for already-deported illegal aliens who re-enter the country. Like I said, Democrats dont care.

Democrats would rather pander for the potential votes of illegal aliens should they be granted citizenship than defend Americans.

At President Trumps address to a joint session of Congress, Democrats went so far as to invite illegal aliens and their children to be their guests in the House gallery.

In the build up to the speech, one woman in particular garnered a lot of Democratic and media sympathy.

The children of recently deported illegal alien Guadalupe Garcia de Rayos were invited guests to the presidents speech, and their plight was widely reported in incredibly sympathetic, if not accurate, terms.

CNN had five reporters (seriously, five people) file a story on them entitled, Trumps speech disheartens deported moms kids. If Guadalupe had hired a PR firm, it couldnt have drafted a more glowing press release.

Guadalupes sad tale of woe was easy to find across the media, but the reason she was deported wasnt as readily available.

The New York Times, of all places, is where you can find it, though its only casually mentioned in their story.

After mentioning Guadalupe had been meeting with Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials for nearly a decade, the Times noted these annual meetings were a requirement since she was caught using a fake Social Security number during a raid in 2008 at a water park where she worked.

Thats a politically correct way of saying she committed fraud or stole someones identity the Times doesnt say which. But those are the only ways an illegal alien could get a legitimate job.

Although certainly not murder or drug dealing, neither option is a victimless crime either an American was denied a job by fraud and/or another had their identity stolen. And thats the real truth Democrats dont want you to think of illegal aliens have countless victims who may not know for years, if ever, that they were victims.

Still, Democrats do not care.

This is to say nothing of the cost to society. The cost of educating illegal alien children is significantly higher than Americans because of the language barrier. This siphons off valuable taxpayer resources from American children, usually from poor urban areas, making those children victims of illegal immigration.

Again, Democrats do not care. Theyd rather focus on an illegal alien being arrested after giving a defiant press conference than reality.

Illegal immigration is not a victimless crime simply because not all illegal aliens are members of MS-13 or Democrats want to pretend it is. Real people suffer real consequences when someone enters the country illegally or overstays a visa.

The question is: What is the magic number of Americans who must be victims of these crimes before Democrats will care more about those victims than about the potential voters now in our country illegally? If recent actions are any indication, no number is high enough.

Go here to see the original:
For Democrats, How Many American Victims Are Enough? - Townhall

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Thespotlight is now onPresident Barack Obama and his administrations allegedsurveillance ofthe Trump campaign, as well as his aides reported efforts to spread damaging informationaboutTrump throughout government agencies to facilitate laterinvestigations and, possibly, leaks to the media.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

On Sunday morning, the White House released a statement indicating that the president would ask the congressional committees investigating Russian hacking theories to add the question of whether executive branch investigative powers were abused in 2016.

Media outlets continued to repeat that the story wasbased on no evidence, though the evidence was plain.

President Donald Trump originallytweeted about the alleged surveillance which radio host Mark Levin called a silent coup by Obama staffers keen toundermine the new administration on Saturday. Levins claims, reported at Breitbart News early Friday, were in turn based on information largely frommainstream outlets, including theNew York Timesand theWashington Post. Heat Street was one non-mainstream source, but the BBC also reported similar information in January. So, too, did the UKGuardian, which is a mainstream source (albeit with a decidedly left-wing slant, hardlyfavorable to Trump).

All day Saturday, former Obama staffers tried to put out the fires. A spokesperson for President Obama responded and Obama aide Valerie Jarrett tweeted:

A cardinal rule of the Obama Administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice.As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor anyWhite House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen.Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.

As Breitbart News Matthew Boyle noted, however, it was a non-denial denial. It is worth examining the statement in detail.

Note that this sentencedoes not disputeany of the key factual allegationsat issue: that the DOJ approached the FISA court for permission to spy on Trump aides; that surveillance, once granted, continued after no evidence was found of wrongdoing; that the Obama administration relaxed National Security Agency rules to facilitate the dissemination of evidence through the government; and that Obama staffers allegedly did so, the better to leak damaging (and partial) information to the media.

In addition, there is reason to doubt the claim that the White House never interfered: theNew York Timesreported in January that intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.

Moreover, the first part of the sentence raises doubts about Lewiss entire statement. Lewis could simply have said: NoWhite House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the DOJ. That would have been a clear denial. Instead, hereferred toa cardinal rule that supposedly existed.

All that does is create deniability for the rest of the White House in the event that evidence turns up that someonewas, in fact, involvedwith a Department of Justice probe. (No doubt Obama will be outraged to find out if someone broke the cardinal rule, and will claim to havefoundout through the media, rather than directly.) The Obama communications operation is notoriouslycareful with the way denials are worded.

As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor anyWhite House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen.

This is a meaningless denial, since the FISA court deals with communications with foreigners, with U.S. citizens potentially swept up in the investigation. It would have beenpossible for the DOJ to approach the FISA court with a request to monitorforeignentities allegedly communicating with the Trump campaign, using those intercepts as a wayto monitor the Trump campaign itself. According to news reports cited by Andrew McCarthy, that couldhave been precisely what happened.

And, again, this sentence does not deny that someone in the Obama administration may have ordered such surveillance.

Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.

What we have here is a blanketdenial craftedto protect President Barack Obama himself,but allowing him to admit later once the facts emerge that his administration was, in fact, up to something. In addition,the Democrats have been adept at constructing elaboratechains of communication to create plausible deniability for higher-ups. That is how the bird-dogging scheme through which left-wing activists instigated violence at Donald Trumps rallies was arranged for the Clinton campaign. (The organizer behind that scheme visited Obamas White House 340times, meeting Obama himself 45 times.)

As theNew York Times supposedly the paper of record recently reported, there is no evidence that the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election. But there is ample evidence that the outgoing Obama administration could have used intelligence agencies to carry out a political agenda against Trump. The media, as Mark Levin pointed out again on SundaysFox and Friends, simply refuse to report their own earlier reports.

Even without Trumpsmore sensational accusationsof wiretapping, it is, so far, undisputedthat there have been manyleaks of classified information to damage Trump, and that the Obama administration took steps that couldhavemade such leaksmore likely. (Charles Krauthammer who is skeptical of deep state theories called this the Revenge of the Losers on Friday.)Those are serious allegations that the former administration is likely going to have to explain to Congress.

But if the Obama administration did order surveillance of the Trump campaign during the election; and if Obama or any other White House officials knew about it (or created a plausible deniability scheme to allow such surveillance while preventing themselves from knowing about it directly); thenthere is an even bigger problem.

It would then seem that the Russia hacking story was concocted not just to explain away an embarrassing election defeat, but to cover up the real scandal.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named one of the most influential people in news media in 2016. His new book,How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Formatting has been changed to improve clarity.

See the original post:
DeepStateGate: Democrats' 'Russian Hacking' Conspiracy Theory Backfires - Breitbart News