Stories about
Barack Obama


Barack Hussein Obama II (/bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/ ( listen); born August 4, 1961) is an American politician who served as the 44th President of the United States from January 20, 2009, to January 20, 2017. The first African American to assume the presidency, he was previously the junior United States Senator from Illinois from 2005 to 2008. Before that, he served in the Illinois State Senate from 1997 until 2004.

America First with Sebastian Gorka

Published  4 hours ago

Whatever happens in the years to come, American politics can never return to what they were before November 8, 2016.

Why, you ask? Because a brash TV celebrity businessman from Queens broke the media, broke Washington D.C., and broke the self-appointed “elite” on both coasts. The stake he drove through their hearts will endure no matter who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

First, they laughed at Donald Trump the candidate. At his appearance, at his demeanor, at his outré stump speeches. Then, when he wiped the floor with the 16 establishment Republican candidates they panicked.

The criminal cartel that is the Clinton machine hired a former British intelligence officer—who hated Donald Trump the man—to generate a “dossier” of outlandish and false opposition research that was used by Barack Obama’s thoroughly corrupt Justice Department and FBI to gain under bogus pretenses a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance warrant to spy on her opponent’s campaign. But they failed.

That is when the coup plot was hatched.

I do not use that word lightly. However given that both the liberal judicial authority Alan Dershowitz, and the most preeminent conservative historian and strategist, Victor Davis Hanson, have recently used the word “coup” to describe the machinations of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, the choice is deliberate and justified.

Rosenstein and McCabe had never been elected to any public office, let alone the cabinet of the United States. Yet by McCabe’s own admission, they plotted to use the 25th Amendment to our Constitution to remove the duly elected president—an amendment that was designed for the incumbent president’s cabinet to employ in the dire scenario that their superior was incapacitated and unable to perform his duties as commander-in-chief.

The amendment is very clear. The president’s removal is decided by the vice president and a majority of his cabinet. Not by an FBI flunky whose wife received $700,000 from Hillary Clinton’s bagman Terry McAuliffe to run as a Democrat for the Virginia State Senate. And not by the acting attorney general—a man who would name his friend Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate the president the very day after Mueller failed in his interview with President Trump to get his old job back as Director of the FBI. This is exactly what a coup d’etat looks like—albeit, thankfully, a failed coup d’etat.

The point here is that Rosenstein, McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and the rest of the corrupt bureaucrats failed and Donald Trump remains president. Not only that, but beyond all rational expectations of standard political calculation and despite the overwhelming bias of the media—coverage of Trump is estimated at 90 percent negative in just the last year— his popularity stands by at least one measure at a remarkable 52 percent, which is significantly higher than for Obama at the same time in his first term.

This is the dispositive proof that Donald J. Trump has changed America in ways that no “expert” ever could imagine.

They spied on him and tried to subvert his campaign for election to the highest office. Once installed in the White House, they plotted to remove him. And all the while the media and the establishment as a whole either was not on his side or actively working against him. Yet he is winning more than ever.

Just look at Friday’s deal and his proclamation on a national emergency on our Southern border for proof.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) went on record saying she’d only give the president $1 for the wall. Then, after a government shutdown and three weeks of negotiations, the president was finally offered $1.375 billion by the Democrats. In the meantime his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney found $6.6 billion, including drug cartel asset forfeitures, sitting at Department of Justice. So after requesting $5.7 billion to build the wall, and being refused and ridiculed, President Trump apparently walks away with $8 billion to keep his MAGA promise to America. Nancy promised $1, America ended up with $8 billion.

When I grew up in the United Kingdom, there was a famous story that became a popular song and then a movie. It concerned Charles Wells, “The Man who Broke the Bank in Monte Carlo.” Wells walked into the famous casino on July 28, 1891, with 4,000 British Pounds and walked away with the equivalent of 4 million.

For more than 30 years, America has been held hostage by a political, economic, media and cultural elite which has been wrong on every major issue you can imagine. From foreign adventurism to trade policies; national sovereignty versus globalization; love of country to hatred of the principles upon which our nation was built—one man has broken the stranglehold of a morally bankrupt “elite” and he isn’t even a politician.

For more excellent, independent, conservative thought head over to the American Greatness website today!

Frontpage Mag

Published  8 hours ago

Daniel Greenfield

So far the path to the White House for most 2020 Dems appears to lie through shameless racial, radical and economic pandering.

Reviving slavery reparations, once an insane radical idea and more insane than ever in a country with a black population that is increasingly, like Obama or Kamala Harris, not even from this country during the slavery era, is now more popular than ever.

But for 2020 Dems it unites the two r's and the one e.

Take all that wealth redistribution and funnel it through race, a major chunk of the Dem base anyway, and match it to some bashing of the United States.

Last week, Senator Kamala Harris of California agreed with a radio host’s recent suggestion that government reparations for black Americans were necessary to address the legacies of slavery and discrimination. Ms. Harris later affirmed that support in a statement to The Times.

“We have to be honest that people in this country do not start from the same place or have access to the same opportunities,” she said. “I’m serious about taking an approach that would change policies and structures and make real investments in black communities.”

Ms. Warren also said she supported reparations for black Americans impacted by slavery — a policy that experts say could cost several trillion dollars, and one that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and many top Democrats have not supported.

The Warren campaign declined to give further details on that backing,

As Kamala Harris proved, to her black father's shame and regret, she's willing to say absolutely anything on a radio show.

Neither of them appears to have thought it out much, and appear to be painting the usual sort of affirmative action and racial wealth redistribution that we've been pursuing for generations, with few results other than for folks at the top. Like Senator Kamala Harris.

Her mother was an internationally famous cancer researcher and the daughter of P.V. Gopalan, a high-ranking Indian diplomat from the Brahmin caste. Her father was a professor of economics at Stanford who served as an adviser to multiple Jamaican prime ministers.

As a Los Angeles Times article described her, she was the “privileged child of foreign grad students”.

Kamala’s mother taught at universities in France, Italy and Canada. She smugly told Modern Luxury magazine “When Kamala was in first grade one of her teachers said to me, ‘You know, your child has a great imagination. Every time we talk about someplace in the world she says, “Oh, I’ve been there.”’ So I told her, ‘Well, she has been there!’ India, England, the Caribbean, Africa—she had been there.”

Modern Luxury also quoted “one of Harris’s Nob Hill friends” as saying that “her Brahmin background accounts for her ease around wealthy, powerful people.”

We really need reparations to give half-Jamaican privileged politicians descended from slave owners a leg up.

Breitbart

Published  13 hours ago

A poll shows that the media's hate crime hoaxes -- from Trayvon Martin to Jussie Smollett -- have taken a toll on race relations. 

Liberty Freedom | United States | The Washington Pundit

Published  13 hours ago

The biography provided by Barack Obama to his literary agent specified his birthplace as “Kenya” and, over the course of 17 years, despite multiple revisions by Obama, the Kenyan birthplace remained a fundamental part of the bio on the agent’s website.

I’ve used the Wayback Archive to explore the exact transformations of Obama’s biography on his agent’s site. (Copy and paste the URL due to the url being too long to hyperlink)

On June 27, 1998, the website read (http://web.archive.org/web/19980627122741/http://www.dystel.com/client.html#O) : “BARACK OBAMA was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii, and Chicago. His first book is DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE.”

The Obama entry remained unmodified (e.g., June 6, 2002) (http://web.archive.org/web/20020602200456/http://www.dystel.com/client.html) until sometime around December 9, 2004 (http://web.archive.org/web/20041206142636/http://www.dystel.com:80/client.html), when it was modified to read: “BARACK OBAMA is the junior Democratic senator from Illinois, and was the dynamic keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He was also the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii, and Chicago. His first book, DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE, is a New York Times bestseller.”

On February 10, 2007, Senator Barack Obama formally announced his candidacy for the Presidency.

On April 3, 2007, the website read (http://web.archive.org/web/20070403190001/http://www.dystel.com/clientlist.html#o) : “BARACK OBAMA is the junior Democratic senator from Illinois and was the dynamic keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He was also the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii, and Chicago. His first book, DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE, has been a long time New York Times bestseller.”

Sometime between April 3rd and April 21st, a member of the Obama campaign staff (or Obama himself) noticed the discrepancy in birthplace that would presumably disqualify the Senator from office.

On April 21, 2007, the website read (http://web.archive.org/web/20070421114955/http://www.dystel.com/clientlist.html#o) : “BARACK OBAMA is the junior Democratic senator from Illinois and was the dynamic keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He was also the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Hawaii to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii, and Chicago. His first book, DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE, has been a long time New York Times bestseller.”

On June 14, 2007, the website read (http://web.archive.org/web/20070614062851/http://www.dystel.com/clientlist.html#o) : “BARACK OBAMA, the junior Democratic senator from Illinois, is currently campaigning to become the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee. He was born in Hawaii to a father who was raised in a small village in Kenya and a mother who grew up in small-town Kansas. Barack’s father eventually returned to Kenya, and Barack grew up with his mother in Hawaii, and for a few years in Indonesia. Later, he moved to New York, where he graduated from Columbia University before moving to Chicago, where he became a community organizer. He went on to earn his law degree from Harvard, where he became the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. His first book, DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE, has been a long-time New York Times bestseller.”

Old media’s feeble handling of this issue — parroting the laughable assertion that clerical errors caused Obama’s birthplace to be incorrectly listed, when former clients and the agency’s policy itself states that authors provide the biographical briefs — is pathetic.

As I’ve demonstrated here, Obama’s bio was carefully edited over the course of 17 years to reflect his various accomplishments.

It was only a few months after his presidential candidacy was announced that his Kenyan “birthplace” became Hawaiian to confirm his eligibility for office. Obama remains a client to this day, which helps explain the literary agent’s willingness to instantly offer an explanation for the discrepancy.

Note: This Article is Not Meant as Proof that Obama was Born in Kenya but rather to Show Proof That He Did Use Kenya as His Birthplace on his Literary Agent’s Site until 2007. This Could Mean Two Things:

1) He Used Kenya as His Birthplace in Order to Benefit From Foreign Scholarships

2) He was indeed Born in Kenya

Whatever the true reason, I cannot speculate. My Job is to provide to you the evidence I am given.

Breitbart

Published  15 hours ago

The Trump administration announced this week that it was canceling nearly $1 billion in grant money for California’s now-defunct high-speed rail project — and President Donald Trump is coming for the other $2.5 billion.

The $2.5 billion has already been spent — but California has failed to deliver the high-speed rail (on time, or at all) as promised.

Therefore, the Trump administration argues, the state has to repay federal taxpayers.

The Los Angeles Times quoted Stanford law professor David Freeman Engstrom, a Stanford law professor, describing Trump’s effort as a “nuclear option.”

The practice of recovering money after a breach of contract, while common in the private sector, was virtually unheard of in government, he explained.

“There is a reluctance to penalize misspending by local government agencies. … Almost never do those violations result in terminations, in part because federal agencies are set up to distribute money, not take it back, and they also lack funding for strict grant enforcement,” the Times added.

Last week, newly-inaugurated California Governor Gavin Newsom announced in his “State of the State” address that the “bullet train” would no longer be built between Los Angeles and San Francisco because it “would cost too much and, respectfully, would take too long.”

Newsom said the state would still build a portion of the high-speed rail project in the Central Valley in an effort to hold onto the federal funds that President Barack Obama’s administration had allocated to the project: “I am not interested in sending $3.5 billion in federal funding that was allocated to this project back to Donald Trump, Newsom told legislators in the State Capitol in Sacramento.

But President Trump objected, demanding on Twitter: “California has been forced to cancel the massive bullet train project after having spent and wasted many billions of dollars. They owe the Federal Government three and a half billion dollars. We want that money back now. Whole project is a “green” disaster!” Newsom responded: “This is CA’s money, allocated by Congress for this project. We’re not giving it back.” He also taunted the president, accusing him of “desperately searching for some wall $$,” referring to Trump’s barrier on the U.S.-Mexico border.

That did not impress the president. On Tuesday, the Federal Railroad Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation wrote to California’s High-Speed Rail Authority, informing it that it had breached the terms of its contract with the federal government and that $928,620,000 would therefore no longer be available to the project.

Newsom objected, again: “This is California’s money.” He also claimed Trump was taking revenge for California’s leading role in filing a federal lawsuit against Trump’s national emergency declaration to build the “wall.”

But that may not matter.

The state had grown accustomed to leniency: the Obama administration modified the terms of the deal between the federal government and the state several times, because it was ideologically committed to high-speed rail.

For example, in “the final hours of the Obama administration” in January 2017, the Los Angeles Times reported at the time, Obama extended the deadline for the high-speed rail project from 2018 to 2022, so that California might still access the nearly $1 billion in transportation funds that the Trump administration is now “de-obligating.”

Trump is somewhat indifferent to high-speed rail: he favors infrastructure spending, but wants to see the projects built.

And as a world-famous developer, he knows the rules of the game: deliver the project, or pay up.

Legally California may have no choice.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Breitbart

Published  16 hours ago

President Donald Trump has achieved more concrete progress for blacks, gays, and Jews than any other American president.

That claim is sure to be disputed, if not mocked, by those for whom grievance and identity politics are a profession or a psychological crutch.

Yet it remains true — and was thrown into sharp relief this week, as the Jussie Smollett case turned from one of the most horrific attacks in recent memory to the worst hate crime hoax in history.

There are two reasons the media, Hollywood, and the Democratic political elite believed Smollett’s claims.

First, he belongs to several victim categories: black, gay, and even Jewish (albeit via his father), according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

Second, he appealed to the left’s shared contempt for America in the Trump era: he claimed, for example, that the fact people doubted his story “says a lot about the place that we are in our country right now.”

The crucial detail in Smollett’s account, which ultimately proved its undoing, was the claim that his attackers had shouted, “This is MAGA country.” It was a gratuitous flourish in Smollett’s story, a “fact” that was not necessary to establish that he was a victim, but which pointed the finger directly at the president and his tens of millions of supporters.

Chicago is hardly “MAGA country,” given that it is overwhelmingly Democratic. Its politicians are also viciously anti-Trump: after the 2016 election, the city took down all of the honorary street signs it once erected in his honor, which were near the Streeterville area where Smollett claimed he was attacked.

But to the left, “MAGA country” is an idea about what the U.S. is, or has become. That is why so many hate crime hoaxes are believed.

It is worth examining what Trump’s “MAGA country” really means for the groups Smollett claimed to represent.

Blacks: Under Trump, black unemployment is at its lowest level in history. Trump pushed for, and signed into law, sweeping prison reforms backed by leaders of the African-American community. He pardoned the late boxer Jack Johnson, whom Barack Obama neglected. He also elevated a new generation of black conservatives in public life.

Jews: Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moved the U.S. embassy there. He deported a Nazi who had lingered in the U.S. under Obama. He directed the FBI to solve the mystery of bomb threat hoaxes haunting the community. He is the first president with close Jewish relatives — his daughter, son-in-law, and grandchildren.

Gays: Trump championed gay voices within the GOP since his campaign, when he backed Peter Thiel at the Republican National Convention. Trump appointed U.S. ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, one of the highest-ranking gay officials. His administration has launched a global campaign to decriminalize homosexuality.

(Trump has also been a good president for other groups, including women — though the “cis-gender” Smollett would not qualify.)

The arguments against the claims above are familiar. Trump is alleged to have called neo-Nazi white supremacists in Charlottesville, Virginia, “very fine people.” Trump took on black football players who knelt during the national anthem, and restored a ban on transgender soldiers serving in the U.S. military.

But the Charlottesville claim is a lie, and in the other two cases Trump was defending the prominence and integrity of core national institutions.

Measured on the post-modernist scale of identity politics, which prizes symbolic confrontations with power, Trump is a villain.

In a world where concrete achievements count, Trump is our most “progressive” president ever.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

I Love My Freedom

Published  18 hours ago

As Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation wraps up, leaked reports have sent Democrats and the media into panic mode.

Last week, it was reported that the Department of Justice is expecting to receive the final report from Mueller on his findings in the Russia investigation.

SPECIAL OFFER: Free “Build The Wall” Coin – Just Cover Shipping!

Someone in the Senate also leaked to NBC News that lawmakers are ending their own congressional probe into alleged Russia collusion after finding no evidence of any wrongdoing.

The leaked information to NBC News indicated that the bipartisan Senate committee was unable to uncover “direct evidence” of a “conspiracy” between Trump officials and Russia during the 2016 election.

Since news broke that Mueller is nearing the end of his two-year investigation, reality is setting in for Democrats and the media.

It would certainly appear that there will be no charges brought against President Donald Trump nor will there be any proof of alleged Russia collusion during the 2016 election.

Democrats and the media have been heavily invested in the Trump-Russia “collusion narrative,” and they are already trying to play clean-up.

POLL: Should Jim Acosta Be BANNED FOR LIFE From The Press Pool?

Last week, NBC News warned liberals that they might be “disappointed” by Mueller’s final report and his findings.

Millions of Americans may be sorely disappointed.

Unless Mueller files a detailed indictment charging members of the Trump campaign with conspiring with Russia, the public may never learn the full scope of what Mueller and his team has found — including potentially scandalous behavior that doesn’t amount to a provable crime.

CNN analyst James Clapper, who previously served as the Director of National Intelligence under former President Barack Obama, warned Democrats that Mueller isn’t going to save them.

“I think the hope is that the Mueller investigation will clear the air on this issue once and for all. I’m really not sure it will, and the investigation, when completed, could turn out to be quite anti-climactic and not draw a conclusion about that,” Clapper said on CNN.

VOTE: Should Jussie Smollett Get PRISON TIME For Orchestrating The “MAGA Hoax”?

Far-left comedian Rosie O’Donnell was so pissed off over news that Mueller’s report will be “anti-climatic” that she is now backing a boycott of CNN.

O’Donnell took to Twitter late last week after CNN reported that Mueller’s report likely won’t deliver anything close to what Trump-haters want and retweeted the following post from a user: “I’m so done with CNN. They’ve thrown in with the Orange Menace and now this. #BoycottCNN and their advertising. It’s an insult to real journalists and the American people.”

That’s right, liberals are so upset that Trump might be fully vindicated and proven innocent that they are calling for a boycott of CNN, arguably the most liberal cable news outlet of them all.

Time will tell when Mueller actually concludes his probe, but Democrats and the media are already starting to panic, and that speaks volumes.

PETITION: Tell Mueller To STOP Wasting Our Taxpayer Dollars On The Phony Russia Probe!

Conservative Tribune

Published  1 day ago

A Southern Poverty Law Center report downplayed Democratic politicians’ ties to the Nation of Islam and its anti-Semitic leader, Louis Farrakhan.

gellerreport

Published  1 day ago

Brilliant, @therealdonaldtrump Fiscal responsibility - unheard of in the land of Democrat legal plunder.

The Federalist

Published  1 day ago

Democrats have found a sneaky way to tilt the political playing field in their favor without having to reform the immigration system.

www.theepochtimes.com

Published  1 day ago

Commentary Former Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker is owed an apology by an awful lot of people in ...

Fox News

Published  1 day ago

Two leading Democratic presidential candidates -- U.S. Sens. Kamala Harris of California and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts -- have reportedly said they support reparations for black Americans affected by slavery, reflecting a shift in the importance of race and identity issues within the party.

The New York Times reported Thursday that Harris doubled down on her support for reparations after agreeing with a host on the popular radio show “The Breakfast Club” that the race-conscious policy was necessary to address the legacies of slavery and discrimination in the United States.

"We have to be honest that people in this country do not start from the same place or have access to the same opportunities," Harris said in the statement to the Times. "I’m serious about taking an approach that would change policies and structures and make real investments in black communities."

Warren also supports reparations.

DEM MOCKED FOR IGNORING SLAVERY, CLAIMING 'NEVER IN HISTORY' HAVE PEOPLE WORKED WITHOUT PAY IN US

“We must confront the dark history of slavery and government-sanctioned discrimination in this country that has had many consequences, including undermining the ability of black families to build wealth in America for generations,” she told the Times. “We need systemic, structural changes to address that.”

"We must confront the dark history of slavery and government-sanctioned discrimination in this country that has had many consequences."

— U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.

Julian Castro, another Democrat running for president, has indicated that he would support reparations.

Fox News reached out to all three campaigns but did not immediately hear back late Thursday.

Reparations would involve the federal government’s acknowledgment of the ongoing legacy of slavery and discrimination and providing payment to those affected. Policy experts say it could cost several trillion dollars.

Scholars estimate that black families earn just over $57 for every $100 earned by white families, according to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey.

U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., who is also running for president, has proposed helping poor children by giving them government-funded savings accounts that could hold up to $50,000 for the lowest income brackets, the Times reported. U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., supports a plan to allow Americans without checking accounts bank at their local post office.

Other prominent Democrats have stopped short of backing reparations, including U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who dismissed the idea in 2016. Hillary Clinton and former President Barack Obama have also expressed reservations.

Supporting reparations could come with much political risk. Republicans have long attempted to paint Democrats who support policies aimed at correcting racial inequalities as anti-white, according to the Times, and polling shows reparations for black Americans remains unpopular.

theweek

Published  1 day ago

Former Vice President Joe Biden is really, really close to running for president. There's just one thing holding him back: his family.

Biden rejected a 2016 run because his campaign would've had to start just after the May 2015 death of his son Beau Biden. And this time around, Biden is worried opponents will turn his family into a weapon, Biden aides tell NBC News.

Even though Biden hasn't announced an official run or even an exploratory committee, primary polls have consistently put him on top of the extra large Democratic field. He's reportedly joined potential opponents in discussing a run with former President Barack Obama, and in recent weeks, upped his likelihood of running "from 70, to 80 and even more recently 90 percent," Democrats and party figures tell NBC News. He's also reportedly called and congratulated some 2020 candidates on their announcements, despite saying in December he's "the most qualified person in the country to be president."

Biden has also gone so far as to threaten to physically fight President Trump, so there's no concern over his willingness to rumble. He's just worried about "reprehensible" attacks on his family — something Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) explained when speaking with NBC News after consulting with Biden about 2020. "Trump demonstrated in the 2016 election an enthusiasm for attacking not just his opponents but his family, including famously by making things up," Coons said, adding that he thinks Biden should "let others take up the mantle of defending his family."

Still, Biden has a few more "gut-check conversations with his children and grandchildren" to check off before making a final decision, NBC News says. Read more about his reservations at NBC News. Kathryn Krawczyk

Conservative Tribune

Published  1 day ago

Nicholas Kamm / AFP / Getty Images

There is virtually no disputing the fact that the predominately liberal mainstream media has been exceptionally negative toward President Donald Trump in their coverage of his presidency and the various issues of the day.

Yet, in spite of the media’s overt animosity toward Trump and decidedly negative coverage of him, the president still draws support from a significant portion of the American people, in greater numbers than former President Barack Obama did at the same point in the first term of his presidency.

First of all, there is no need to take our word for the tone of the media’s coverage of Trump and his administration, nor do you have to rely on what you’ve seen and heard for yourself, as the media’s negativity has actually been quantified by folks who spend their time studying everything said and done by the media.

An op-ed from Investors Business Daily in Oct. 2018 cited a survey that had been conducted by the Media Research Center which viewed more than 1,000 hours of network news coverage — ABC, CBS and NBC — from June to September of that year.

The study found that 92 percent of the coverage related to Trump during that period was negative in tone, as compared to a mere 8 percent that was positive toward the president.

TRENDING: Disturbing Video Surfaces Shows NY Abortion Clinic Assuring Woman Baby Will Be Killed If Born Alive

Further, the study revealed that more than two-thirds of the network’s coverage — or more than 660 of the 1,000-plus hours — was devoted to only five main topics: the Russia investigation, the debate over illegal immigration, the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, as well as the state of U.S. relations with enemies and rivals like North Korea and Russia.

Noticeably absent from that list was reports on the booming economy — which all the media analysts and experts had predicted couldn’t be revived after Obama’s dismal eight years of economic stagnation, though they framed it as the “new normal” — which accounted for a mere 0.7 percent of the coverage, or about 14 minutes total out of 1,000-plus hours.

Despite those dire and dismissive predictions, Trump’s efforts to cut taxes and roll back regulations resulted in a surge of economic activity that has led to historically low unemployment rates, rising wages and median household incomes, a strong and growing gross domestic product rate and jobs, jobs, jobs and more jobs.

To be fair, there was a bit of economic news that the media did focus a bit of attention on — trade tariffs — albeit, only 80 minutes total during that period, of which 88 percent was negative.

Nevertheless, in spite of the incessantly negative coverage by the media and their narrow focus on Trump’s “scandals” — some real, most not — President Trump’s approval ratings have remained fairly steady for the most part, and are higher than his predecessor’s approval ratings were at the same point in his presidency.

The Rasmussen Approval Index History for Trump, which provides the spread between those who “strongly” approve and disapprove of the president, as well as his total approval and disapproval rating, had an approval index rating of -7 for Trump on Feb. 21, 2019.

That -7 index is the difference between the 35 percent who “strongly approve” and 42 percent who “strongly disapprove” of Trump, while his overall rating was 49 percent approved to 50 percent disapproved of his job performance.

In comparison, the Rasmussen Approval Index History for Obama on Feb. 21, 2011, the equivalent point in Obama’s first term, showed he had approval index of -18 points.

Obama was “strongly approved” by only 23 percent of Americans, while 41 percent “strongly disapproved” of him. In total, Obama had an overall approval rate of 44 percent as compared to a disapproval rate of 55 percent.

RELATED: AOC Bashed Luxury Housing During Election, But Look What Her New Apt. Complex Offers the Rich & Famous

Of course, we don’t have to remind you of the overwhelmingly vast disparity in the tone of media coverage between those two presidents, as while most coverage of Trump is decisively negative, the media’s coverage of Obama was nearly a constant glow of positivity and thinly veiled support.

The media can and will slam Trump for every real or perceived misstep — and Trump has certainly earned negative coverage from time to time, to be fair — but the incessant negativity appears to have had little effect on the American people, who it would seem are able to see past the media’s overt anti-Trump bias and judge the president by his accomplishments and policies, rather than simply accept the biased media’s negative version of events in order to form their own opinion.

Barack ObamaDonald Trumpliberal mediamainstream mediamedia biasObama administrationpollsTrump administration

Zero Hedge

Published  1 day ago

"[L]eft-wing activists are quite content using every tool at their disposal to silence influential voices on the right." 

New York Post

Published  1 day ago

During the financial crisis, the federal government bailed out banks it declared “too big to fail.” Fearing their bankruptcy might trigger economic Armageddon, the feds propped them up with

Fox News

Published  1 day ago

Just when you think no one could be a sleazier swamp creature than fired FBI Director James Comey, fired Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe comes along.

McCabe and Comey have a lot in common. They’re both leakers. They’re both liars. And they’re both lousy political hacks who’ve written books that attempt to bleach history just like Hillary Clinton did with her emails.

Comey and McCabe, of course, will forever be remembered for their horribly botched investigation of the Clinton email case in 2015-2016. How can anyone forget that McCabe’s wife received $675,000 in campaign funds for her race for Virginia State Senate from groups closely associated with longtime Clinton confidant Terry McAuliffe as the email probe was being conducted by the FBI.

DAVID BOSSIE: MUELLER SHOULD END HIS PROBE AND MAKE HIS REPORT PUBLIC – TRUMP DIDN'T COLLUDE WITH RUSSIA

This week “Leakin” Andy McCabe has been giving interviews to his allies in the media to promote his book, “The Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump.” Like Comey’s book before it, it’s destined for the fictional ash heap of history.

McCabe is espousing the qualities of a desperate man. He’s been under investigation by a federal grand jury for months for allegedly lying under oath and is actively trying to impugn the integrity of Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, the career investigator who made the criminal referral against him that could result in jail time.

In a blatant attempt to get more unhinged resistance Democrats to buy his book, McCabe is busy weaving tall tales about his biased investigations against candidate Trump, as well as his knowledge of a failed deep state coup attempt against President Donald Trump, the duly elected 45th president of the United States.

To cover his backside, McCabe is changing his positions on the phony obstruction of justice and Russia collusion investigations of President Trump. For instance, in May 2017 McCabe testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that it was “completely within the president's authority” to fire then-FBI Director James Comey, and that “there has been no effort to impede our investigation today.”

Furthermore, this week, McCabe made the political calculation to falsely label Russia as “our most fearsome enemy” to try and explain part of his rationale for ordering a counterintelligence investigation of President Trump in 2017.

Surely McCabe, the former acting director of the FBI, knew at the time that label wasn’t accurate. Even his former boss President Barack Obama didn’t believe that. Just months before, President Obama confided to President-elect Trump that North Korea was our biggest threat. The Wall Street Journal reported at the time that “The Obama administration considers North Korea to be the top national security priority for the incoming administration, a view it has conveyed to President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team.”

This determination by President Obama is consistent with his decision not to confront Russia over their interference during the 2016 election. If you recall, it was Obama administration policy to “reset” relations with Russia and was President Obama’s hope to have “more flexibility” to work with Russia after his 2012 reelection campaign. The idea that McCabe is not aware of this is simply not to be believed.

What’s also unbelievable is what McCabe told Savannah Guthrie in his recent interview on NBC. McCabe claimed to have no recollection of the infamous “insurance policy” meeting in his office with former FBI lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. McCabe wants the American people to believe he doesn’t remember a meeting in which he allegedly discussed the strategy of launching a counterintelligence investigation of a duly elected president of the United States just in case he’s elected? This is just a boldfaced lie coming from a disgraced leader of the deep state.

These inconsistent answers that have twisted McCabe into a pretzel underscore the need for a thorough “investigation of the investigators” by the Senate Judiciary Committee under the leadership of Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

As the former chief investigator for the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight during the Clinton administration, I believe that Sen. Graham must probe McCabe’s troubling discussions with outgoing Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein about invoking the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump from office without delay.

Additionally, Graham must do a deep dive into why James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and James Baker have all either been fired or have resigned as a result of their destructive activities at the FBI. As Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, describes them, “All unelected and all plotted against the president.”

The American people deserve some honest answers about the most glossed over scandal in American history.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

As House Democrats plow forward with their shameful witch hunt into every aspect of President Trump’s life, Sen. Graham must go toe to toe with them with his very important investigation every step of the way.

The resistance leaders in the House should not be allowed to ignore the FBI scandal as they attempt to destroy President Trump with their hyper-partisan subpoena cannon.

David N. Bossie is president of Citizens United, a Fox News contributor and the former deputy campaign manager for Donald Trump for President. He is the author of "Let Trump Be Trump" and co-author of “Trump’s Enemies.”

MarketWatch

Published  1 day ago

Nike Inc. joined the rest of the basketball world in holding their breath Wednesday night, as the company that once launched an ad campaign on the phrase “It’s gotta be the shoes!” must have been thinking “Pleasepleaseplease don’t let it have been the shoes.”

Duke University forward Zion Williamson, the top college basketball player in the nation and one of the best NBA prospects in the past decade, was lost to a knee injury just seconds into a key game against North Carolina when his foot slid on the floor and his Nike-made shoe exploded, twisting his knee and sending him sprawling.

Williamson’s foot actually tore through the side of his shoe.

Former President Barack Obama, who was in the crowd, was caught on camera putting it succinctly: “His shoe broke.”

Williamson left the game that was just 33 seconds old, and did not return. Duke said late Wednesday he had suffered a mild knee sprain — good news for those who feared much worse — but did not say how many games he’s expected to miss.

The 18-year-old Williamson is expected to be the No. 1 pick in the upcoming NBA Draft. The 285-pound forward has been averaging 22.4 points and 9.2 rebounds a game.

Social media was quick to pounce on Nike:

Rivals joined the pile-on. Puma tweeted, then deleted: “Wouldn’t have happened in the pumas.” LiAngelo Ball, whose family owns Big Baller Brand shoes, chimed in:

Many of the tweets were not far off the mark. If the shoe was defective, or if Williamson loses trust in wearing Nike, the company could lose potentially the next great basketball superstar as a pitch man.

Duke fans — some of whom had paid near-Super-Bowl-level prices for tickets — went home doubly disappointed; the Blue Devils lost to their intrastate arch-rivals, 88-72.

Investors expressed their disappointment in Nike, with shares NKE, -1.05% trading down 1.5% Thursday. The stock is up about 13% this year, and up almost 25% over the past 12 months, compared to the S&P 500’s SPX, -0.35% gains of 11% and 3%, respectively, over those spans. The Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, -0.40% , which counts Nike as a member, has gained 11% in the year to date and about 3% in the last 12 months.

Reports of another shoe malfunction were making the rounds away from the court Wednesday. Owners of the Nike Adapt BB lace-less sneakers that can be tied and loosened via a smartphone app reported trouble with the Android GOOGL, -1.46% version of the app, an issue caused through a faulty delivery of new firmware, AppleInsider said. The Apple AAPL, -0.56% iOS version was not having the same issues, according to the report.

dailycaller

Published  1 day ago

Farrakhan has praised Hitler as a 'very great man' and described Jews as 'satanic'

Big League Politics

Published  2 days ago

President Donald Trump laid out a strong Oval Office defense Tuesday for his “absolute right” to declare a national emergency to finish building the southern border Wall. Partisan lawsuits will probably lead us to the Supreme Court, where Barack Obama protected his health care takeover in 2012, and where Trump has a pretty good chance […]

The Clover Chronicle

Published  2 days ago

She may have helped Smollett orchestrate the hoax to make Trump supporters look bad. Read more...

The Daily Signal

Published  2 days ago

NPR reporters looked into the 235 shootings reported by the U.S. Department of Education and were only able to confirm 11 of them.

American Greatness

Published  2 days ago

Whatever happens in the years to come, American politics can never return to what they were before November 8, 2016.

Why, you ask? Because a brash TV celebrity businessman from Queens broke the media, broke Washington D.C., and broke the self-appointed “elite” on both coasts. The stake he drove through their hearts will endure no matter who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

First, they laughed at Donald Trump the candidate. At his appearance, at his demeanor, at his outré stump speeches. Then, when he wiped the floor with the 16 establishment Republican candidates they panicked.

The criminal cartel that is the Clinton machine hired a former British intelligence officer—who hated Donald Trump the man—to generate a “dossier” of outlandish and false opposition research that was used by Barack Obama’s thoroughly corrupt Justice Department and FBI to gain under bogus pretenses a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance warrant to spy on her opponent’s campaign. But they failed.

That is when the coup plot was hatched.

I do not use that word lightly. However given that both the liberal judicial authority Alan Dershowitz, and the most preeminent conservative historian and strategist, Victor Davis Hanson, have recently used the word “coup” to describe the machinations of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, the choice is deliberate and justified.

Rosenstein and McCabe had never been elected to any public office, let alone the cabinet of the United States. Yet by McCabe’s own admission, they plotted to use the 25th Amendment to our Constitution to remove the duly elected president—an amendment that was designed for the incumbent president’s cabinet to employ in the dire scenario that their superior was incapacitated and unable to perform his duties as commander-in-chief.

The amendment is very clear. The president’s removal is decided by the vice president and a majority of his cabinet. Not by an FBI flunky whose wife received $700,000 from Hillary Clinton’s bagman Terry McAuliffe to run as a Democrat for the Virginia State Senate. And not by the acting attorney general—a man who would name his friend Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate the president the very day after Mueller failed in his interview with President Trump to get his old job back as Director of the FBI. This is exactly what a coup d’etat looks like—albeit, thankfully, a failed coup d’etat.

The point here is that Rosenstein, McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and the rest of the corrupt bureaucrats failed and Donald Trump remains president. Not only that, but beyond all rational expectations of standard political calculation and despite the overwhelming bias of the media—coverage of Trump is estimated at 90 percent negative in just the last year— his popularity stands by at least one measure at a remarkable 52 percent, which is significantly higher than for Obama at the same time in his first term.

This is the dispositive proof that Donald J. Trump has changed America in ways that no “expert” ever could imagine.

They spied on him and tried to subvert his campaign for election to the highest office. Once installed in the White House, they plotted to remove him. And all the while the media and the establishment as a whole either was not on his side or actively working against him. Yet he is winning more than ever.

Just look at Friday’s deal and his proclamation on a national emergency on our Southern border for proof.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) went on record saying she’d only give the president $1 for the wall. Then, after a government shutdown and three weeks of negotiations, the president was finally offered $1.375 billion by the Democrats. In the meantime his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney found $6.6 billion, including drug cartel asset forfeitures, sitting at Department of Justice. So after requesting $5.7 billion to build the wall, and being refused and ridiculed, President Trump apparently walks away with $8 billion to keep his MAGA promise to America. Nancy promised $1, America ended up with $8 billion.

When I grew up in the United Kingdom, there was a famous story that became a popular song and then a movie. It concerned Charles Wells, “The Man who Broke the Bank in Monte Carlo.” Wells walked into the famous casino on July 28, 1891, with 4,000 British Pounds and walked away with the equivalent of 4 million.

For more than 30 years, America has been held hostage by a political, economic, media and cultural elite which has been wrong on every major issue you can imagine. From foreign adventurism to trade policies; national sovereignty versus globalization; love of country to hatred of the principles upon which our nation was built—one man has broken the stranglehold of a morally bankrupt “elite” and he isn’t even a politician.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

Photo credit: Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Axios

Published  2 days ago

For a handful of hours next week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will be the top-ranked government official on U.S. soil.

Driving the news: In a rare event on Monday, both President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence will be overseas at the same time — Pence in Colombia, and Trump en route to his summit in Vietnam with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, according to three administration sources.

Why it matters: Two of these sources told Axios that there is internal concern that sloppy scheduling would allow this rare event to happen, though it’s not unprecedented.

"It's rare and unusual, and usually they [the White House] try to avoid it," presidential historian Michael Beschloss told Axios.

According to an administration official, Pence and Trump were both out of the country during a short period of time on Nov. 11, 2018, when Trump was returning from France and Pence was headed to Asia for meetings and regional summits.

And in March 2013, former President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden were both out of the country for roughly a 20-minute window while Obama was traveling to Israel and Biden was returning from Italy.

Worth noting: While it’s bad practice for both the president and VP to be overseas at the same time, it’s also true that Colombia is roughly a five-hour flight back to the U.S., so if needed for a domestic crisis, Pence could be back on U.S. soil quite quickly.

And Trump remains president wherever he goes; the only reason line succession of government would be invoked is if he or the VP were incapacitated — for example in the event of medical surgery. Both leaders travel with secure communications and nuclear codes.

Pelosi will be in New York Monday morning and D.C. in the afternoon, according to a spokesperson. And while it’s a rare quirk that she’ll be the top-ranked official on U.S. soil, in no way will her normal duties change.

The White House did not respond to Axios' request for comment.

realclearpolitics

Published  2 days ago

On January 8, the restaurant chain Red Lobster became the 20th major advertiser to stop running ads on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News program. It’s not because advertising on Carlson’s...

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 days ago

Elizabeth Warren is the first Democratic presidential candidate to push for reparations for black Americans.

Warren made headlines last year for lying about her own heritage for decades.

Warren told employers she was Native American to lift her career.

DNA testing revealed she was only 1/1024th Indian, less than the average white American.

Now Liawatha wants reparations for black Americans.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Thursday she supports reparations for black Americans affected by slavery, The New York Times reports.

Warren said in an interview with the Times that “we must confront the dark history of slavery and government-sanctioned discrimination in this country that has had many consequences, including undermining the ability of black families to build wealth in America for generations.” She also said that “we need systemic, structural changes to address that.”

Warren did not provide any specifics about what her plan would be, but the Times notes that this is significant given that it’s a policy previous Democratic presidential candidates chose not to support. For instance, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who recently announced his 2020 bid, was not in favor of reparations in 2016, saying at the time that it would not pass Congress and would be “very divisive.” For that matter, neither was former President Barack Obama or former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

anncoulter

Published  2 days ago

The single most important issue in this election is ending the national nightmare of Obamacare. If Obamacare is not stopped, it will permanently change the political culture of this country. There will be no going back. America will become a less productive, less wealthy nation. What wealth remains will have to be plowed into Obamacare -- to the delight only of the tens of thousands of government bureaucrats administering it. There won' t be one moment marking the end of America. Everything will just

Blunt Force Truth

Published  2 days ago

So far the path to the White House for most 2020 Dems appears to lie through shameless racial, radical and economic pandering.

Reviving slavery reparations, once an insane radical idea and more insane than ever in a country with a black population that is increasingly, like Obama or Kamala Harris, not even from this country during the slavery era, is now more popular than ever.

But for 2020 Dems it unites the two r’s and the one e.

Take all that wealth redistribution and funnel it through race, a major chunk of the Dem base anyway, and match it to some bashing of the United States.

Last week, Senator Kamala Harris of California agreed with a radio host’s recent suggestion that government reparations for black Americans were necessary to address the legacies of slavery and discrimination. Ms. Harris later affirmed that support in a statement to The Times.

“We have to be honest that people in this country do not start from the same place or have access to the same opportunities,” she said. “I’m serious about taking an approach that would change policies and structures and make real investments in black communities.”

Ms. Warren also said she supported reparations for black Americans impacted by slavery — a policy that experts say could cost several trillion dollars, and one that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and many top Democrats have not supported.

The Warren campaign declined to give further details on that backing,

Want more BFT? Leave us a voicemail on our page or follow us on Twitter @BFT_Podcast and Facebook @BluntForceTruthPodcast. We want to hear from you! There’s no better place to get the #BluntForceTruth.

Human Events

Published  2 days ago

Small minds always leap to the answers given the last time around, which is probably why Maxine Waters keeps getting re-elected. But the last time is not necessarily the same as this time. A terrorist attack is not the same as the Cold War, a war in Afghanistan is not the same as a war in Iraq, and Mitt Romney is not the same as John McCain or Bob Dole.But since the election, many conservatives seem to be coalescing around the explanation for our defeat given by Jenny Beth Martin of the Tea Party Patriots, who said: “What we got was a weak, moderate candidate handpicked by the Beltway elites and country club establishment wing of the Republican Party. The presidential loss is unequivocally on them.”

There was also the seven months of primaries, during which Romney got more votes than the rest of the field combined. So there’s that. Moreover, the idea that Mitt Romney was “a weak, moderate candidate” is preposterous.

As Trotsky said, in moments of crisis, people with no politics tend to develop the worst possible politics.

Even newly elected Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas complained that Romney failed to get across that there are “two viewpoints and directions for the country” and that he erred by trying to “be a nice guy.” As Cruz said, “I’m pretty certain Mitt Romney actually French-kissed Barack Obama” in the third debate — proving once again that comedy is harder than it looks.

The idea that Romney failed to present a clear contrast with Obama or was too “nice” is also nonsense. If Republicans continue to tell themselves comforting myths about our candidate being the problem, they better get used to losing a lot more elections.

The only Republican to defeat a sitting president in the last century was Ronald Reagan in 1980, when he beat Jimmy Carter, the second-worst president in U.S. history (pending the final results of Obama’s second term). Because of that, and also because he is in the top two best American presidents, Reagan’s example is worth studying.

In Reagan’s one debate with Carter in 1980, he presented “two viewpoints and directions for the country” by vowing to save Medicare and not to cut taxes too much. Loud and clear, Reagan said: “My tax cut does not come close to eliminating (Carter’s) $86 billion increase. I’m only reducing the amount of the increase.”

There’s your bold contrasting vision!

Reagan picked a pro-choice, anti-supply side Republican as his running mate. He lavishly praised FDR in his acceptance speech at the national convention, leading The New York Times to title an editorial about him “Franklin Delano Reagan.”

Meanwhile, Romney promised to institute major reforms to Medicare, repeal Obamacare and impose a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut. He said he’d issue a 50-state waiver to Obamacare on his first day in office. (Why he didn’t promise it to all 57 states I’ll never know.) He chose a pro-life, fiscal conservative as his running mate and never praised FDR.

A careful analysis of the Romney plan thus reveals several deviations from the Democrat platform — more stark than those delineated by even Reagan.

Romney was the most libertarian candidate Republicans have run since Calvin Coolidge. And he got more votes from the dwindling white majority than Reagan did.

How many more votes would Romney have gotten by being a rude, condescending jerk? Sure, it worked for Obama, but he was the incumbent.

Some conservatives didn’t trust Romney because, as governor of a state between blue and North Korea, he had instituted a health insurance mandate, one feature of the hated Obamacare.

As governor of a purple state, Reagan had signed the most liberal abortion law in the country and imposed the three largest state tax hikes in the nation’s history. Nevada Sen. Paul Laxalt’s nominating speech hailed Reagan’s governorship of California for producing “a veritable Great Society of aid for schools, minorities and the handicapped,” as the Times put it. Reagan had also been an actual member of the godless, treason party.

This is not to diminish Reagan. It is to say that Romney wasn’t the problem.

To the extent Republicans have a problem with their candidates, it’s not that they’re not conservative enough. Where are today’s Nelson Rockefellers, Arlen Specters or George H.W. Bushes? Happily, they have gone the way of leprosy.

Having vanquished liberal Republicans, the party’s problem now runs more along the lines of moron showoffs, trying to impress tea partiers like Jenny Beth Martin by taking insane positions on rape exceptions for abortion — as 2 million babies are killed every year from pregnancies having nothing to do with rape.

Romney lost because he was running against an incumbent, was beaten up during a long and vicious primary fight, and ran in a year with a very different electorate from 1980. At least one of those won’t be true next time. But we’re not going to win any elections by telling ourselves fairy tales about a candidate who lost because he wasn’t conservative enough, articulate enough or mean enough.

Breitbart

Published  2 days ago

Democratic 2020 presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) confirmed in a Thursday interview with the New York Times that she supports slavery reparations for American blacks.

The New York Times reported that Warren expressed her support for a policy that would pay money to black Americans who have been affected by slavery.

Warren’s campaign staff declined to elaborate on how she would support reparations, but the calls for reparations came after she said the federal government should provide financial assistance to residents in poor communities affected by “redlining,” a practice where lenders refuse mortgages to people in financially risky areas.

Warren is not the first 2020 presidential candidate to call for reparations. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) announced in a Monday radio interview with New York City’s Power 105.1’s “The Breakfast Club” that “some type of” reparations should be provided to black Americans impacted by slavery.

Harris confirmed her comments calling for reparation in the radio interview with the Times on Thursday.

“We have to be honest that people in this country do not start from the same place or have access to the same opportunities,” Harris said in the statement. “I’m serious about taking an approach that would change policies and structures and make real investments in black communities.”

Other Democrats, including former President Barack Obama, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), former 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, have not expressed support for this policy.

Warren has received a lot of pushback on the campaign trail for her exaggerated claims of Native American ancestry. One heckler at Warren’s campaign rally in Georgia on Saturday yelled, “Why did you lie?” and held up a “1/2020th” sign before being escorted out of the campaign event.

The Massachusetts Democrat released results of a 2018 DNA test which revealed that she had between 1/64th and 1/1,1024th Native American ancestry after President Donald Trump and other Republicans criticized her for falsely claiming Native American ancestry.

Trump has frequently called Warren “Pocahontas,” most recently using the term to refer to Warren after she launched her bid for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination this month.

The Massachusetts Democrat issued an apology in January to the Cherokee Nation for taking the DNA test shortly after the results of the DNA test went public because Cherokee leaders thought modern DNA tests undermined centuries-old laws and traditions defining tribal heritage.

I Love My Freedom

Published  2 days ago

Immigration Customs and Enforcement agents have arrested two big-time donors to former President Barack Obama.

According to The New York Times, two millionaire fugitive brothers from Ecuador, Roberto and William Isaías, were arrested late last week in Miami by immigration officials.

VOTE NOW: Should Pelosi Be REMOVED From Office?

The Isaías family has poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into American political campaigns, including Obama’s campaign.

The two brothers, who are fugitives from Ecuador, and their family gave roughly $90,000 to help re-elect Obama to a second term in office during the 2012 presidential election.

Here’s more from the Times report:

The Isaías brothers, bankers vilified in Ecuador for increasing their wealth in the late 1990s just as their bank collapsed — wiping out tens of thousands of customers’ savings — were convicted of embezzlement by a court there in 2012. They were sentenced to prison terms in absentia, having arrived in South Florida almost a decade earlier.

The brothers have vehemently denied accusations that they looted their bank, and said that the Ecuadorean government had politicized the case and unfairly seized their assets. They are still battling in the courts to recover their properties at home.

Ecuador has estimated that the brothers cost the country $400 million, and has for years sought their extradition. At one point, even the American ambassador in Ecuador lobbied for their prompt return, accusing the men of financing a $2 million bribe to get Ecuador’s attorney general to drop the case.

As their criminal case heated up in Ecuador, the cash started flowing in the United States. The Isaías brothers’ relatives donated tens of thousands dollars to members of the United States Congress, and $90,000 to help re-elect President Barack Obama.

A year after the donation to the Obama campaign, the Department of Justice rejected Ecuador’s extradition request, saying it lacked sufficient proof.

URGENT POLL: Does Trump have your vote in 2020?

A 2014 piece from The New York Times details how the brothers made huge donations to Obama’s campaign and others:

The donations kept pouring in: hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to President Obama and more than a dozen members of Congress, carefully routed through the families of two wealthy brothers in Florida.

A year after their relatives gave $90,000 to help re-elect Mr. Obama, the administration rejected Ecuador’s extradition request for the men, fueling accusations that such donations were helping to keep the brothers and their families safely on American soil.

Donations from the relatives of criminal suspects have proved vexing before. In 2012, Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign said it would return more than $200,000 raised by relatives of a Mexican casino magnate who had fled charges in the United States and sought a pardon to return.

Quite ironic that ICE just arrested two major Obama donors while several Democrats in Congress are currently pushing for ICE to be abolished.

The Isaías are criminals and broke countless laws, and ICE is doing exactly what they should: deporting them.

[RELATED: TRUMP CARD! POTUS Frees Up $8 BILLION For The Wall; Dems Are Pissed]

Newsweek

Published  2 days ago

Comedienne Roseanne Barr took to YouTube on Wednesday in a video that minced no words as she discussed Democrats, socialism, and freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was the first subject on Barr's mind in the almost-two minute clip, with the actress referring to the congresswoman as "that Farrakhan loving, bug-eyed b---h." While Barr did not refer to Ocasio-Cortez by name, she mentioned the Green New Deal, the New York congresswoman's signature bill.

"That Green New Deal, that, that Farrakhan loving, bug-eyed b----h, I don't even remember her name. The bug-eyed b---h that looks like a realtor. She got them realtor eyes," Barr said before widening her eyes and opening her mouth. "Bug-eyed, lying b---h. Farrakhan loving, Israel hater. Leftie."

Barr went on to add other names in reference to Ocasio-Cortez, before adding that she would "try to correct some of the mistakes she's made."

Barr then spoke about "costing people decent paying jobs," likely a reference to Ocasio-Cortez's stance on Amazon's intention to construct a second headquarters in Queens, New York. Though the congresswoman was not the only politician to speak out against the online retailer's decision, Ocasio-Cortez and New York City Councilman Jimmy Van Bramer were blamed by an Amazon spokesman as one of the reasons that the company canceled its plans to move to Long Island City.

"She got paid to do that," Barr goes on to say. "Can you imagine? Paid to decimate communities. That's what the Dems have been doing. That's what socialism does."

Barr continues, calling socialism a "fake f---king con. It's just like capitalism, but it comes from the bottom up. Not the top down."

After calling socialism a Ponzi scheme, Barr shifted to talking about immigrants. "Here's why they want them immigrants," the actress continued. "First of all because all of their buddies are hiring them for less than minimum wage. That's a big draw. And second, cause no Americans are gonna vote for their ass anymore because we woke up to the s--t you're doing."

Barr goes on to criticize the Democratic party, saying that the decisions made by those representing it are "decimating inner cities" while politicians live in "vineyards and in a mansion."

It's not the first time that the actress, most known for her role on the self-titled comedy Roseanne, has unleashed her political opinions. Barr has frequently praised President Donald Trump and said that she was fired from the ABC reboot of Roseanne, which was subsequently canceled, because she voted for the president.

According to then-ABC Entertainment president Channing Dungey, "multiple instances" led to Barr's firing.

“We knew what we wanted to do, and we did it. For us, we have had multiple instances with Roseanne, and certainly this tweet crossed the line that cannot be crossed, but it was for us a sense of enough is enough and something had to be done," Dungey said during the 2018 Television Critics Association press tour, Good Housekeeping reports.

The tweet in question, a reply from Barr to another user, stated that Valerie Jarrett, a former adviser to former President Barack Obama, was the product of Planet of the Apes and the Muslim Brotherhood.

“Muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj," Barr wrote, though she later apologized and deleted the tweet.

The actress has frequently found herself in trouble on Twitter, including by tweeting conspiracy theories. Another tweet accused Chelsea Clinton's husband, Marc Mezvinsky, of being the nephew of George Soros. Barr apologized directly to Clinton for the tweet.

Barr, who is Jewish, gave a speech in Tel Aviv in January where she credited her faith for getting her through after ABC canceled Roseanne.

“It was six months of walking through the dark night of the soul but Hashem [God] was with me the whole way,” Barr said according to The Times of Israel.

She later told the crowd that she was fired from the show for voting for Trump, an allegation she also repeated during a July 2018 post to her YouTube channel.

"I was BDSed by ABC,” Barr said in Tel Aviv. “I feel like I’ve apologized to people who didn’t understand my tweet, people who were too [expletive] stupid. I went on Twitter for the express purpose of defending Israel.”

While Roseanne was canceled by ABC, the show was later rebooted as The Conners, focused around the family of fictional Roseanne Conner. However, Roseanne's character was killed off-screen.

Washington Examiner

Published  2 days ago

A new report from government actuaries has revealed that the Congressional Budget Office was scandalously off in its estimates of the impact of Obamacare's individual mandate, a miscalculation that has had significant ramifications for healthcare and tax policy over the past decade.

CBO estimates about the importance of an individual mandate to a national healthcare scheme prodded President Barack Obama into including the unpopular provision into the law in the first place. The mandate projections also played a key role in President Trump's two major legislative initiatives. The fact that the CBO assumed 14 million could lose coverage mainly due to the elimination of mandate penalties helped kill the effort to repeal and replace Obamacare, while its later assumption that 13 million fewer insured individuals would mean less spending on subsidies from the federal government helped get the 2017 Republican tax cut across the finish line by improving the budgetary math. Yet those incredibly influential estimates now appear to have been wildly off.

In what was literally a footnote in its annual report on national health spending projections, actuaries for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on Wednesday estimated that the elimination of the individual mandate would have a significantly smaller impact than the CBO has long estimated. Specifically, the CMS report revealed that 2.5 million more people would go without insurance in 2019 due to the repeal of the individual mandate's penalties, and the impact would be "smaller" thereafter.

When Obamacare was being debated in 2009, CBO and other outside experts believed that the mandate was a necessary tool for convincing younger and healthier individuals to purchase insurance to offset the cost of covering older and sicker enrollees in any kind of national healthcare scheme. So important was the mandate to CBO's analysis that Obama was forced to embrace the idea, even though he opposed it during the 2008 campaign and it made the legislation less popular. It also would eventually imperil the whole law at the Supreme Court.

Over time, as Obamacare was implemented, experts began to question the importance of the mandate. But when Republicans sought to repeal and replace Obamacare in 2017, the CBO did not adjust its assumptions about its power. For instance, in one version of the House bill, the CBO found that before any cuts to actual spending went into effect, 14 million fewer people would be insured and that, "Most of the reductions in coverage ... would stem from repealing the penalties associated with the individual mandate." Incredibly, the CBO estimated that 5 million fewer people would enroll in free Medicaid mainly due to the elimination of the penalties. This number accounted for more than half of the 24 million the CBO said the Republican plan would reduce coverage for overall over a decade.

While any CBO analysis of the Republican bills was likely to project large coverage losses due to the cuts to Medicaid and subsidies, if CBO had more realistic assumptions about the mandate, the numbers would have been significantly smaller, and perhaps left more room to convince centrist Republicans to get on board.

On the flip side, the CBO's wild assumptions about the mandate benefited the GOP when it came to passing the tax law in 2017. Then, the CBO estimated eliminating the penalties would mean 4 million fewer people having coverage in 2019, and 13 million fewer overall. The CBO said this would save $338 billion, mainly due to lower spending on Medicaid and insurance subsidies, giving Republicans more paper savings to work with to provide a more substantial tax cut and secure final passage.

But the CMS actuaries, while acknowledging that the elimination of the mandate penalties would have some effect on enrollment in private coverage, write in footnote #2 toward the bottom of their report on national health projections, "By 2019 the individual mandate repeal is anticipated to result in about 1.5 million fewer direct-purchase-market enrollees, who are expected to be somewhat younger and healthier than those who retain coverage, as well as about 1.0 million fewer employer-sponsored-insurance-market enrollees, than otherwise would have been projected. After 2019 the enrollment effects are expected to be smaller. Medicaid enrollment is assumed to be unaffected."

This is consistent with other data we've received since the mandate was repealed as part of the 2017 tax law suggesting a relatively modest impact. For instance, after all the warnings of massive fallout from the elimination of the penalties, 8.4 million signed up for coverage on the federal Obamacare exchange for 2019, down just slightly from 8.7 million a year earlier, when the mandate was in place.

Given the outsized influence that the CBO has on policymaking in Washington, the CBO's misfire on the individual mandate should be a major story.

infowars

Published  3 days ago

Joe Biden is on the verge of announcing his run for president, according to multiple sources close to the former Vice President, a development that will resurrect questions about Biden’s behavior around women in the era of #MeToo.

ABC News reports that according to Robert Wolf, a top Democratic donor and former economic adviser to former President Barack Obama who has known Biden for over a decade, Biden is 90% sure of running for president.

“He feels he’s coming off an incredible midterm and he’s sitting in the best position to take on [President Donald] Trump across the country,” said Wolf.

Sen. Diane Feinstein also met with Biden last week and confirmed that she expected him to announce his candidacy.

“We are all anticipating it is not ‘if’ but ‘when’ he announces,” said James Smith, who ran for governor of South Carolina in 2018 and has been in recent touch with Biden’s staff.

With Bernie Sanders now having announced his candidacy, expect Biden, who routinely tops polls of likely Democratic victors, to quickly follow suit.

However, just as the Hollywood Access tape shortly before the election bolstered Democrats’ narrative that Donald Trump was a creep around women, Biden’s on camera behavior towards females spanning a vast age range is arguably much worse.

Highlighting the viral nature of the issue, one 2017 Twitter thread on the subject which accused Biden of being a “sexual predator” received over 36,000 retweets.

Biden’s inappropriate behavior is by no means solely a right-wing obsession.

A February 2015 Washington Post article entitled What are we going to do about Creepy Uncle Joe Biden? highlighted the numerous instances of Biden putting his arms around women, many of whom looked incredibly uncomfortable at being accosted.

The Huffington Post also published an article (subsequently deleted) that acknowledged Biden running for president would be a “terrible idea in a post-Weinstein America”.

Back in November 2017, an ex-Secret Service agent even claimed that Biden engaged in “Weinstein-level” sexual assault and that he would walk around the VP residence late at night completely naked.

The agent, who spoke on condition of anonymity, revealed that Biden “would mess with every single woman or teen,” and that a Christmas get-together at the VP’s house had to be canceled “because Biden would grope all of our wives and girlfriend’s asses.”

As the video above documents, Biden is apparently unaware that grabbing on young women and children and whispering in their ear while on camera isn’t the best optics for a potential future President of the United States.

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.

I Love My Freedom

Published  3 days ago

President Donald Trump is taking back $1 billion from California, and Democrats are absolutely furious.

On Tuesday, the Trump administration said that it was canceling a federal grant to California worth roughly $1 billion after Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom announced the state would no longer be building a high-speed rail system.

URGENT POLL: Does Trump have your vote in 2020?

During his State of the Union address earlier this month, Newsom announced that he was cancelling the San Francisco-to-Los Angeles high-speed rail project, arguing that it “would cost too much and, respectfully, would take too long” to complete.

Newsom told state legislators that he wanted to use a portion of the money, which was a piece of a grant from former President Barack Obama as part of the 2009 stimulus, to complete part of a bullet train under construction in the Central Valley.

“I am not interested in sending $3.5 billion in federal funding that was allocated to this project back to Donald Trump,” Newsom told state legislatures.

Trump, however, has other ideas for the money.

Last week, the president took to Twitter to demand the $3.5 billion back from California, where the president wants to use the money toward the U.S.-Mexico border wall.

Newsom fired back by arguing that the money belonged to California and that they were “not giving it back.”

READER POLL: Better First Lady – Melania Or Michelle?

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Railroad Administration sent a letter to the California High-Speed Rail Authority, stating that it was terminating its agreement with the state and would not provide the state with the $928,620,000 that was originally allocated for the high-speed rail project.

The letter detailed several reasons as to why it would not be allocating the money, including the fact that the high-speed rail more than likely will not be completed by 2022, which was part of the original agreement for the funds.

The FRA also said California’s high-speed rail authority has failed to provide “timely and satisfactory financial reports” to the federal government.

The Department of Transportation is also “actively exploring every legal option” to recover the other $2.5 billion granted by the federal government to California for the project.

Last week, the president tweeted that the liberal state owes the federal government that $3 billion dollars.

“California has been forced to cancel the massive bullet train project after having spent and wasted many billions of dollars. They owe the Federal Government three and a half billion dollars. We want that money back now. Whole project is a “green” disaster!” Trump wrote.

California has been forced to cancel the massive bullet train project after having spent and wasted many billions of dollars. They owe the Federal Government three and a half billion dollars. We want that money back now. Whole project is a “green” disaster!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 14, 2019

The president is looking to use the $3.5 billion dollars toward building another major chunk of the wall along the southern border between the United States and Mexico.

Time will tell what happens next, but Trump is trying to get the $3.5 billion back from California and combine that with the $1.4 billion in the congressional deal to put a roughly $5 billion down payment on the wall.

GOP

Published  3 days ago

Having moved the Democrat Party to the far-left, Bernie Sanders is back with fresh new plans to spend the country into oblivion and scandals to defend.

Breitbart

Published  3 days ago

The Trump administration announced Tuesday that it was canceling a federal grant to California worth nearly $1 billion after Gov. Gavin Newsom announced the cancelation of the state’s high-speed rail project last week.

Newsom used his “State of the State” address Feb. 12 to cancel the San Francisco-to-Los Angeles project, saying it “would cost too much and, respectfully, would take too long” to complete.

However, he told legislators he wanted to complete the portion of the bullet train under construction in the rural Central Valley, lest the state lose federal dollars granted to California by President Barack Obama as part of the 2009 stimulus: “I am not interested in sending $3.5 billion in federal funding that was allocated to this project back to Donald Trump,” Newsom said.

The president had other ideas, and took to Twitter to demand that California return the money. Newsom rejected that demand, insisting: “This is CA’s money, allocated by Congress for this project. We’re not giving it back.”

But on Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) sent a letter to the California High-Speed Rail Authority, informing it that it was terminating its agreement with the state and therefore would refuse to provide the state with $928,620,000 allocated to the high-speed rail project.

The FRA listed several factors informing its decision, including the likelihood that the high-speed rail would not be completed by 2022, as contemplated by the original agreement. The state’s high-speed rail authority had also failed, according to the FRA, to provide “timely and satisfactory financial reports” to the federal government.

The Los Angeles Times reported additionally that the Department of Transportation said it was “actively exploring every legal option” to recover the other $2.5 billion granted by the federal government to California for the project.

Newsom complained angrily that Trump was carrying out “political retribution” for California’s legal challenge Monday to his emergency declaration to build a barrier on the U.S.-Mexico border. He reiterated: “This is California’s money, and we are going to fight for it,” according to a statement quoted by the Times.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

America First with Sebastian Gorka

Published  3 days ago

Ann Coulter has been loathed by the American Left for many years. Her works were known for their incisive analyses and cutting critiques of the American Left–every Democratic Party leader, from Bill Clinton to Nancy Pelosi has felt the burn of her invective. In 2016, she was one of the first major voices in the media to announce her support for Donald J. Trump’s presidential candidacy. Since his election, she has increased her already-sizable wealth considerably, thanks to her close association with President Trump’s brand.

A year ago, she published a book entitled In Trump We Trust and the last three years of Ann Coulter’s existence has been almost exclusively dedicated to advancing the Trump cause of ending illegal immigration to the United States; protecting blue-collar workers from unfair trade deals; and rolling back the incredible gains that the democratic globalists have made in the halls of power in the United States for decades.

Yet, very recently, Coulter went wobbly on President Trump. Several months ago, Coulter made the outré claim that she believed Donald Trump would be the last Republican president in her lifetime. She excoriated him for not be tougher against his political foes–although she never fully elaborated how Trump could be tougher, when even his own party and elements within his own administration were secretly operating against him. As the recent row between President Trump and the Democrats has escalated over the funding for the border wall and the government shutdown, Ann Coulter strangely started to sound as virulently anti-Trump as stalwart “Never Trumpers,” like Bill Kristol.

After months of back-and-forth; of trying to get the Democrats to take a more reasonable course, President Trump had no choice but to declare a national state of emergency along the broken southwestern border. As he did this, Trump also signed an expensive spending bill. Many conservatives were upset with the president’s decision to sign another such bill–including Coulter. During his powerful press conference in the Rose Garden of the White House last week, Coulter stated in a radio interview that the “only national emergency is that we have an idiot as a president.” She spent days piling on the president, arguing that he was a coward and was being led around by the Left. In the run-up to the president’s announcement, she also ridiculed the president for behaving as though he were George H.W. Bush; she also called him despicable epithets.

All of her bile was spewed across various national media platforms. And, for what purpose? Yes, Trump signed an unpopular spending bill. But, in so doing, he prevented himself from being boxed in the way he was during the unpopular government shutdown that lasted from December 2018 until February of this year. Initially, the president had tried to tie funding for the border wall to funding for reopening the government. The House Democrats would not have it and they won popular support for their position of opposing the government shutdown. Trump knew that he could not take that route again if he wanted to acquire the funds necessary for building the wall. So, he took the rational step of signing another spending bill that would keep the government open until September 20 of this year, but he also declared a state of emergency, in order to allow for his White House to move funds around to pay for the construction of the wall.

Democrats acted as though Trump had set their collective home on fire. A general rule of thumb is that, the louder and angrier the Democratic Party appears to be in response to President Trump, the more right the president usually is. That’s why it was so strange to see Ann Coulter also piling on the President with her Left-wing “friends,” like the HBO comedian, Bill Maher. It was doubly more perplexing to see Leftists of every stripe on social media and in the Fake News Industrial Complex fawn over Ann Coulter’s hate-filled, anti-Trump tweets from the last few weeks.

So, the question is: whose side is she really on?

Think about it: by declaring a state of emergency, irrespective of his decision to sign the massive spending bill to keep the government open, the president is ensuring that he will be able to build the wall. Over the last two years, Coulter has made many public statements about how she cares only about one thing: that Trump fulfill his campaign pledge to build an effective border wall. Well, this is a case of be careful what you wish for (because Ann Coulter just might get it). Few honestly believed that the Democrats, once in power in the United States House of Representatives, would ever accede to Trump’s desire to build an effective border wall. True to form, the Democrats fought him every step of the way. No one really thought that Trump would be able to build our wall without taking drastic steps. At the end of the day, Trump did exactly what Ann Coulter and so many of his loudest–earliest–supporters had called for: “JUST BUILD THE WALL!”

Coulter believes that Trump’s state of emergency was negated by his passage of the spending bill. But, it was not. The United States has declared multiple states of emergency–many of which remain in effect–for far lesser issues, going back to the Ford Administration. Not only have presidents from both parties declared emergencies in order to achieve policies that a hostile Congress wouldn’t support, President Obama declared an emergency over illegal immigration in 2014, in order to accomplish his goals of making it easier for illegal immigrants to be allowed into the United States. For every pundit claiming that no precedent existed for Trump to declare a state of emergency, all one need do is look no farther back in our history than to the presidency of Barack Obama.

Meanwhile, a state of emergency has been declared. Larger numbers of American troops are deploying to the border to counteract the massive influx of illegal immigrants and illicit narcotics flowing across that broken border. Coulter argues that Trump will have his plan squelched in the sclerotic and hostile court system. Yet, Trump’s other “controversial” decisions–such as his moratorium on travel from seven predominantly-Muslim countries–have been upheld by the Supreme Court. Several leading legal scholars–some of them Liberals–have argued that Trump is within his executive rights to declare a state of emergency.

Coulter, however, continues on her Bill Kristol-esque campaign of monomaniacal destruction against the man she had previously claimed she trusted implicitly. One must question her motives for the sudden change of heart. Was she ever truly onboard the MAGA train? After all, this is an individual who was an unquestioning supporter of George W. Bush’s wasteful Iraq War, and she supported RINOs, like Chris Christie and Mitt Romney for years. Her judgement is blinkered. What’s more, since she has a new book out and likely needs to sell many more copies, she is likely trying to play nice with the Fake News Industrial Complex leaders in order to ingratiate herself with them and be given the requisite airtime to speak about her new book.

Ann Coulter is a disloyal, charlatan who is unhappy even when she is in the process of getting what she claims to want. Perhaps Coulter was never serious about the wall at all? Perhaps it was all about the money. She can continue sitting on the sidelines sniping at patriots, like President Trump, while he continues fighting for that which he vowed to achieve: the protection of middle-class and blue-collar Americans from the destructive impacts of illegal immigration and the illicit narcotics trade from Latin America.

MAGAMEDIA

Published  3 days ago

Fox cuts Jussie Smollett’s screen time.

Okay let me get this straight.

Roseanne: fired 4 racist tweet (NO ONE knew that lady was African American…Iranian yes…)

Smollett still has a job, even though he committed a serious racially motivated offense…punishable by some actual jail time.

Comparing the two is simple. One was a joke….albeit maybe in poor taste, but that’s Roseanne! She made a JOKE.

Now, the trouble with this tweet here is basically, the comparison true racists use when describing blacks and apes. Well, this is not what Roseanne meant, not by a mile. She was comparing Valerie’s Iranian heritage (yes, she was born in Iran), and similar Muslim invasion styles, to the Planet of the Apes invasion movie, and the fact the main character looks super similar to Valerie….she does…

Valerie Jarrett is AT LEAST 49% WHITE. But she Identifies as 100% African. Who knew? Seriously, not me. I thought she was Iranian/ White…I’m not making apologies on Roseanne’s behalf, but I do think the whole thing was blown way out of proportion. She certainly did not deserve to lose her show over it.

Smollett’s stunt however was a blatant racially motivated attack…on himself superficially, however an attack on all MAGA and Trump supporters. This is a hate crime. Jussie hates the president, he hates MAGA and he hates white people. One look at his Twitter will tell you everything you need to know…

Here you have him hanging out with race-baiter extraordinaire, Barack Obama, and Maxine Waters…. interestingly enough, this fiasco was well-timed with the new “anti-lynching” legislation that just passed.

Lynching is already a crime, I don’t really see why we need another law to address it…when’s the last time you’ve even HEARD about someone being lynched?

So my question is this: Why cut his hours. Why is he not FIRED? Just as we have a two-tiered justice system, we have a two-tiered SJW system as well. It’s okay for a Liberal to act in this manner, but NEVER a Conservative…

It’s okay for grown men and women to pick on a 14 year old kid wearing a MAGA hat, but God forbid we call ANY of THEM out!

The American Spectator

Published  3 days ago

Minnesota Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar tweeted out blatantly anti-Semitic messages, using what fellow Democrat and New York Congressman Eliot Engel called “the anti-Semitic trope of ‘Jewish money.’” Omar had suggested that AIPAC — the American Israel Public Affairs Committee —...

American Greatness

Published  3 days ago

Post by @theamgreatness.

Washington Examiner

Published  3 days ago

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., recently moved into a luxury apartment complex in Washington, D.C. that does not offer the affordable housing units that were a key plank in the New York congresswoman’s campaign platform.

Ocasio-Cortez, 29, who said in November that she was concerned about being able to afford rent in D.C., now earns a $174,000 annual salary and is living in a newly built high-rise in the city’s Navy Yard area, it was reported last week.

The freshman congresswoman, a self-described socialist, campaigned on a platform to expand affordable housing, and her controversial Green New Deal proposal promises “Safe, affordable, adequate housing” for all.

But Ocasio-Cortez’s new building — built by leading D.C. developer WC Smith — is part of a luxury complex whose owners specifically do not offer affordable units under Washington, D.C.’s Affordable Dwelling Units program. The Washington Examiner is not naming the building or complex.

In 2018, a civil rights attorney sued the Washington, D.C. government for allegedly discriminatory gentrification policies, claiming that development in Navy Yard area and other parts of southeast D.C. encouraged an influx of affluent “millennial creatives” who displaced minority residents.

Ocasio-Cortez, commonly referred to as "AOC," repeatedly criticized luxury real estate developers during her campaign, claiming that their buildings hiked up rent prices and pushed low-income residents out of their neighborhoods.

(Graeme Jennings/Washington Examiner)

“We need to kick luxury real estate lobbyists to the curb and defend working people’s way of life,” Ocasio-Cortez said last March. “Skyrocketing cost of living is a national crisis that CAN be addressed. It’s not just an NYC issue - it’s happening in every US metro area.”

Ocasio-Cortez also promised not to take campaign contributions from luxury developers during her campaign. “It’s time we stand up to the luxury developer lobby,” she said in a speech last April. “Every official is too scared to do it - except me.”

Her new apartment complex — which boasts on its website that it “promises to take luxury apartment living to a new level” — offers over 100,000 square feet of amenities for its residents.

These include: two private massage rooms with state-of-the-art hydrotherapy beds; men’s and women’s saunas; a full-scale demonstration kitchen with wood-fired pizza oven; a 25-meter indoor lap pool; a rooftop infinity pool with panoramic views of the Capitol; a Peloton cycling studio with over a dozen bikes; and a fireside lounge featuring a Steinway & Sons player piano.

Also included is a PGA-grade golf simulation lounge with a wrap-around screen and viewing bar that allows residents to play virtually at dozens of the world’s most exclusive golf courses with the touch of a button. Last week, Democrats mocked President Trump for installing a new golf simulator at the White House — updating with his own money one originally installed by former President Barack Obama.

Apartments in the building currently start at $1,840 per month for a 440 square foot studio, and range up to $5,200 for a three-bedroom. The average rent in Washington D.C. is $1,340 for a one-bedroom apartment and $1,550 for a two-bedroom, according to the most recent data from Apartment List.

W. Christopher Smith, 66, the Annapolis-based CEO of WC Smith, is a Democratic donor who contributed to Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign and the Senate campaigns of Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-M.D., Sen. Mark Warner, D-VA., and Jane Raybould, who lost a 2018 Senate race in Nebraska.

Smith donated to Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., in 2017, and 11 employees of WC Smith gave $6,900 to the campaign of Muriel Bower, the Democratic mayor of D.C. In 2018, WC Smith's vice-president of communications Ann-Marie Bairstow gave over $1300 to Act Blue earmarked in small amounts — $100 or less — for various candidates, including $50 to Ocasio-Cortez.

Washington Examiner

Published  3 days ago

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., recently moved into a luxury apartment complex in Washington, D.C. that does not offer the affordable housing units that were a key plank in the New York congresswoman’s campaign platform.

Ocasio-Cortez, 29, who said in November that she was concerned about being able to afford rent in D.C., now earns a $174,000 annual salary and is living in a newly built high-rise in the city’s Navy Yard area, the Washington Free Beacon reported last week.

The freshman congresswoman, a self-described socialist, campaigned on a platform to expand affordable housing, and her controversial Green New Deal proposal promises “Safe, affordable, adequate housing” for all.

But Ocasio-Cortez’s new building — built by leading D.C. developer WC Smith — is part of a luxury complex whose owners specifically do not offer affordable units under Washington, D.C.’s Affordable Dwelling Units program. The Washington Examiner is not naming the building or complex.

In 2018, a civil rights attorney sued the Washington, D.C. government for allegedly discriminatory gentrification policies, claiming that development in Navy Yard area and other parts of southeast D.C. encouraged an influx of affluent “millennial creatives” who displaced minority residents.

Ocasio-Cortez, commonly referred to as "AOC," repeatedly criticized luxury real estate developers during her campaign, claiming that their buildings hiked up rent prices and pushed low-income residents out of their neighborhoods.

(Graeme Jennings/Washington Examiner)

“We need to kick luxury real estate lobbyists to the curb and defend working people’s way of life,” Ocasio-Cortez said last March. “Skyrocketing cost of living is a national crisis that CAN be addressed. It’s not just an NYC issue - it’s happening in every US metro area.”

Ocasio-Cortez also promised not to take campaign contributions from luxury developers during her campaign. “It’s time we stand up to the luxury developer lobby,” she said in a speech last April. “Every official is too scared to do it - except me.”

Her new apartment complex — which boasts on its website that it vows to take "luxury apartment living" to a higher level — offers over 100,000 square feet of amenities for its residents.

These include: two private massage rooms with state-of-the-art hydrotherapy beds; men’s and women’s saunas; a full-scale demonstration kitchen with wood-fired pizza oven; a 25-meter indoor lap pool; a rooftop infinity pool with panoramic views of the Capitol; a Peloton cycling studio with over a dozen bikes; and a fireside lounge featuring a Steinway & Sons player piano.

Also included is a PGA-grade golf simulation lounge with a wrap-around screen and viewing bar that allows residents to play virtually at dozens of the world’s most exclusive golf courses with the touch of a button. Last week, Democrats mocked President Trump for installing a new golf simulator at the White House — updating with his own money one originally installed by former President Barack Obama.

Apartments in the building currently start at $1,840 per month for a 440 square foot studio, and range up to $5,200 for a three-bedroom. The average rent in Washington D.C. is $1,340 for a one-bedroom apartment and $1,550 for a two-bedroom, according to the most recent data from Apartment List.

W. Christopher Smith, 66, the Annapolis-based CEO of WC Smith, is a Democratic donor who contributed to Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign and the Senate campaigns of Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-M.D., Sen. Mark Warner, D-VA., and Jane Raybould, who lost a 2018 Senate race in Nebraska.

Smith donated to Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., in 2017, and 11 employees of WC Smith gave $6,900 to the campaign of Muriel Bower, the Democratic mayor of D.C. In 2018, WC Smith's vice-president of communications Ann-Marie Bairstow gave over $1300 to Act Blue earmarked in small amounts — $100 or less — for various candidates, including $50 to Ocasio-Cortez.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  3 days ago

The Young America’s Foundation has released their 25th annual Comedy & Tragedy list of leftist courses at colleges across the nation — and many take aim directly at President Donald Trump in their descriptions.

The organization reviews and audits course catalogs, textbook requirements, commencement speakers, and “other key metrics that show the true state of higher education in America.”

“Many of the courses and descriptions listed in this year’s report may seem comical at first glance, but the situation that continues to unfold on America’s campuses is hardly a laughing matter. Beyond the inane, identity- and intersectionality-obsessed topics, these classes advance a liberal agenda, malign conservatives and their values, and shut out ideological diversity,” the organization wrote of their report.

At Indiana University, they are offering a course on “Global Anarchy” in which they explore “everything from Antifa in the streets of Trump’s America and anarcho-feminist essays to DIY pink scenes and apocalyptic zombie scenarios, this course seeks to advance a basic understanding of anarchist ideals, practices, and imaginaries.”

Meanwhile, at Middlebury College, they are offering a class on “American Misogyny” where they “conclude by examining how misogyny informs U.S. culture and politics in the Trump era. Throughout the course, we will consider how discourses of misogyny are inflected by white, cisgender, ableist, agist, and class privilege.”

At Columbia University, a course on “Fascism: Aesthetics & Politics” takes aim squarely at the president. The description says that “the election of President Donald Trump has renewed interest in the examination of fascism- as an ideology, as a political movement and as a form of governance.” The university is also offering classes on “practicing intersectionality” and “gender wars.”

Over at Cornell, a course titled “America Confronts the World” will make students explore how “Donald Trump and Barack Obama give us two visions of America and of the world: xenophobic nationalism and pragmatic cosmopolitanism.” Another course at the university, “Histories of the Apocalypse: From Nostradamus to Nuclear Winter” begins their description by saying that “Brexit, immigration, and the election of Donald Trump have all been recently heralded as signs of an imminent apocalypse.”

Read the full (both frightening and hilarious) list here.

Fox News

Published  3 days ago

Hillary Clinton took to Twitter on Monday to slam President Trump for declaring a national emergency along the United States southern border.

In her tweet, the former secretary of state said the “real national emergencies” were “Relentless gun violence. Children separated from their families at the border. Climate change” and “Americans dying for lack of health care.”

Clinton, who lost to Trump in the 2016 presidential race, has been one of his harshest critics since his election. On Instagram on Monday, she appeared to troll Trump by posting a photo of the three living former Democratic presidents – Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama and, her husband, Bill Clinton – as well former First Lady Michelle Obama alongside the message “Happy Presidents Day.”

TRUMP WILL SIGN BORDER SECURITY BILL, DECLARE NATIONAL EMERGENCY, WHITE HOUSE SAYS

Clinton’s national emergency tweet follows Trump declaring a national emergency Friday to shift billions of federal dollars earmarked for military construction to the border after lawmakers in both parties blocked his request for billions of dollars to fulfill his signature campaign pledge for a border wall.

Democrats are planning to introduce a resolution disapproving of the declaration once Congress returns to session and it is likely to pass both chambers. Several Republican senators are already indicating they would vote against Trump — though there do not yet appear to be enough votes to override a veto by the president.

White House senior adviser Stephen Miller told "Fox News Sunday" that "the president is going to protect his national emergency declaration." Asked if that meant Trump was ready to veto a resolution of disapproval, Miller added, "He's going to protect his national emergency declaration, guaranteed."

Miller insisted that Congress granted the president wide berth under the National Emergencies Act to take action. But Trump's declaration goes beyond previous emergencies in shifting money after Congress blocked his funding request for the wall, which will likely factor in legal challenges.

Trump aides acknowledge that Trump cannot meet his pledge to build the wall by the time voters decide whether to grant him another term next year, but insist his base will remain by his side as long as he is not perceived to have given up the fight on the barrier.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Fox News

Published  3 days ago

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration said Wednesday it paid $1.3 billion in interest to Iran in January to resolve a decades-old dispute over an undelivered military sale, two days after allowing $400 million in cash to fly to Tehran.

State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau says the U.S. couldn't say more about the Jan. 19 payments because of diplomatic sensitivities. They involved 13 separate payments of $99,999,999.99 and final payment of about $10 million. There was no explanation for the Treasury Department keeping the individual transactions under $100 million.

The money settles a dispute over a $400 million payment made in the 1970s by the U.S.-backed shah's government for military equipment. The equipment was never delivered because of the 1979 Islamic Revolution that overthrew the shah and ended diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Iran.

On Jan. 17, the administration paid Iran the account's $400 million principal in pallets of euros, Swiss francs and other foreign currency, raising questions about the unusual payment. The $1.3 billion covers what Iran and the U.S. agreed would be the interest on the $400 million over the decades.

The deal has faced increased scrutiny since the administration's acknowledgment this month that it used the money as leverage to ensure the release of four American prisoners.

Republican critics accuse the administration of paying a "ransom."

President Barack Obama and other officials deny such claims, though they've struggled to explain why the U.S. paid in cash. Obama said it was because the United States and Iran didn't have a banking relationship after years of nuclear-related sanctions, but that wouldn't rule out using intermediary banks that maintain relationship with both.

Briefing reporters last week, a senior U.S. official involved in the negotiations said the interest payments were made to Iran in a "fairly above-board way," using a foreign central bank. But the official, who wasn't authorized to be quoted by name and demanded anonymity, wouldn't say if the interest was delivered to Iran in physical cash, as with the $400 million principal, or via a more regular banking mechanism.

The money came from a little-known fund administered by the Treasury Department for settling litigation claims. The so-called Judgment Fund is taxpayer money Congress has permanently approved in the event it's needed, allowing the president to bypass direct congressional approval to make a settlement. The U.S. previously paid out $278 million in Iran-related claims by using the fund in 1991.

Nwo Report

Published  3 days ago

A New York Times‘ article on the migrant caravans shows President Donald Trump’s border security reforms are successfully curbing the northward flow of migrants. One-third of the 6,000 migrants who…

mcall

Published  3 days ago

Anyone listening to President Donald Trump and to Democratic presidential hopefuls hears an almost Dickensian tale of two very different Americas.

The president takes "the best of times" view and spoke during his State of the Union address about "an unprecedented economic boom" in which "our economy is thriving like never before."

No compatible source was found for this media.

Democratic presidential hopefuls take the "the worst of times" view and speak of an America that works only for the rich, while working-class paychecks fail even to keep up with the cost of living and people are struggling to get by.

Is either side right?

The American public appears to increasingly share Trump's sunny view. A Gallup poll released on Monday, under the headline "Americans' Confidence in Their Finances Keeps Growing," found that more than two-thirds — 69 percent — of Americans expect to be better off in the coming year. That's "only two percentage points below the all-time high of 71%" recorded 20 years ago. The poll was based on telephone interviews with 1,017 adults conducted between Jan. 2 and Jan. 10.

Of those surveyed, 50 percent said they were "better off today than they were a year ago." That response is "a post-recession milestone — the first time since 2007 that at least half of the public has said they are financially better off than a year ago." There have only been 11 times in 109 Gallup polls since 1976 where "at least half of those polled said they were in better financial shape than they had been a year prior."

Those saying they are worse off than a year ago, those for whom the economy presumably is "just not working," fell to 26 percent, "the lowest level since October 2000."

The public's rising confidence isn't misplaced. The U.S. economy might not be in unprecedented good shape, but it is certainly thriving.

Economic growth during the first full six quarters of the Trump administration has averaged 3 percent, double the nearly 1.5 percent average for President Barack Obama's last six full quarters, according to the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis. For 2018, the first full calendar year following the Republican tax cuts and the president's regulatory reductions, it looks like gross domestic product will grow at a 3 percent or better pace for the first time since 2005.

The benefits of that growth appear widespread.

More Americans are working than ever before, and the unemployment rate has been at or below 4 percent for 11 straight months, the longest such streak in nearly 50 years. During that stretch, the unemployment rates for African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, people with only a high school education, women, teenagers (ages 16-19), veterans and disabled Americans have all either hit or approached historic lows.

With employers competing for the best employees, wages rose last year at the fastest pace in a decade. It appears that this competition for employees will intensify. At the end of December, a record 7.3 million job openings were available, with only 6.3 million people unemployed (meaning they had looked for but not as yet found a job in the past 30 days). It was the 10th month in a row with more job openings than people unemployed.

The largest gains for December were in the construction sector (+88,000), as you would expect in a growing economy. For the first time in decades, blue-collar workers are more difficult to find than white-collar workers.

Yet contenders for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination see a different America. When announcing her candidacy this month, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts described a country where "tens of millions of people are struggling just to get by." She berated "a rigged system that props up the rich and the powerful and kicks dirt on everyone else." In her view, the economy works for the rich and is "just not working for anyone else."

Sen. Kamala Harris of California kicked off her candidacy on Jan. 28 by bemoaning a United States in which the "economy today is not working for working people." Similar laments can be heard from other candidates.

Some of the contrast is political. Following the 2016 presidential election, Republicans and Democrats significantly altered their perceptions of how they were doing financially. Nonetheless, Gallup found that "among some of the key groups that generally vote Democratic, a plurality or majority say they are better off," including people under 30, women and liberals. Notably, this group also includes people with annual household incomes under $40,000, an impressive 45 percent of whom say they are better off, vs. 35 percent who say they are worse off.

It's a heavy lift to convince people they are worse off when more of them are working, earning higher wages and taking home more of what they earn because of tax cuts. Democrats seem to be asking: "Who are you going to believe, us or your wallets?"

Is it the best or the worst of times? It's still early, but these economic times are certainly the best that Americans have experienced in many years. And, not surprisingly, they know it.

Puzder is the former chief executive of CKE Restaurants and the author of "The Capitalist Comeback."

The Federalist

Published  3 days ago

President Donald Trump is legally justified in using a declaration of a emergency to use already appropriated federal funds to build a border wall.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  3 days ago

President Trump’s approval rating is at 49% and up 6 points since Friday, February 1.

Barack Obama’s approval rating was at 44% at a similar point in his presidency.

This is also despite national mainstream media reporting negatively on the highly successful President Trump 92% of the time.

When President Trump gets a chance to tell his side of the story — unfiltered — and he gets a chance to tell THE FULL STORY with all of his accomplishments that are ignored by the state-run media his approval ratings skyrocket.

Trump’s approval rating is up six points since the State of the Union Address in early February.

Trump should hold quarterly addresses to the nation.

Breitbart

Published  3 days ago

Pence is bringing Marc Short back to the White House, despite Short's failure to deliver on Trump's promise of immigration reform and a wall.

Breitbart

Published  3 days ago

The Trump administration will launch an effort to decriminalize homosexuality in countries where it is still illegal, as part of a diplomatic push for LGBTQ rights — and an effort to isolate Iran, which persecutes homosexuals.

NBC News reported Tuesday that the effort is to be led by U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, a staunch Trump supporter who is among the highest-ranking openly gay officials ever to serve in the U.S. government. Grenell is currently among the front-runners to succeed Nikki Haley as UN Ambassador.

NBC noted:

U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, the highest-profile openly gay person in the Trump administration, is leading the effort, which kicks off Tuesday evening in Berlin. The U.S. embassy is flying in LGBT activists from across Europe for a strategy dinner to plan to push for decriminalization in places that still outlaw homosexuality — mostly concentrated in the Middle East, Africa and the Caribbean.

Although the decriminalization strategy is still being hashed out, officials say it’s likely to include working with global organizations like the United Nations, the European Union and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, as well as other countries whose laws already allow for gay rights. Other U.S. embassies and diplomatic posts throughout Europe, including the U.S. Mission to the E.U., are involved, as is the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor.

Narrowly focused on criminalization, rather than broader LGBT issues like same-sex marriage, the campaign was conceived partly in response to the recent reported execution by hanging of a young gay man in Iran, the Trump administration’s top geopolitical foe.

There are 72 countries that still criminalize homosexuality, and eight that apply the death penalty, according to NBC. One is U.S. ally Saudi Arabia, according to a report by a gay rights organization cited by NBC News.

The Trump administration has been criticized by LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) activists in the U.S. for barring transgender volunteers from serving in the U.S. military, and rescinding a policy from the previous administration encouraging special accommodation for transgender students in public schools.

However, Trump has stayed out of debates over same-sex marriage and has promoted gay officials, such as Grenell, who share his broader agenda.

President Barack Obama ran in 2008 on a platform opposing same-sex marriage and yet was embraced by LGBTQ activists. He switched his position before the 2012 elections, and told African countries to drop laws discriminating against homosexuals in 2015, but did not press the issue more widely.

The Trump administration has won praise from religious groups for promoting their agenda abroad, including the “Mexico City policy,” which bars U.S. foreign aid for being used to fund or promote abortion.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

The Washington Times

Published  3 days ago

A judge on Tuesday gave the green light to a lawsuit filed by a parks-advocacy group that aims to stop for good the delayed construction of former President Barack Obama's $500 million presidential ce

Fox News

Published  3 days ago

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that a lawsuit filed by an advocacy group hoping to halt the construction of former President Barack Obama's $500 million presidential center on Chicago's South Side can proceed.

U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey, who was nominated to the federal bench by Obama in 2014, ruled that Protect Our Parks has standing to sue the city because it represents taxpayers with concerns that providing land in Jackson Park to the Obama center violates their due process rights. The judge indicated that he doesn't want the litigation to drag on, and that he'll limit any fact-gathering before the trial to 45 days.

The proposed Jackson Park site is seven miles from downtown Chicago, is near low-income neighborhoods where Obama worked as a community organizer, and lies just blocks from the University of Chicago, where Obama was a law professor. It is also close to the home where the Obamas lived until he won the presidency in 2008.

The center would comprise 20 acres of the 500-acre park. Its centerpiece would be a 225-foot museum tower, surrounded by a cluster of smaller buildings, including a 300-seat auditorium. Supporters estimate the project would create 5,000 jobs during construction and over 2,500 permanent jobs. An estimated 760,000 people could visit each year.

Protect Our Parks has accused the city of illegally transferring parkland to the private Obama Foundation, effectively "gifting" prized land to a Chicago favorite son. The group said city officials manipulated the approval process and tinkered with legislation to skirt longstanding laws designed to ensure residents have unobstructed access to lakeside parks.

"Defendants have chosen to deal with it in a classic Chicago political way ... to deceive and seemingly legitimize an illegal land grab," the lawsuit says.

To make the park available for the project, the Chicago Park District first sold the land to the city for $1. Illinois legislators amended the state's Illinois Aquarium and Museum Act to include presidential libraries as an exception to the no-development rules if there's a compelling public interest. The Chicago City Council approved the project by a 47-to-1 vote last May.

The Obama Foundation would pay $10 to the city for use of the parkland for 99 years, cover the costs of building the complex and be responsible for covering operating costs for 99 years. Once built, the Obama Presidential Center's physical structures would be transferred to the city for free, meaning the city would formally own the center but not control what happens there.

"They are essentially giving [property] to Obama ... for 10 cents a year for 99 years," parks advocacy lawyer Mark Roth said Thursday.

In his ruling Tuesday, Blakey threw out a claim that taxpayers' First Amendment rights would be infringed upon because tax money would be spent to reconfigure roads and traffic. The suit argued that taxpayers would thus subsidize any partisan political activity by Obama at the center.

City lawyers conceded Thursday that Chicago would pay an estimated $175 million to reconfigure roads to manage traffic around the center, but they also argued that Protect Our Parks misread the law, misrepresented how the approval process played out and exaggerated potential environmental disruptions.

The center was originally slated to open in 2021, though ground hasn't yet broken because of the lingering litigation. Some supporters of the project fear that ongoing litigation might lead Obama to decide to build the center somewhere else.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  4 days ago

The Western media missed an oh-so juicy nugget out Russia recently that should have set off alarm bells in Washington.

Asked about the current state of U.S.-Russia relations, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova gave a long winded answer that can be read below. In her answer, Zakharova suggested Russia may “publish leaks” about “secrets” the Obama administration asked the Russian government to keep private. The shocking statement can be found in the second to last paragraph of Zakharova’s answer highlighted in both bold and italic.

You could just imagine the headlines this would have made if this was about a Trump administration official.

But because it is about Barack Obama, arguably one of the worst presidents in US history, the liberal mainstream media ignores this completely.

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow

As per mid.ru:

Question: How do you see the future of Russian-US diplomatic relations in the context of the current atmosphere in Washington? Can you confirm that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will come to Moscow in April?

Maria Zakharova: Apparently, many volumes have been written about the development of Russian-US relations. I announced the release of the Foreign Ministry’s yearend Diplomatic Bulletin and even showed it at the previous briefing. I believe that about 20 per cent of that bulletin was devoted to Russian-US relations, the way we see them, how we want them to develop, what we expect from Washington, what we are willing to do with the United States, the priority areas of cooperation, areas where our cooperation should be revived without delay and the areas where this can wait, at least for a limited time. This issue has been covered in interviews by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, comments by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov and in numerous statements made at all levels by representatives from various Russian agencies, political analysts and politicians, as well as officials from the legislative and executive authorities. We can talk about bilateral relations with a different degree of mastery, but we would like to start implementing our relationship at long last.

We provided our views on bilateral relations and the reasons for blocking them under President Obama. We said that we were willing to work with the new US administration, under President Trump. I don’t think we need to invent anything in this respect, because so much has been said before. Simply, we should start concrete practical work. We are ready for this.

You know that we always invite our American colleagues and diplomats to join bilateral or multilateral dialogues on issues in which the United States has traditionally played a big and active role, such as Syria, the consultations in Astana and many others. We expect Washington to formulate its foreign policy approaches in the form of a concept. We are ready for pragmatic and specific work on the principles that we have described many times.

As for the visit by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and the information about it, this is what I can say. It’s not a secret that preparations for any visit include the coordination of the time when it can be announced. Visits by foreign ministers are public events that are never kept secret. At least, I don’t know about any secret visits by foreign ministers in Russia or the United States. Preparations for such a visit also include the coordination of the format, agenda and the date it can be announced to the public. It is a matter of propriety and respect for each other’s interests. One side proposes a date, and the other side is expected to accept it. This date should be acceptable to both sides, because the foreign ministers have packed schedules. The issue also concerns the coordination of the agenda by experts. One side informs the other side of the issues it plans to discuss, and the other side needs to respond that the agenda is acceptable. In other words, the sides need to reach agreements on many issues, after which they can announce an upcoming visit. This is how we work with our colleagues.

To tell the truth, over the past few years we’ve seen many strange things happen in Washington in connection with preparations for visits or talks by our foreign ministers. The US Department of State has more than once asked us not to announce planned visits until the last minute. This is not our tradition. We have been operating openly for years, but we have respected the requests we have received from our colleagues in Washington in the past few years. But what happened after that? First, the US Department of State asked us to keep the planned visit quiet and not to announce it until the last possible minute, until we coordinated the date. We did as they asked. But a day or two later the information was leaked by the US State Department and sometimes by the US administration. Frankly, this put Russia and the media in a strange situation, because they didn’t know who to believe – the official agencies or the many leaks.

It is difficult to say if this diplomatic communication is a US tradition or the latest technique. But it definitely doesn’t correspond to our traditions. We believe that everything we coordinate should be made available to the media in accordance with diplomatic procedure. When we coordinate a visit and the date for announcing it, the information should be made public calmly and as agreed. This is what we do in relations with our colleagues from other countries.

As I said, such cases in our relations with the US Department of State have become a bad tradition over the past few years. So, I can say in response to your question that we will make the date and format of contacts between the Russian and US foreign ministers public after we coordinate them. We won’t keep them quiet. At this point, I don’t have any information I can share with you. I can say that this visit and such contacts are possible in principle, but it would be premature to talk about timeframes.

Also, I would like to say that if the practice of leaking information that concerns not just the United States but also Russia, which has become a tradition in Washington in the past few years, continues, there will come a day when the media will publish leaks about the things that Washington asked us to keep secret, for example, things that happened during President Obama’s terms in office. Believe me, this could be very interesting information.

Our American colleagues must decide if they respect the diplomatic procedure, if they keep their word on the arrangements made between us, primarily arrangements made at their own request, or we create a few very nice surprises for each other.

We can only assume that if Obama loyalists still hiding in the White House continue to leak intel, it’s inevitable that Russia will drop a bomb about Obama.

dailycaller

Published  4 days ago

The Trump administration will announce it’s ending fuel economy negotiations with California.

EPA and DOT officials tried to hash out a compromise with California, but talks broke down.

Federal officials will move ahead with plans to roll back Obama-era climate regulations on cars.

The Trump administration will soon announce the end of negotiations with California regarding a proposed rollback of Obama-era fuel economy regulations, The Daily Caller News Foundation has learned.

White House officials met with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Transportation (DOT) officials Tuesday evening to discuss the announcement, which is expected to come Wednesday afternoon, according to a source familiar with the matter.

The move comes as California leads a coalition of states suing to block President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration for the U.S.-Mexico border. Trump’s declaration allows him to divert more funding for a border wall, which California opposes.

The decision also comes on the heels of DOT announcing it canceled a $929 million grant for California’s high-speed rail line and is “exploring every legal option” to recoup $2.5 billion previously granted to the largely defunct project.

However, the source told TheDCNF the timing is not related to battles over border wall and high-speed rail funding. EPA and DOT officials are scrambling to finalize the rollback of Obama-era fuel economy regulations by the end of April, the source said.

Federal officials had been meeting with the California Air Resources Board to hash out a compromise on fuel economy standards. However, those talks eventually broke down and no compromise was made, according to two sources familiar with the process who wished to remain anonymous.

In 2012, Obama administration mandated that cars average about 50 miles per gallon in 2025 as part of President Barack Obama’s climate agenda. Supporters said high fuel economy rules would save Americans at the pump and cut greenhouse gas emissions.

In August, the Trump administration proposed freezing fuel economy standards at 37 miles per gallon in 2020 on grounds Obama-era standard raised car prices, forcing people to drive older, less safe vehicles.

The freeze would prevent about 1,000 traffic fatalities a year and save $500 billion in societal costs, according to EPA and DOT estimates. That proposal also laid the groundwork for EPA to revoke California’s ability to set its own tailpipe standards for carbon dioxide emissions.

Federal officials also found the Obama-era standards would have a negligible effect on projected global warming, about 0.003 degrees Celsius by 2100. (RELATED: The Green New Deal Aims To Retrofit Every Building. Here’s What It Could Cost To Replace Common Appliances)

The administration’s August proposal also laid the groundwork for revoking California’s ability to set its own tailpipe standards, which was granted to them by the Obama administration.

Officials won’t likely announce it’s revoking California’s regulatory authority, one source said, but the lack of any sort of compromise with the Golden State suggests that’s what the EPA and DOT will do when finalizing the rule. Automakers want a compromise with California and to make sure there’s a uniform national fuel economy standard.

Bloomberg first reported that fuel economy talks had broken down between the Trump administration and California. CARB said talks broke down before Christmas.

“The administration broke off communications before Christmas and never responded to our suggested areas of compromise — or offered any compromise proposal at all,” CARB spokesman Stanley Young told Bloomberg.

“We concluded at that point that they were never serious about negotiating, and their public comments about California since then seem to underscore that point,” Young said.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

I Love My Freedom

Published  4 days ago

It's true, people can change. There has never been more proof to this statement than the strange actions of Reverend Al Sharpton recently. VOTE NOW: Should Pelosi Be REMOVED From Office? Instead of protecting, advocating, and lying for

bostonherald

Published  4 days ago

Taking a page from Barack Obama’s playbook, Joe Biden — ahead of his presidential announcement — goes to Europe and apologizes for America. Biden calls our country an “embarrassment” for separating families at the border crossing. Never mind that the Obama administration, in which Biden served as vice president, also ramped up deportations — sending millions of illegal immigrants back where they came from. Biden is actively trying to rewrite his legacy on immigration.

“The America I see values basic human decency, not snatching children from their parents or turning our back on refugees at our border. Americans know that’s not right,” the former vice president told the Munich Security Conference. “The American people understand plainly that this makes us an embarrassment. The American people know, overwhelmingly, that it is not right. That it is not who we are.”

Leading Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi once favored funding for building a wall along the southern border. Now these liberals call it “immoral.” Some who are running for president even want to dissolve ICE.

Biden should not get away with slamming the kinds of policies the Obama administration also practiced.

When the issue of kids getting taken from their parents at the border first started being reported last summer one image of two kids in a cage circulated on the internet. Turned out to be a photo taken in 2014 when Obama and Biden were in office.

Currently Biden’s polling is quite strong over his potential opponents. So maybe the Democratic candidates who are farther left of Biden — Elizabeth Warren, for example — might want to remind voters what happened when Biden was Obama’s sidekick.

The 76-year-old certainly sounded like he was running during his speech.

“I have spent the better part of the last two years traveling throughout the United States of America, from Minnesota to Texas; from Boston to Birmingham,” Biden said. “I can assure you, that the American people, the ultimate wellspring of power in the United States of America, remain committed to engaging the world with decency and respect.”

If other Democratic candidates want Biden out of the way, it’s in their power to sideline him. Of course, that will also involve showing their own hypocrisy in relentlessly attacking Donald Trump for things they were silent about when Obama and Biden did them.

The Weekly Standard

Published  4 days ago

In March, an investigation by ProPublica and Gawker revealed that a “ secret spy network” that was not on the State Department payroll, run by longtime Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal, was “funneling intelligence about the crisis in Libya directly to the Secretary of State’s private account starting before the Benghazi attack.” Now the WEEKLY STANDARD has learned that Tyler Drumheller, the former chief of the CIA’s clandestine service in Europe who was working directly with Blumenthal as a member of Clinton’s spy network, was concurrently working as a consultant to CBS News and its venerable news program 60 Minutes.

According to WEEKLY STANDARD sources, Drumheller was active in shaping the network’s Benghazi coverage. His role at the network raises questions about what went wrong with the retracted 60 Minutes report on Benghazi that aired in October 2013. Despite his former life as a high ranking CIA official, Drumheller was laden with political baggage, making him a curious choice to be consulting with a major news operation—especially so given that he was working directly with Sidney Blumenthal, whose primary occupation appears to be manipulating media coverage on behalf of the Clintons.

CBS does not deny that Drumheller was working with the network, though a CBS spokesman would only say, "Tyler Drumheller was not involved in any way on the Benghazi story." CBS was also asked if the network understood he was helping Blumenthal prepare reports on Libya for Secretary of State Clinton at the same time he was working with the network. Additionally, THE WEEKLY STANDARD asked CBS to clarify if Drumheller otherwise involved in the network's coverage sensitive national security issues while he was also apparently working on Hillary Clinton's behalf. Finally, CBS News was asked if they had done any internal review to determine whether Drumheller had influenced coverage in a way that may have unfairly benefited Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration, since the public revelation of his conflict of interest. CBS did not clarify whether their statement that Drumheller was not involved "on the Benghazi story" referred specifically to the controversial Lara Logan report for 60 Minutes or CBS's coverage of the Benghazi scandal generally. The network was given an opportunity to address these specific questions and actively declined to expand on their terse statement.

Drumheller left the CIA in 2005, and he quickly became a darling of the left. On departing the agency, he told a congressional committee that he knew sources the CIA were relying on to document the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were flawed. He later wrote a book portraying himself as a crusader within the CIA who tried, to no avail, to warn his supervisors that the case for war in Iraq was badly flawed. He also became a source for journalists critical of the Iraq war, including the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer. In 2006, 60 Minutes broadcast a favorable profile of Drumheller, titled “A Spy Speaks Out.” From there, Drumheller’s relationship with CBS News developed into a professional arrangement.

From the beginning, there were rumblings that Drumheller’s account of what happened leading up to the Iraq war was self-serving and inaccurate. In 2007, former CIA director George Tenet—who headed the agency under both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush—published a memoir, At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA. Tenet took several pages of the book to attack Drumheller’s claims in detail, explicitly questioning his honesty and even citing the recollections of other agency employees to poke glaring holes in Drumheller’s recounting of events.

How Drumheller came to work for Blumenthal isn’t known, but the longtime Clinton aide has acquired a reputation for both dishonesty and unswerving loyalty to the Clintons. Blumenthal was known for his especially vicious attacks on Monica Lewinsky in the press, and later would play hatchetman in the 2008 Democratic primary. A 2008 article in the Huffington Post detailed how Blumenthal blasted out “virulent” hit pieces about Barack Obama even when they came from “extreme right-wing websites.” According to a professor who was the recipient of these missives, Blumenthal “on a regular basis, methodically dispatches these email mudballs to an influential list of opinion shapers—including journalists, former Clinton administration officials, academics, policy entrepreneurs, and think tankers—in what is an obvious attempt to create an echo chamber that reverberates among talk shows, columnists, and Democratic party funders and activists.” Hillary Clinton later tried to hire Blumenthal at the State Department, but his attacks on Obama were considered so out of bounds that top Obama aides Robert Gibbs and David Axelrod balked at the suggestion, according to a Politico report.

Instead, the former journalist went to work elsewhere aggressively shaping coverage of Clinton scandals. The New York Times reported earlier this year that Blumenthal was employed by “the Clinton Foundation, to help with research [and] ‘message guidance’” and during the same time period “he also worked on and off as a paid consultant to Media Matters and American Bridge, organizations that helped lay the groundwork for Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 campaign.” Politico further reported that “a network of groups founded by Clinton enforcer [and Media Matters founder] David Brock … paid Blumenthal more than $10,000 a month as they defended Hillary Clinton against conservative attacks.” For someone such as Blumenthal, who was being paid to put the best spin on Hillary Clinton’s scandal-plagued tenure as Secretary of State, a close relationship with a national security and intelligence consultant at one of America’s most influential news organizations would be an invaluable asset. How Drumheller was rewarded for working with Blumenthal is unknown, but emails show he was producing intelligence reports on Libya and other trouble spots that Blumenthal was passing on to Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State. Drumheller was also working with Blumenthal to coordinate on the ground operations with a private security outfit being paid to gather intelligence on terrorist hotspots such as Tunisia. According to emails obtained by ProPublica, Drumheller was the go-between for Blumenthal and Osprey Global Solutions, a firm run by David L. Grange, a retired major general with a background in special ops.

As for his role at CBS News, CBS's statement that their prominent intelligence consultant wasn't involved in consulting in their coverage of the biggest intelligence story in years is curious. Multiple WEEKLY STANDARD sources told us that Drumheller played an active role in shaping the most controversial CBS News report since Rathergate, correspondent Lara Logan’s now retracted 60 Minutes report on Benghazi. The report focused on the story of “Morgan Jones” (whose real name was Dylan Davies), a military contractor who was allegedly present for the attack on Benghazi. Jones’s account told a tale of fighting bravely and vainly to rescue the men in the embassy under attack, and reinforced the narrative that the U.S. government could have done more to save the men who died that night. However, after 60 Minutes’s Benghazi report aired on October 27, 2013, it soon emerged that Davies’s story did not match up with State Department reports or the account of his actions that night he gave to his employer, private security firm Blue Mountain Group. Lara Logan eventually took responsibility for the erroneous report, and 60 Minutes went so far as to request Nexis remove the transcript of the broadcast. Davies’s book was scrapped, and he has disappeared from the public eye. After the report, Logan took a seven-month leave of absence from CBS.

However, what seems like a serious but straightforward failure to do basic fact checking is complicated by claims Drumheller was consulting on the report. The popular consensus about what went wrong was crystallized in May of last year by a 6,500 word New York magazine article, “ Benghazi and the Bombshell: Is Lara Logan too toxic to return to 60 Minutes?," about Logan’s meteoric rise and subsequent fall in the wake of the flawed report. There were two primary factors blamed for the flawed report making it on air. One, Lara Logan was perceived by her colleagues as being both too hard charging and too credulous of military sources. And two, 60 Minutes didn’t vet the story properly because they picked up on Davies’s story after it had been already packaged by a conservative publishing imprint owned by CBS’s parent company. The New York article characterizes how the report was put together this way:

The two key facts here are that Logan and 60 Minutes had been working on a Benghazi report for six months prior to abruptly making the focus of the report Dylan Davies, and that fact-checking procedures were ignored and no calls were made to the State Department or FBI to vet the claims.

According to WEEKLY STANDARD sources, the initial focus of 60 Minutes’s Benghazi report was al Qaeda’s role in the attack. While even in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2012 attack, al Qaeda’s role was obvious, the Obama administration played fast and loose with the fact the terror organization was behind the attack. By the time Logan began working on her Benghazi report, CBS News had already engendered a good deal of controversy for its reporting on this matter. Former CBS News investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson pointed the finger at her former network for helping the Obama administration obfuscate on this point; the day after Benghazi attack, in an interview with 60 Minutes’s Steve Kroft, President Obama said it was “too early to know” whether the attack was terrorism. As the election neared, whether or not Obama had called the attack terrorism emerged as a major election issue with Republican candidate Mitt Romney attacking Obama for failing to label Benghazi a terror attack for 14 days, and the issue became a flashpoint during the second presidential debate.

Despite the fact the interview would have been especially newsworthy, CBS didn’t show the clip, and only leaked a transcript of Kroft’s interview days before the election. Attkisson further reports that 60 Minutes emailed the transcript of Kroft’s Obama interview to CBS News’s New York headquarters the day it took place. And yet, CBS reporters were later directed to use soundbites suggesting Obama promptly labeled Benghazi a terror attack. Attkisson later confronted CBS News president David Rhodes, the brother of White House deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes, who told her an internal investigation would be done to figure out why CBS sat on such an explosive bit of news. Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple agreed with Attkisson that it was an “awful episode” that did not reflect well on CBS News.

Right on the the heels of this controversy, Logan began to put together her own report focusing on why the central fact that al Qaeda was behind the attack had been obscured. Based on the account of a source with knowledge of how the report came together, like Attkisson before her, Logan soon found institutional resistance to the angle she was taking on Benghazi which made the Obama administration and Clinton State Department look like they may have intentionally downplayed al Qaeda’s involvement in Benghazi for political gain -- and some of that resistance came from Drumheller, who was “instrumental in poo-pooing the Lara Logan Benghazi story,” according to the source. Even after the report was refocused to be primarily about Dylan Davies, the report still staked out a strong claim about al Qaeda’s involvement and the perceived disingenuousness of the Obama administration response. In the report that eventually aired, Logan declared, “Contrary to the White House’s public statements, which were still being made a full week later, it’s now well-established that the Americans were attacked by al Qaeda in a well-planned assault.”

While that statement from the now-retracted report is unquestionably accurate, even more than a year after the Benghazi attack the Clinton State Department was still fighting hard to shape public perception of the tragic event. Again, emails in the spring of 2013 show Drumheller was reporting to Sidney Blumenthal and providing information that went directly to Hillary Clinton -- the same time he would have been likely involved in consulting with 60 Minutes and helping shape Logan’s report.

Outwardly, it appears Clintonworld was invested in the Benghazi media narrative well through 2013 and had been largely successful at minimizing the blame directed at the State Department. (State Department officials also appear to have been sources for the New York magazine piece on Lara Logan.) For a long time the media seemed to be spinning a narrative favorable to the Obama administration. On December 28, 2013 -- just two months after Logan’s report aired -- the New York Times would declare that “months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.” The Times’s December report, along with the discrediting of Logan’s report that dominated the news in November, would be used as a powerful cudgel against those critical of the Obama administration’s handling of Benghazi. (A year later in November 2014, the House Intelligence Committee would release a report confirming al Qaeda's involvement in the Benghazi attack, and the New York Times quietly altered its coverage to accept this fact.) In that context, a 60 Minutes report undercutting this wrongly accepted version of events had to be perceived as politically threatening to the guardians of Hillary Clinton’s presidential ambitions.

The other issue is the fact checking failures associated with the report. According to a source with extensive knowledge of CBS News operations, of all the senior figures at CBS News and 60 Minutes, Drumheller had a “close relationship” with Bill Owens who was charged with fact checking the story. While New York notes that 60 Minutes made “no calls were made to the State Department or the FBI specifically to vet Davies’s claims,” based on the publicly available emails it would appear that CBS News’s intelligence consultant should have had no problems getting information from the highest levels of the State Department.

Finally, Media Matters -- which again, was helping to pay Blumenthal’s salary -- was quite aggressive in pushing back against the report after it initially aired. The New York Times singled out the organization led by David Brock and closely associated with the Clintons as the leading voice demanding 60 Minutes correct its report. While tenaciously defending the Clintons is much of what Media Matters does, their aggressive posture does raise questions about whether they had advance knowledge of problems with 60 Minutes’s report.

Earlier this summer, the House Benghazi committee grilled Blumenthal over his work with organizations with ties to the Clintons. Still, comparatively little is known publicly about Blumenthal, Drumheller and their “spy network” -- a task that is further complicated by Drumheller's death last month. To what extent they may have manipulated media coverage of the Benghazi scandal in order to obscure the truth and discredit critics of Clinton’s conduct as Secretary of State is unknown, but Drumheller’s role at CBS raises very disturbing questions, starting with how much Hillary Clinton herself knew about what Blumenthal and Drumheller were up to. Finally, CBS News owes viewers a full accounting of the questionable decision making process behind its Benghazi coverage and whether Drumheller may have been in a position to sway its coverage of this and other politically sensitive issues.

The Federalist

Published  4 days ago

McCabe proves that the Russia probe was always tainted and that many in the FBI and DOJ aren’t public servants, but rather incompetent attention-seekers.

MintPress News

Published  4 days ago

Pierre Omidyar has become a politically sophisticated data monarch through his purchase of a media empire and national security state ties.

I Love My Freedom

Published  4 days ago

While Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other Democrats have vowed to block President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration, a top White House adviser says the president has a secret weapon.

During an interview Sunday on Fox News, White House senior adviser Stephen Miller said that Trump will use his presidential veto power in the case that Congress passes disapproval vote of his recent declaration.

Get Your “Build The Wall” Coin For 50% Off And We’ll Send Nancy Pelosi A Foam Brick!

When asked about Democrats in Congress possibly passing a disapproval resolution, Miller said that Trump “is going to protect his national emergency declaration, guaranteed,” implying that the president will issue a veto.

Here’s more context from Business Insider:

The West Wing is digging in for fights on multiple fronts as the president’s effort to go around Congress to fund his long-promised border wall faces bipartisan criticism and multiple legal challenges.

After lawmakers in both parties blocked his requests for billions of dollars to fulfill his signature campaign pledge, Trump’s declared national emergency Friday shifts billions of federal dollars earmarked for military construction to the border.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra told ABC’s “This Week” that his state would sue “imminently” to block the order, after the American Civil Liberties Union and the nonprofit watchdog group Public Citizen announced Friday they were taking legal action.

Democrats are planning to introduce a resolution disapproving of the declaration once Congress returns to session and it is likely to pass both chambers. Several Republican senators are already indicating they would vote against Trump — though there do not yet appear to be enough votes to override a veto by the president.

The White House’s Miller insisted that Congress granted the president wide berth under the National Emergencies Act to take action. But Trump’s declaration goes beyond previous emergencies in shifting money after Congress blocked his funding request for the wall, which will likely factor in legal challenges.

While Democrats are trying everything to block Trump’s move, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh argues that the president has a strong case.

During an appearance on “Fox News Sunday,” host Chris Wallace asked Limbaugh about the president announcing on Friday that he’s declaring a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border.

The segment began with Wallace asking what’s the difference between former President Barack Obama taking executive actions and Trump doing the same to get funding for the border wall.

Wallace was attempting to ask a “gotcha question,” but Limbaugh flipped the script by detailing how there’s a real crisis at the southern border with hundreds of thousands of immigrants trying to illegally enter the U.S. every year.

Limbaugh said that Obama used executive action to fund wars and projects in the Middle East whereas Trump is trying to use funds to secure the border and combat illegal immigration.

americanthinker

Published  4 days ago

Good constitutional arguments can be made for and against President Trump's evocation of emergency powers to address the crisis at our southern border. But the notion that such a declaration would encourage a future Democratic president to do something similar borders on the comic. Democrats don't need encouragement.

Under President Barack Obama, the Constitution was violated more wantonly than a goat at a Taliban bachelor party, and the faithful cheered every violation. In early 2014, New Yorker editor and Obama groupie David Remnick wrote about his experience accompanying Obama on a west-coast fundraising tour.

At one stop, when Obama walked out on stage, "It happened again: another heckler broke into Obama's speech. A man in the balcony repeatedly shouted out, 'Executive order!' demanding that the President bypass Congress with more unilateral actions."

Obama confirmed to the audience that, yes, people did want him to sign more executive orders and "basically nullify Congress." At that point, wrote Remnick, "Many in the crowd applauded their approval. Yes! Nullify it!" These were not wild-eyed tent-dwellers on Wall or some lesser street. These were potential donors.

By 2014, Obama had successfully nullified any number of laws with negligible media objection. In February 2011, for instance, Obama and "wing man" Attorney General Eric Holder came willy-nilly to the conclusion that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was not "constitutional." President Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law in 1996 with overwhelming support from Democrats in Congress and nearly unanimous support from Republicans.

No matter. Going forward, Obama decided that the Justice Department would no longer enforce DOMA. That simple. Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley had a hard time making legal sense out of Obama's left-field decision to ignore DOMA. For one, Turley found the timing curious. The Obama administration had been defending the law for the previous two years, and the president, publicly, at least, had not changed his personal stance on redefining marriage.

For another, Obama was basing this policy change on an interpretation "that had thus far remained unsupported by direct precedent." By refusing to enforce DOMA, Obama was setting a precedent and not a good one — namely, that a president could refuse to defend a law based on a legal interpretation that no court had ever accepted.

On the subject of illegal immigration, Obama did not bother deeming existing laws unconstitutional. He chose not to enforce them because they did not poll well among Hispanic voters. It would get no deeper than that.

Since year one of the Bush administration, Congress had been trying to pass the awkwardly titled Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, better known as the DREAM Act. In a nutshell, this bill would have provided permanent residency to those illegal aliens who had arrived in the United States as minors and behaved themselves well enough not to get their mug shots plastered on the Post Office wall.

Although President Bush supported immigration reform, as did President Obama, neither the DREAM Act nor any major immigration bill made it to their desks. The reason was simple enough: no variation of such a bill could muster adequate congressional support.

In his 2006 book, Audacity of Hope, Obama praised the system of checks and balances in that it "encouraged the very process of information gathering, analysis, and argument." Once Obama ascended to the presidency, all those checks and balances just made it harder for him to transform America.

Obama's constituencies, especially labor and the Hispanic lobby, wanted action, not gathering and arguing. They started leaning on him to ignore Congress and act unilaterally. One minor obstacle stood in the way, and that was Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution. For the previous 220 years, that article had informed Congress in some detail on how to turn an idea into a law.

Obama could not enforce the DREAM Act, said constitutional scholar Nicholas Rosenkrantz, "by pretending that it passed when it did not." As late as March 2011, legal scholar Obama seemed to agree. "America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the president, am obligated to enforce the law," he told a Univision audience. "With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed."

By June 2012, what Obama said in March 2011 seemed as stale as a morning-after bowl of tortilla chips. The president had lost his taste for all that legislative analysis and argument, given that the result was "an absence of any immigration action from Congress."

Five months before the presidential election, he knew that the media would give him a pass, and he hoped Latinos would give him their vote. So he decided to dispense with debate and fix immigration policy by his own lights, confident he could make that policy "more fair, more efficient, and more just."

This fix started with presidentially guaranteed relief from deportation for the so-called "Dreamers." On top of that came the right to apply for work authorization, both guarantees in full defiance of existing federal law. "There has long been a general consensus that a president cannot refuse to enforce a law that is considered constitutionally sound," said Jonathan Turley. That chapter was apparently missing from Obama's law books.

On August 23, 2013, in a move that the major media barely noticed, the Obama administration subtly expanded the list of those who would be excluded from deportation. Deep in a nine-page memo from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement headquarters to its field offices was an order that "prosecutorial discretion" be shown to parents or guardians of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents, AKA "Dreamers."

The news scarcely troubled the media, let alone the citizenry, but at least a few Republicans noticed. "President Obama has once again abused his authority and unilaterally refused to enforce our current immigration laws," said House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte. Jonathan Turley agreed. "In ordering this blanket exception," said Turley, "President Obama was nullifying part of a law that he simply disagreed with. There is no claim of unconstitutionality." Said Rosenkrantz, "Exempting as many as 1.76 million people from the immigration laws goes far beyond any traditional conception of prosecutorial discretion."

Encouraged by the media to keep drafting laws of his own choosing, Obama made nullification a central part of his governing philosophy. "I'm eager to work with all of you," he said to Congress of the 2014 State of the Union speech. "But America does not stand still — and neither will I. So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that's what I'm going to do."

Said veteran civil libertarian Nat Hentoff, "Obama is a bad man in terms of the Constitution."

Conservative Review

Published  5 days ago

POLITICUSUSA

Published  5 days ago

It turns out that Japanese Prime Minister Abe didn’t just nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. The White House asked Abe to nominate the president.

Here is what Trump said during his rambling Friday press conference:

In fact, I think I can say this: Prime Minister Abe of Japan gave me the most beautiful copy of a letter that he sent to the people who give out a thing called the Nobel Prize. He said, “I have nominated you…” or “Respectfully, on behalf of Japan, I am asking them to give you the Nobel Peace Prize.” I said, “Thank you.” Many other people feel that way too. I’ll probably never get it, but that’s okay.

They gave it to Obama. He didn’t even know what he got it for. He was there for about 15 seconds and he got the Nobel Prize. He said, “Oh, what did I get it for?” With me, I probably will never get it.

Trump made Japanese PM Abe nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize. That is how jealous of Obama Trump is. https://t.co/iWOctzGjdS pic.twitter.com/yChZVWXxXv

— Sarah Reese Jones (@PoliticusSarah) February 17, 2019

The real story is that the White House asked Abe to nominate Trump

According to Reuters, “Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe nominated U.S. President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize last autumn after receiving a request from the U.S. government to do so, the Asahi newspaper reported on Sunday.”

Trump wasn’t nominated for the prize because that Japanese Prime Minister thought that he deserved it. Trump was nominated because his own administration asked the Japanese PM to nominate him.

Trump is insanely jealous of Obama

Trump couldn’t be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize on the basis of his own work. In fact, it could be argued that no president has done more to undermine peace without starting a war than Donald Trump. The president made it clear in his press conference. He wants a Nobel Peace Prize because Obama has one. Trump is jealous of Obama. It is why he tries to both demean Obama’s legacy, and take credit for Barack Obama’s accomplishments.

Trump’s Obama jealousy is petty and small that he arm-twisted Japan into nominating him for a Peace Prize that he should never be considered for.

Donald Trump is making the presidency smaller and less respected by the day.

For more discussion about this story join our Rachel Maddow and MSNBC group.

canadafreepress

Published  5 days ago

How long was Smollett’s “hate crime” story in the making? And more significantly how many more are on the way?

Jussie Smollett’s sisters, actresses and activists, Jurnee Smollett-Bell, and Jazz Smollett-Warwell, worked as leading campaign surrogates for former President Barack Obama, and less than a year ago, videos of Jussie dancing with Michelle Obama went viral.

Jussie Smollett’s “hate crime” story that he was attacked by two men who shouted racial and homophobic slurs at him along with the phrase “This is MAGA country”, on Jan. 29, seems to be falling apart.

According to his account, a strange chemical was thrown upon him and a rope was put around his neck.

“Two law enforcement sources with knowledge of the investigation tell CNN that Chicago Police believe actor Jussie Smollett paid two men to orchestrate an assault on him that he reported late last month.

“Smollett denies playing a role in his attack, according to a statement from his attorneys.

“The men, who are brothers, were arrested Wednesday but released without charges Friday after Chicago police cited the discovery of “new evidence.”

“The sources told CNN there are records that show the two brothers purchased the rope found around Smollett’s neck at a hardware store in Chicago.

Smollett-Bell supported her brother Jussie’s claims even after evidence seems to suggest it was an elaborately staged hoax.

On Valentine’s Day she tweeted this message of support to her brother:

Only YOU can save CFP from Social Media Suppression. Tweet, Post, Forward, Subscribe or Bookmark us

Judi McLeod -- Bio and Archives | 41 Comments

Copyright © Canada Free Press

RSS Feed for Judi McLeod

Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com.

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence and death, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban.

-- Follow these instructions on registering:

Breitbart

Published  5 days ago

Rep. Ilhan Omar is an antisemite and hating Jews is a perfectly acceptable position in today’s Democratic Party.

True Pundit

Published  5 days ago

From Jussie Smollett’s sister’s Instagram page, she admits herself and another of Jussie’s sisters worked long hours for Barack Obama during his presidential bid.

Smollett’s sisters, who are actresses and activists, Jurnee Smollett-Bell, and Jazz Smollett-Warwell, worked as leading campaign surrogates for former President Barack Obama

Smollett-Bell posted about her support for Obama on Instagram on President Donald Trump’s Inauguration Day:

“Feeling a lot of emotions. I remember meeting then Senator @barackobama 9 years ago. I’d been invited to introduce him in Nevada during the primaries. He was the underdog, the odds were stacked against him. Said he was too young, too black, too different…he was an other. I’ve always been an other so I saw myself in him. My own relative told me I was wasting my time, going state to state, knocking on doors for this guy with the funny name. I can’t tell you how many people hung the phone up on my sister @jazzsmollettwarwell and me as we clocked in our hours, phone banking. Working as if this was a full time job, I worked for free, because this work was food for my soul. They whispered that you couldn’t do it. That we couldn’t do it. And then tried to block you even when we proved them wrong. TWICE. You will go down as the greatest president who did the most with the least help from his “congressional leaders”. So I thank you for being you. Unapologetically. Your very existence demanded that I take the limits off my own. Before you, I lived in a world of boundaries and limits. You were audacious enough to dream big, and demanded we dream even bigger. So thank you for all you’ve given us. We will keep dreaming, keeping fighting, keep knocking on doors, keep traveling and spreading the gospel truth. Because it never was about you, it was about us, the “others”. Yes we can. Yes we did. Yes we will.#powertothepeople ✊🏽 #ThanksObama #tbt #mypresident

Smollett-Bell supported her brother Jussie’s claims even after evidence seems to suggest it was an elaborately staged hoax. READ MORE:

I Love My Freedom

Published  5 days ago

Former President Barack Obama's daughter, Malia Obama, haS a secret Facebook page where she described President Trump as "evil" and exchanged messages with Former Vice President Joe Biden's granddaughter, Finnegan Biden. It appears that the Facebook

Fox News

Published  5 days ago

That was the official finding in February 2018 of a scathing 39-page report by the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General. They found McCabe, then Deputy Director of Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) "lacked candor" in answering questions about his authorization of disclosures in the Hillary Clinton email investigation. The referral for further action went to the DOJ.

GRAHAM CALLS MCCABE COMMENTS 'BEYOND STUNNING' AS HE THREATENS TO SUBPOENA FORMER FBI CHIEF

One year later he is publishing a book, being highlighted on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” and walking free after lying at least four times, three of them under oath, to federal authorities investigating his conduct. Trading on the notoriety he gained from his partisan loyalty, he will now have the opportunity to monetize the duplicity that shielded Hillary Clinton from justice.

For a time, McCabe was the acting director of the FBI. He of all people knew the rules, the law, and had a duty and responsiblity to tell the truth.

In stark contrast, the subjects of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigations have been shown no such favor. Several are being prosecuted for lying to federal authorities. Much to my surprise, Mueller actually managed to get the DOJ to prosecute someone for lying to Congress – former Trump attorney Michael Cohen. That is a promising development.

People who lie to Congress should be prosecuted. But not selectively. We seem to live in a world with two sets of rules – one for loyal Democrat partisans, and a strict one for everyone else, especially those who supported Donald Trump.

If ever there was a case that demands prosecution, McCabe's is that case. For an FBI employee, integrity and credibility are the most important tools of the trade. How can one testify credibly if they have been shown to "lack candor" – in FBI parlance – in other cases?

The Inspector General in its February 2018 report provided the DOJ with mounds of evidence, including audio recordings, detailing how McCabe lacked candor “in a manner designed to advance his personal interests at the expense of Department leadership.”

For a time, McCabe was the acting director of the FBI. He of all people knew the rules, the law, and had a duty and responsiblity to tell the truth. And yet his own colleagues found he lied. In fact, he accomplished something federal employees rarely accomplish - he was ultimately fired for his offenses.

Now he’s on a book tour. He should be under prosecution.

Jason Chaffetz is a Fox News contributor who was the chairman of the U.S. House Oversight Committee when he served as a representative from Utah. He is the author of "The Deep State: How an Army of Bureaucrats Protected Barack Obama and is Working to Destroy the Trump Agenda."

Chicago Sun-Times

Published  5 days ago

The last of four people charged with hate crimes in the 2017 beating of a mentally disabled suburban teen was sentenced on Thursday to seven years in prison.

Tesfaye Cooper, 20, like his three co-defendants, had faced more than 50 felony counts following his arrest in the kidnapping and assault case that captured national attention in the weeks following President Donald Trump’s election victory.

Video of Cooper and co-defendant Jordan Hill taunting and hitting their victim –– a white teen who was a former classmate of Hill’s at a suburban alternative high school –– was live-streamed on Facebook and became the subject of frenzied internet debate, Cook County Judge William Hooks reminded Cooper before handing down sentence.

“A young lawyer I met a long time ago … his name was Barack Obama, he even had the fine occasion to make mention this (case),” Hooks said, referring to televised comments the then-president made in interviews.

“Do you know about that?”

Cooper, who has been jailed since January 2017, mumbled “no.”

“Well, he did,” Hooks said.

Cooper’s sentence is a year shorter than the 8-year term received by Hill, who admitted to sending text messages to the victim’s mother demanding $300 for his safe return.

The two-day ordeal began after Hill and the victim agreed to meet a McDonald’s in Streamwood. Hill and the teen stole a truck from from a lot in the suburb and eventually drove to the Chicago apartment of Tanishia Covington and her sister, Brittany. There, they were also joined by Cooper.

Cooper, Hill and Tanishia Covington and the victim drank and smoked marijuana before a “play fight” between Hill and the victim, who is schizophrenic, escalated, police said. By the time Brittany Covington began livestreaming, the teen was tied to a radiator, with duct tape over his mouth.

At one point, Hill cuts the victim’s clothes and hair with a knife, nicking his scalp. Among the taunts shouted at him were orders to say “I love black people” and “F— Trump.” Later, prosecutors said the teen was forced to drink water from a toilet bowl and lick the floor.

Cooper, who grew up in suburban Streamwood and Hoffman Estates, has no prior criminal record.

Hill also had no felony convictions, but police records from his hometown of Streamwood show a long history of minor encounters with police.

Tanishia Covington, 26, the oldest of the defendants, suffered from depression and had endured a litany of tragic events in her childhood, including the dire medical condition of her son, who was born shortly before her arrest and has been hospitalized with a congenital condition. She received a 3-year prison sentence. Brittany Covington, who had just turned 18 at the time of her arrest, had no criminal record. She spent 10 months in jail before she was released on a probation-only sentence.

The victim was not present in court on Thursday, but his sister and brother in-law met with the judge for several minutes in chambers before the hearing began. The victim’s family has reached out to social service agencies, hoping to secure services for the four defendants in prison and upon their release.

“They’re interested in making sure that when you go away that there are some resources that are available that will help you,” Hooks said. “To make you understand that hatred is not something that is going to be a possibility for you when you get out.”

One person who has worked with the victim and his family said their lobbying to get social services for the four defendants was “unprecedented” and surprising, given the furor the videos generated on social media.

“The internet would be very surprised by how this family has responded to what happened,” that person said.

NBC 7 San Diego

Published  5 days ago

The public housing development where Zeituni Onyango, 56, a native of Kenya, has since January resided stands on Flaherty Way in Boston. Getty Images/Darren McCollester Untold thousands of illegal immigrants live in public housing at a time when hundreds of thousands of citizens and legal residents are stuck waiting years for a spot. Illegal immigrants make up a tiny portion of the 7.1 million people in federal housing, according to government statistics. But authorities may be unaware of thousands more,

I Love My Freedom

Published  5 days ago

A prominent legal scholar has argued that old skeletons in former President Barack Obama’s closet will give President Donald Trump huge leverage in his legal battle for the border wall.

Fox News legal expert Jonathan Turley published an op-ed for The Hill titled, “Why Trump will win the wall fight,” where he makes a strong case as to why Trump will prevail in the courts after declaring a national emergency at the border last Friday.

Get Your “Build The Wall” Coin For 50% Off And We’ll Send Nancy Pelosi A Foam Brick!

Turley wrote:

In the matter of the border wall, Congress could not have been more clear where it was heading. It has long put itself on the path to institutional irrelevancy, and it has finally arrived. While I do not agree that there is a national emergency on the southern border, I do believe President Trump will prevail.

VOTE NOW: Should Pelosi Be REMOVED From Office?

Turley went on to detail previous precedent set decades ago that the executive branch as the legal authority under the U.S. Constitution to declare national emergencies.

In 1976, however, Congress gave presidents sweeping authority to declare national emergencies under the National Emergencies Act. While this law allows for an override by Congress, the authority to declare a national emergency is virtually unfettered. It is one of many such laws where Congress created the thin veneer of a process for presidential power that, in reality, was a virtual blank slate.

At the same time, Congress has continued to give the executive branch billions of dollars with few conditions or limitations. That is why President Obama was able not only to go to war in Libya without a declaration but to fund the entire war from billions of undedicated funds.

Turley then details the court precedent that Democrats will rely on if they sue Trump, which they have argued they will do.

VOTER POLL: Do You Support Trump’s NATIONAL EMERGENCY To Build The Wall?

Turley writes that a previous case involving Obama a few years ago laid the framework for Trump to prevail in court in the border wall fight.

Democrats have indicated they will rely on the ruling in House of Representatives versus Sylvia Burwell, in which a court not only ruled that the House of Representatives had standing to sue over executive overreach but that Obama violated the Constitution in ordering the payment of billions to insurance companies without authorization from Congress.

I was the lead counsel for the House of Representatives in that case. Ironically, Pelosi vehemently opposed the litigation as a frivolous and unfounded challenge to presidential authority. We won.

Superficially, the Burwell case may look like the current controversy. Obama sought funds from Congress and, when unsuccessful, acted unilaterally. The difference is that Obama ordered the money directly from the Treasury as a permanent appropriation, like the money used annually to pay tax refunds. Congress never approved such payments.

Conversely, Trump is using appropriated funds. Like the authority under the National Emergencies Act, Congress gave this money to the executive branch without meaningful limits. Trump now has more than $1.3 billion in newly approved funds for border protection. He has identified about $8 billion in loosely dedicated funds for military construction, drug interdiction and forfeitures. Even if a court disagreed with the use of some of this money, Trump has the authority and funds to start major construction of the wall.

Turley rounds out his piece arguing that Democrats will “fail in spectacular fashion if the case gets to the Supreme Court.”

If it plays out that way, the White House has estimated that Trump will use around $8 billion from emergencies and couple it with the $1.375 billion in the recently signed congressional spending deal.

So, Trump is looking to use around $9.4 billion toward the wall, which could build roughly half of it on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Breitbart

Published  5 days ago

A New York Times' article shows President Donald Trump's border security reforms are successfully curbing the northward flow of migrants.

www.independentsentinel.com

Published  5 days ago

Two criminal donors to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, CNN, Bob Menendez, and other congressional Democrats have been detained by ICE.

Roberto and William Isaias, 74, and 75 were detained Wednesday in Miami. They are undocumented according to the New York Times. They were big Democrat donors which is not surprising given the incestuous relationship between Democrats and illegal aliens.

The family gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to politicians and about $300,000 to Democrat politicians alone. They reached out to Hillary through Cheryl Mills, according to the New York Times.

The State Department under Clinton expedited their immigration into the U.S. after they fled Ecuadorean justice. They donated to Hillary’s campaign.

Once the Isaias tribe, including their extended family, were in the States, the Clinton State Department would not extradite them despite repeated requests from Ecuador.

Obama received a nearly $100,000 check for his victory fund from these foreign criminals.

After they donated to Obama, the corrupt Department of Justice rejected Ecuador’s request for extradition.

In 2012, Isaias relatives gave $100,000 to the Democrat Party, even though one of the family, Estefania, smuggled maids into the country illegally. There are fraud allegations as well. She still lives in the United States.

Menendez took money from them and pleaded on their behalf with Immigration in at least five letters. He said he sends hundreds of letters like that.

CNN had a short-lived relationship with son Luis in a joint partnership in CNN Latino but it was canceled.

The Isaias family are also owners of DaVinci Biosciences and DV Biologics which worked illegally with Planned Parenthood to collect and sell baby body parts. Read about that on the link below.

THEY’RE FLESH PEDDLERS, SMUGGLERS, AND THIEVES

The Isaías brothers were convicted in 2012 of embezzlement by an Ecuadorean court and sentenced to prison terms in absentia since they had been living in South Florida for nearly a decade.

They claim they are innocent. In that case, they need to go home and clear their names and stay there.

The Ecuadorean government alleges they cost the nation $400 million, some reports say more than $600 million, and have sought their extradition for years.

Chicks On The Right — Young Conservatives

Published  6 days ago

Remember what Sen. Cory Booker called the news of the alleged attack on Empire actor Jussie Smollett shortly after the news broke?

He called it a “modern-day lynching” and used it as an argument to push an anti-lynching bill which he is trying to get through Congress.

So what did he say now after reports that Smollett may have been involved in helping to stage the attack?

AP reporter Elana Schor asked him.

And now, all of a sudden, he says he’s going to wait to comment. “The information is still coming out and I’m going to withhold until all the information comes out.”

You were quick to jump in right after it happened, so why the hesitancy now?

He then tries to avoid the subject, saying bigoted and biased attacks are on the rise and that they are primarily from “right-wing” or “white supremacists.” Then he cites South Carolina which happened under Barack Obama.

He doesn’t say it’s wrong to falsely make a hate crime claim or note the multiple false hate crime claims against Trump supporters/MAGA hat wearing people as was alleged in this case, with the “MAGA country” claim, or the Covington Catholic kids. He just tries to deflect.

Yes, you should call out and condemn all hate crimes.

But you should also call out fake hate crimes and not further cause divisiveness, as he did, by jumping on a case before you actually know the facts, particularly when there were questions from the beginning.

Fox News

Published  6 days ago

President Trump's "national emergency" declaration to complete construction of his multibillion-dollar wall along the U.S.-Mexico border came as a shock to some Americans, though the commander-in-chief previously discussed the possibility of taking other executive actions to secure funds during the partial government shutdown in January.

True Pundit

Published  6 days ago

President Donald Trump said Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe nominated him for a Nobel Peace Prize in “the most beautiful five-page letter” while speaking in the White House Rose Garden Friday.

Trump said his talks with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un were the basis for Abe’s reported recommendation.

“Where are we now? No missiles, no rockets, no nuclear testing,” Trump said. “We’ve learned a lot. But much more importantly than all of it — much more important, much, much more important than that, is we have a great relationship. I have a very good relationship with Kim Jong Un. I’ve done a good job.”

“Prime Minister Abe of Japan gave me the most beautiful copy of a letter that he sent to the people who give out a thing called the Nobel Prize,” Trump continued. “He said, ‘I have nominated you respectfully on behalf of Japan. I am asking them to give you the Nobel Peace Prize.‘ I said, thank you. Many other people feel that way, too.”

Trump was the first U.S. president to meet with a North Korean leader when he and Kim held a one-on-one summit in Singapore in June. Trump is scheduled to meet with Kim for a two-day summit in Vietnam to discuss denuclearization at the end of February, reported Politico.

Trump added that he believed former President Barack Obama “would have gone to war with North Korea” during his term. Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people” in 2009.

“I’ll probably never get it,” Trump said Friday. “But that’s okay. They gave it to Obama. He didn’t even know what he got it for. He was there for 15 seconds, and he got the Nobel Prize. He said, ‘Oh what did I get it for?’ With me, I probably will never get it.”

The Trump administration’s positive assessment of its nuclear diplomacy with North Korea was cast into doubt after commercial satellite photo analysis showed in November that the country continues to develop ballistic missiles at a previously unconfirmed network of secret bases.

North Korea insisted through an individual identified only as Jong Hyon that the U.S. remove “all elements of nuclear threats from the areas of both the north and the south of Korea and also from surrounding areas from where the Korean Peninsula is targeted” in December.

South Korean President Moon Jae-in said Trump deserved the Nobel Peace Prize for his work with North Korea, a South Korean official said in April according to Reuters.

A spokesman for the Japanese Embassy in the U.S. was not able to comment to The Daily Caller News Foundation about Trump’s claims.

dailycaller

Published  6 days ago

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi argued in the past that the government should not support groups that advocate for or perform abortions, but her position, along with those of a large cohort of Democrats, has changed dramatically.

“No funds could go to organizations that in the course of family planning advocate, promote or perform abortions,” Pelosi said on the House floor Oct. 7, 1997 in support of a “Global Gag Rule,” also known as the Mexico City Policy, mandating that overseas organizations receiving U.S. aid do not promote abortion.

Now Pelosi calls a ban on late-term abortions a sad event. “It’s really quite a sad thing when you know that we’ll be talking about something that applies to the health and life, health and ability to have other children of women,” she told The Daily Caller Feb. 6.

A number of Democrats in 2019 have lauded late-term abortion as a women’s prerogative and introduced measures aimed at permitting women to have abortions until birth.

Virginia Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam made remarks in January appearing to condone infanticide and late-term abortion. His comments centered around Virginia Democratic Delegate Kathy Tran‘s proposal, HB 2491, which would repeal the state’s current restrictions on late-term abortions and allow a woman to abort her baby even while dilating.

New York passed the Reproductive Health Act Jan. 22 codifying a woman’s right to abort under state law and allowing women to have abortions after 24 weeks to preserve the mother’s mental health. Maryland, Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont and New Mexico are also considering similar bills expanding abortion access.

Merely a decade ago, Democrats held a very different stance on abortion. “With respect to partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise,” former President Barack Obama said at a presidential debate in New York on Oct. 15, 2008. (RELATED: Capitol Hill Democrats Respond To Late-Term Abortion Debate Within Party)

“We can support a woman’s right to choose that makes abortion safe, legal, and rare, and reduces the number of abortions,” former Democratic presidential nominee and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said July 25, 2005 in an address to the Democratic Leadership Council.

“Washington Democrats embrace of partial birth abortion puts them well outside the mainstream, and it is another sign of the Democrat Party’s drastic move to the radical left,” Republican National Committee spokesman Steve Guest told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an email Friday.

Seventy-five percent of Americans support significant abortion restrictions and say abortion should not be legal after a woman is three months pregnant, according to a Jan. 15 Marist poll.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Breitbart

Published  6 days ago

Radio host Mark Levin used his Thursday evening show to outline the known steps taken by President Barack Obama’s administration in its last months to undermine Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and, later, his new administration.

Levin called Obama’s effort “police state” tactics, and suggested that Obama’s actions, rather than conspiracy theories about alleged Russian interference in the presidential election to help Trump, should be the target of congressional investigation.

Drawing on sources including the New York Times and the Washington Post, Levin described the case against Obama so far, based on what is already publicly known. The following is an expanded version of that case, including events that Levin did not mention specifically but are important to the overall timeline.

1. June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.

2. July: Russia joke. Wikileaks releases emails from the Democratic National Committee that show an effort to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) from winning the presidential nomination. In a press conference, Donald Trump refers to Hillary Clinton’s own missing emails, joking: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing.” That remark becomes the basis for accusations by Clinton and the media that Trump invited further hacking.

3. October: Podesta emails. In October, Wikileaks releases the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, rolling out batches every day until the election, creating new mini-scandals. The Clinton campaign blames Trump and the Russians.

4. October: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.

5. January 2017: Buzzfeed/CNN dossier. Buzzfeed releases, and CNN reports, a supposed intelligence “dossier” compiled by a foreign former spy. It purports to show continuous contact between Russia and the Trump campaign, and says that the Russians have compromising information about Trump. None of the allegations can be verified and some are proven false. Several media outlets claim that they had been aware of the dossier for months and that it had been circulating in Washington.

6. January: Obama expands NSA sharing. As Michael Walsh later notes, and as the New York Times reports, the outgoing Obama administration “expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.” The new powers, and reduced protections, could make it easier for intelligence on private citizens to be circulated improperly or leaked.

7. January: Times report. The New York Times reports, on the eve of Inauguration Day, that several agencies — the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Treasury Department are monitoring several associates of the Trump campaign suspected of Russian ties. Other news outlets also report the exisentence of “a multiagency working group to coordinate investigations across the government,” though it is unclear how they found out, since the investigations would have been secret and involved classified information.

8. February: Mike Flynn scandal. Reports emerge that the FBI intercepted a conversation in 2016 between future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — then a private citizen — and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The intercept supposedly was part of routine spying on the ambassador, not monitoring of the Trump campaign. The FBI transcripts reportedly show the two discussing Obama’s newly-imposed sanctions on Russia, though Flynn earlier denied discussing them. Sally Yates, whom Trump would later fire as acting Attorney General for insubordination, is involved in the investigation. In the end, Flynn resigns over having misled Vice President Mike Pence (perhaps inadvertently) about the content of the conversation.

9. February: Times claims extensive Russian contacts. The New York Times cites “four current and former American officials” in reporting that the Trump campaign had “repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials. The Trump campaign denies the claims — and the Times admits that there is “no evidence” of coordination between the campaign and the Russians. The White House and some congressional Republicans begin to raise questions about illegal intelligence leaks.

10. March: the Washington Post targets Jeff Sessions. The Washington Post reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had contact twice with the Russian ambassador during the campaign — once at a Heritage Foundation event and once at a meeting in Sessions’s Senate office. The Post suggests that the two meetings contradict Sessions’s testimony at his confirmation hearings that he had no contacts with the Russians, though in context (not presented by the Post) it was clear he meant in his capacity as a campaign surrogate, and that he was responding to claims in the “dossier” of ongoing contacts. The New York Times, in covering the story, adds that the Obama White House “rushed to preserve” intelligence related to alleged Russian links with the Trump campaign. By “preserve” it really means “disseminate”: officials spread evidence throughout other government agencies “to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators” and perhaps the media as well.

In summary: the Obama administration sought, and eventually obtained, authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign; continued monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found; then relaxed the NSA rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within the government, virtually ensuring that the information, including the conversations of private citizens, would be leaked to the media.

Levin called the effort a “silent coup” by the Obama administration and demanded that it be investigated.

In addition, Levin castigated Republicans in Congress for focusing their attention on Trump and Attorney General Sessions rather than Obama.

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.

I Love My Freedom

Published  6 days ago

Like most Americans in the know assumed, President Trump declared a national emergency at the southern border after Democrats refused to compromise. Sure, Dems gave Trump just over $1 billion for border security and 55-miles

Mail Online

Published  6 days ago

Chicago police want to speak to Jussie Smollett as investigators believe he paid two men - Olabinjo Osundairo (top inset) and Abimbola Osundairo (bottom inset) - to stage an assault against him.

The Independent

Published  6 days ago

Iran is planning a “new Holocaust” to destroy Israel, US vice president Mike Pence claimed at a summit on peace and security in the Middle East. “The Iranian regime openly advocates another Holocaust

David Harris Jr

Published  6 days ago

Steve Rattner, the man Obama made CEO of General Motors, has decided to call out AOC on her celebration over killing 25,000 jobs for New York City. Rattner pointed out that New York was not going to be handing Amazon 3 billion dollars. He pointed out that although Amazon would be forgiven the first $3 billion in taxes, there would be 25,000 employees averaging $150,000 a year in income. That means NYC and state do not get to tax that 3.75 billion in income or see those 25,000 jobs and 100,000 ancillary jobs get created. Now, they don’t get the jobs or the income tax money, and they still don’t get the billion dollars in deferred taxes.

She has her share of detractors, but it is not just people on the right who think that what Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proposes would be disastrous for America.

Her latest critic was a member of former President Barack Obama’s administration.

So, what New York Times contributing writer Steven Rattner had to say about one of the New York Democrat’s latest tweets should carry a lot of weight on both sides of the aisle.

“This may be the most economically ignorant statement I have ever read,” the former lead adviser to Obama’s 2009 Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry tweeted Friday.

“Medicare for All. The Green New Deal. Free college tuition,” Rattner wrote. “With each new entrant into the Democratic presidential sweepstakes comes a fresh cascade of ambitious social programs to entice and excite would-be supporters.”

On the other side of the balance sheet, he argued, there just isn’t enough new revenue make the new American socialism work.

Let’s go:

‘We’re starting a 15-city tour + a 50-State campaign, starting in early primary states, to build political and public support for a Green New Deal.’ – @sunrisemvmt#ThisIsWhatDemocracyLooksLike ⬇️ https://t.co/bFs1nozd6e

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) February 14, 2019

My book is here! And I personally handed a copy to our President at the White House!!! I hope you enjoy it @realDonaldTrump!

Follow David on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Patreon and YouTube @DavidJHarrisJr

Time

Published  6 days ago

From the 6-year-old millionaire to the style icon who isn't actually real

americanthinker

Published  6 days ago

President Trump has demanded that Ilhan Omar voluntarily resign. The idea of impeachment of another Muslim Democratic congresswoman – Rashida Tlaib (Michigan) is also being actively promoted.

The events surrounding Ilhan Omar, of course, are a shame for America. The anti-Semitic focus of her recent statements is obvious. However, this does not mean that President Trump has an urgent need to intervene in the process of natural political selection and demand the resignation of an anti-Semitic congresswoman.

Trump's intervention in the natural self-destruction of the Democratic Party is a strategic mistake. People who in some exceptional circumstances make not rational, but impulsive decisions, are understandable, but concerning these two brainless members of Congress and their third friend – young socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from New York – there should be a completely different approach.

By its actions, this trinity guarantees the Democratic Party a very tarnished reputation. Moreover, the longer these ladies will stay in Congress, the more chances America has for an optimistic forecast.

It seems that in January 2019, someone pressed a switch and turned off the brains of the Democrats. Currently, there is chaos and confusion in their minds. For example, they shout that President Trump is a puppet of Russia (which means that Trump, submitting to the Kremlin, must pursue a pro-Russian policy). However, if they really believe this, then the Democrats must demand the exact opposite – a tough stance towards Russia.

Instead, they oppose Trump’s harsh policy toward Russia and condemn Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Democrats must decide whether they support Trump’s position on Russia or if they condemn it. They cannot both approve and condemn Trump’s policy toward Russia at the same time. (Well, they can. However, then from a clinical point of view, the Democrats’ only diagnosis is cognitive dissonance.)

Turning off the brains of American Democrats is not solely happening at the federal level. Do New York Democrats not understand that legally authorizing abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy is a political nightmare? Did none of them think about the consequences of the fact that now, thanks to the Democrats, abortions in New York can be done by any person, and not just by a licensed phsyician? Is it a symptom of mass psychosis or a mass (D)ebilism? Moreover, this criticism does not even touch the moral, religious or legal side of abortion, but only the political side of it.

Anti-Semitism and racism of the modern Democratic Party of the USA have well-known and deep roots. The Democratic Party is the creator of the KKK and the author of the Jim Crow laws. It was the Democratic Administration of President Roosevelt that turned away a ship with Jewish refugees in 1939. A vital role in the refusal of Jewish refugees to go ashore in America was played by Secretary of State Cordell Hull (by the way, it was with him that the shameful history of the undeserved Nobel Peace Prizes began).

It was the Democrats who threw U.S. citizens of Japanese descent into concentration camps during World War II. It was the Democrats who became famous for the systematic persecution and extermination of North American Indians. It was the Democrats who were the party of slave owners.

Therefore, the open anti-Semitism of Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar should not surprise anybody. It should not be a shock that the former head of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke, in February 2017 supported the Muslim (and anti-Semite) Keith Ellison to head the DNC, and in February 2019 openly supported Ilhan Omar in her series of anti-Semitic tweets. Support for her was also expressed by the chief adviser and closest friend of Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett.

The racist scandal of the three top Democrat office holders in the state of Virginia should have ended in 24 hours – the governor should have resigned. A week later, no one in the media would remember this annoying incident, and in a year almost no voter would remember it, and this would not have affected the 2020 election. However, the Democrats have their brains turned off, and the Republicans are wisely silent, and as a result, the Democrats, to their horror, continue to tear each other apart.

Do the events in Virginia not give everyone a vivid example of what the correct position should be when one’s political opponents are digging a hole for themselves?

Do none of the present inhabitants of the White House know the phrase (which is attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte): “Never interrupt your opponent when he makes a mistake”?

Does President Trump want to deprive American politics of the remarkable socialistic useful idiots who, in their Green New Deal, propose eliminating the entire aviation industry, the entire oil and gas industry, and ultimately stopping meat production? Doesn't anyone understand that Senator Cory “Spartacus” Booker's militant vegetarianism is not a winning strategy for presidential elections?

Doesn’t President Trump not see that the new House of Representatives, in which the Democrats are the majority now, has handed a vast amount of political ammunition to Republicans within just a few weeks after coming to power? Moreover, they did it for free.

Let us hope that in the end, Trump will correct this mistake.

The brainless socialistic women’s trinity should not be expelled from Congress. They should be silently encouraged and allowed to self-destruct not only themselves but their entire party with impunity.

Americans should stock up on popcorn.

Gary Gindler, Ph.D., is a conservative blogger at Gary Gindler Chronicles. Follow him on Twitter.

The Federalist

Published  6 days ago

McCabe proves that the Russia probe was always tainted and that many in the FBI and DOJ aren’t public servants, but rather incompetent attention-seekers.

I Love My Freedom

Published  6 days ago

Democrats are melting down after President Trump declared a national emergency on Friday despite the fact that they had no objection when Barack Obama similarly exercised his executive power on multiple occasions during his tenure.

Following weeks of warnings about his intent to do so in order to circumvent Nancy Pelosi’s obstructionism and refusal to protect Americans, the president followed through during a rose garden announcement during which, he entertained questions from the press.

Trump’s announcement set off the predictable hysteria and cavalcade of exploding celebrity heads and lawsuits have already been filed as Dems are determined to prevent the construction of a border wall.

VOTE NOW: Do You Support Trump’s NATIONAL EMERGENCY To Build The Wall?

Some are even calling for civil insurrection by urging Americans to take to the streets in protest of Trump’s “fake” national emergency.

And when it comes to cranking up the crazy, there few who are more accomplished at ginning up mass hysteria than Rep. Maxine Waters.

The octogenarian who some believe may be the most corrupt member of Congress has a deep-seated loathing for Trump that can’t simply be explained away by partisan hostility and some might suggest that she truly hates the POTUS because of his skin color and that he serves as a convenient proxy for all white people.

Auntie Maxine issued her call to arms during Friday night’s “All In With Chris Hayes” where she inveighed against Trump and called for the resistance to take to the streets.

Rep. Maxine Waters: "All hands on deck" against Trump https://t.co/OtkpGJB5O0

— All In w/Chris Hayes (@allinwithchris) February 16, 2019

According to the goofy granny with the James Brown Hair.

“I really expect we’re going to have a growing number of Republicans that are going to join with us in this disapproval. Yes, they’re concerned if a Democratic president gets elected then they can use emergency powers to do a lot of the things they don’t like. As you know, they don’t believe in climate change. They don’t want us to talk about Medicare for all or any of those subjects they think we’ll spend too much government money, even though they’ve created the largest debt we’ve seen in government for many many years.”

“I’ve been talking about impeachment for a long time. I’m absolutely stunned and amazed that the American people have taken so much off of this president. This president has lied, I think it’s been documented, 8,000 times in the last two years. This president has committed obstruction of justice right before our very eyes. And if we could ever get Manafort to tell the truth, then we will find they conspired to get Trump elected so sanctions could be lifted off of Russia.

President Obama created sanctions, placed them on Russia, because of their invasion, basically in Crimea, and they can’t drill into the Arctic, do some of these things they want to do. They don’t have the equipment. Our allies are working with us to honor the sanctions, and that’s what this is all about. The Americans have taken too much off of this president. He is dishonorable. He does not deserve to be president of the United States. As a matter of fact, he loves Putin, dictators, loves Kim Jong-un, talking about they’re in love now.”

“And so it’s time for everybody to stand up. All hands on deck to refuse this president these fake emergency powers that he would like the have. And so I’m urging everybody get together —rally in every community across this country all this weekend, send a message to Washington, D.C., ‘No, Mr. President, we’re not going allow you to do this.”

Watch it HERE.

POLL: Does Trump have your vote in 2020?

This sort of dangerous rhetoric continues to be spewed by leading Democrats but especially by Waters who last summer called for attacks on members of the Trump administration in public places but absent any sort of leadership, they will continue to push the envelope since they no longer have any respect for the legitimate democratic process – only the rule of the mob.

Maybe if Waters and her ilk eventually succeed in triggering a civil insurrection then Trump can declare another national emergency to restore order but that may not turn out very well for the so-called Resistance.

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

Key figures from Trump's base are pushing for him to nominate Richard Grenell to be the next U.S. Ambassador to the UN.

Mail Online

Published  1 week ago

CBS cut away from Donald Trump's televised addressed to return to the 'Price is Right' which is normally broadcast at that time.

All of the broadcast and cable news networks carried the declaration and press conference that followed on Friday afternoon.

Only CBS decided to cut away after 21 minutes before the event was finished, The Hill reported.

Trump was speaking on Friday morning from the Rose Garden of the White House to announce he was declaring a national emergency at the border to build barriers to guard against illegal immigration.

'I am going to be signing a national emergency,' Trump said after the announcement was delayed from its original 10.30am start.

'It’s a great thing to do because we have an invasion of drugs, invasion of gangs, invasion of people,' the president said in seeking to justify the need for an emergency declaration.

The networks confirmed that they would carry the speech, which comes amidst the ongoing partial government shutdown, on Thursday.

Four years ago, all the broadcast networks declined to air a prime-time address on immigration from President Barack Obama because its content was considered too 'overtly political.'

CBS News reported that the White House has assured the network Trump’s speech will run no longer than eight minutes.

Trump started to speak at 1.10pm and finished at 2pm, which meant the speech was longer than expected.

On Monday Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement saying the Democrats must immediately be given equal airtime' and claiming Trump's address will likely be filled with 'malice and misinformation.'

Trump announced a national emergency on the border on Friday, a move calculated to allow him to spend $8 billion building his wall after signing a bill to avoid a second government shutdown after a bitter standoff with Congress.

Pelosi and Schumer claimed in a joint statement that there is no 'crisis' on the U.S.-Mexico border, and threatened to defend the spending power of Congress with every tool at their command.

'The President's unlawful declaration over a crisis that does not exist does great violence to our Constitution and makes America less safe, stealing from urgently needed defense funds for the security of our military and our nation,' they said.

'This is plainly a power grab by a disappointed President, who has gone outside the bounds of the law to try to get what he failed to achieve in the constitutional legislative process.'

100PercentFedUp.com

Published  1 week ago

Earlier today, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders tweeted a photo of President Trump signing an Declaration for a National Emergency. Sanders explained that the declaration was necessary because of the “national security and humanitarian crisis” on our southern border. The national emergency declaration is being widely criticized by leaders in the Democrat Party, as well as their allies in the media. Even some in the Republican Party are opposed to President Trump taking this drastic measure as a last resort to fund a wall on our southern border.

According to ABC News – The president explained his highly controversial move in a Rose Garden announcement, saying “We’re going to confront the national security crisis on our southern border and we’re going to do it one way or the other.”

President @realDonaldTrump signs the Declaration for a National Emergency to address the national security and humanitarian crisis at the Southern Border. pic.twitter.com/0bUhudtwvS

— Sarah Sanders (@PressSec) February 15, 2019

The president’s emergency declaration order and other executive actions come on the heels of warnings from the Justice Department that the moves are nearly certain to be blocked by court challenges, at least temporarily.

President Trump directly acknowledged that he expects the emergency order will be challenged in the court system, predicting how the battle will play out and that he will ultimately prevail at the Supreme Court.

“We will have a national emergency and we will then be sued and they will sue us in the Ninth Circuit even though it shouldn’t be there, and we will possibly get a bad ruling, and then we’ll get another bad ruling, and then we’ll end up in the Supreme Court, and hopefully we’ll get a fair shake and we’ll win in the Supreme Court just like the [travel] ban,” Trump said.

President Trump: "We will have a national emergency and we will then be sued, and they will sue us in the 9th Circuit, even though it shouldn't be there, and we will possibly get a bad ruling and then we'll get another bad ruling and then we'll end up in the Supreme Court…" pic.twitter.com/pYvliSM14b

According to Western Journal– Declaring a “national emergency” on the southern U.S. border would activate certain presidential authorities as specified in the National Emergencies Act of 1974, and would allow the president the flexibility to shift previously appropriated funds from other departments and agencies toward the construction of a border wall.

Of course, most Democrats cried foul at the notion and dismissed Trump’s authority to do so as non-existent, and such a move would inevitably draw immediate legal challenges, but Trump would actually be on solid legal footing. He also would not be the only president to make use of the National Emergencies Act to do what Congress can’t or won’t do.

The National Emergencies Act of 1974 empowers the President to activate special powers during a crisis. Congress can undo a state of emergency declaration, but it would likely require a veto-proof majority, which is unlikely to come from the Republican-controlled Senate.

There were a total of six national emergencies during former President Ronald Reagan’s tenure, as well as four more during the administration of former President George H.W. Bush, all of which have ended.

Former President Bill Clinton declared 17 national emergencies — six of which remain in effect — while former President George W. Bush declared 12 national emergencies, of which 10 remain ongoing.

Then we get to former President Barack Obama, who declared 13 national emergencies, 11 of which continue to this day. Thus far, President Trump has declared three active and ongoing national emergencies.

Presidents declaring national emergencies is not some extraordinary or unusual thing, and Trump is fully within his rights under the law to do so if necessary.

Interestingly, it is the nature of the declared emergencies — particularly with regard to Trump and Obama — that can be somewhat gleaned from the accompanying list of titles for the 31 active national emergencies.

First, let’s look at the subjects of Trump’s three national emergencies, which block the property of individuals involved in “serious human rights abuses and corruption,” impose sanctions on those who interfere in U.S. elections, and block the property of individuals destabilizing Nicaragua. Two of those are focused on protecting America and American citizens and institutions, while one is focused on a foreign nation.

Of Obama’s 11 continuing national emergencies, nine of them were focused exclusively on foreign nations, while only one seemed focused on protecting America — a declaration aimed at punishing individuals “engaging in significant malicious cyber-enabled activities.”

Obama utilized his Congressional-authorized national emergency powers to deal with problems in foreign nations, the bulk of which have proven ineffective and wasteful in terms of time and money.

Trump wants to use his presidential powers to help better the United States of America by making it a more secure place, while Obama used his powers to try and help the situations in foreign nations. The glaring difference between those priorities is quite telling — as is the staunch opposition to Trump’s doing so by Obama’s fellow Democrats.

breakingnews

Published  1 week ago

At a White House event to discuss the proposed border wall, Mr Trump spoke about his upcoming summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Vietnam.

The president said early exchanges with Mr Kim were filled with “fire and fury” but since their first meeting last year, the two have established a good relationship.

Mr Trump said Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe “gave me the most beautiful copy of a letter that he sent to the people who give out a thing called the Nobel Prize.

“He said, ‘I have nominated you, respectfully, on behalf of Japan. I am asking them to give you the Nobel Peace Prize.'”

South Korean President Moon Jae-in, who has also credited Mr Trump with starting negotiations with North Korea, has endorsed him for the prize as well.

In 2009, President Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize for laying out the US commitment to “seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons”.

“I’ll probably never get it, but that’s OK,” Mr Trump said. “They gave it to Obama. He didn’t even know what he got it for.”

- Press Association

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 week ago

President Trump declared a State of Emergency at the US southern border on Friday.

Declaring the immigration crisis a national emergency was overdue.

Presidents have declared national emergencies for nearly 50 years.

Barack Obama declared 13 national emergencies, 11 of which continue to this day.

The Obama emergencies included the Swine Flu, Flint water crisis and Iran.

Congress believes President Trump as $21 billion in unobligated military construction funding money available for the border wall with Mexico.

Foreign Policy reported:

The announcement Thursday that U.S. President Donald Trump plans to declare a national emergency over the southern border is very likely to rope in the Pentagon, as the White House seeks to divert military funds to build his long-promised wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Congress believes the Pentagon has $21 billion in unobligated military construction funding—money that has been appropriated by the legislature and set aside for specific projects but not yet issued—that the president could use to build the wall over objections from Congress, according to two congressional aides.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 week ago

President Trump declared a State of Emergency at the US southern border on Friday.

Declaring the immigration crisis a national emergency was overdue.

Presidents have declared national emergencies for nearly 50 years.

Barack Obama declared 13 national emergencies, 11 of which continue to this day.

The Obama emergencies included the Swine Flu, Flint water crisis and Iran.

And Obama declared the Mexican drug cartels a national emergency in 2011.

Congress believes President Trump has $21 billion in unobligated military construction funding money available for the border wall with Mexico.

Now this was mostly ignored by the liberal media.

President Trump is using Barack Obama’s previous national emergency on Mexican drug cartels to get funding for the border wall.

Via Law and Crime:

As it turns out, back in 2011 then-President Barack Obama issued an executive order “blocking property of transnational criminal organizations organizations.” Obama cited his authority as granted through the Constitution to invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1701, and the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1601. The latter is the same legislation that Trump is citing to get funding for the wall to achieve his immigration reform goals. That executive order targeted a number of criminal organizations, including the Mexican Los Zetas cartel, an ally of the MS-13 gang President Trump has regularly called out as a danger to Americans.

“Drugs, gangs and people — an invasion,” Trump said on Friday. “We have an invasion coming into this country.”

Trump all but thanked his predecessor on Friday.

“We may be using one of the national emergencies that [Obama] signed having to do with criminal cartels… it’s a very good national emergency… we’re going to be using parts of it,” he said.

True Pundit

Published  1 week ago

Osorio-Arellanes was found guilty and convicted of first-degree murder, second degree murder, attempted robbery, assaulting four Border Patrol agents, carrying a firearm and conspiring to disrupt interstate commerce, according to a press release from the U.S. Department of Justice.

Terry, 40, was killed on Dec. 14, 2010.

Terry died in a firefight after Osorio-Arellanes and a group of armed men attempted to rob smugglers who were transporting drugs from Mexico to the U.S. He was part of an elite Border Patrol unit and was participating in operation “Fast and Furious,” which permitted federal agents to allow known criminals to buy weapons in order to track the purchases to other criminal organizations, according to The AP.

Terry and his unit sought to arrest the group of men, including Osorio-Arellanes, in Nogales, Arizona when the firefight that took Terry’s life erupted.

Osorio-Arellanes fled the scene following the attack.

He is the sixth of seven men convicted in Terry’s murder, according to the press release.

Special Attorneys Todd W. Robinson and David Leshner are prosecuting the case.

“Brian Terry’s family will never have its hero back, but his loved ones now have justice,” U.S. Attorney Robert Brewer of the Southern District of California said, according to the press release. “The jury’s verdict is the right outcome not only for the family, but for the men and women of the U.S. Border Patrol who daily put their lives at risk to protect this country.”

Authorities first took Osorio-Arellanes into custody in April 2017.

The Brian A. Terry Memorial Act, which renamed the U.S. Border Patrol station in Bisbee in honor of Terry, unanimously passed the Senate in May, 2012. Former President Barack Obama signed the measure into law shortly thereafter.

Osorio-Arellanes will be sentenced April 29.

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

The United Kingdom and the United States have signed a Mutual Recognition Agreement to ensure British-American trade continues seamlessly after Brexit, undercutting EU loyalists who claimed it would be damaged.

The United Kingdom trades with the United States, its largest single trade partner and number one source of inward investment, largely on World Trade Organization (WTO) terms — a so-called “No Deal” situation — as the European Union has failed to strike a bilateral agreement.

This WTO-based relationship is supplemented by a number of mini-agreements on things like regulatory standards, however, which Remainers had hitherto used to claim Brexit would deal a blow to British-American commerce.

However, the signing of a Mutual Recognition Agreement on Conformity Assessment (MRA) in Washington D.C. by the British ambassador to the United States, Sir Kim Darroch, and Deputy United States Trade Representative C.J. Mahoney on February 14th ensures this will not be the case.

Good news! Two new agreements have been signed to ensure continuity for 🇺🇸 businesses and consumers post #Brexit. U.S. exports to UK of products covered by these agreements worth > $5b — we’re determined that U.S.-UK trade will continue to flourish! https://t.co/3yz8jlFs6J

— Ambassador Johnson (@USAmbUK) February 15, 2019

“The UK and the U.S. are the strongest of trading partners and this agreement will allow British and American businesses to keep trading as freely as they do today, without additional bureaucracy,” noted Dr Liam Fox, Britain’s Brexit-supporting Secretary of State for International Trade.

“Our top priority is ensuring continuity for businesses as we leave the European Union and we are signing other agreements in the days and weeks ahead. We look forward to sitting down at the negotiating table with the Americans after we leave the European Union to strike an ambitious new free trade agreement,” he added.

“[W]e’re determined that U.S.-UK trade will continue to flourish,” added Woody Johnson, U.S. ambassador to the Court of St James’s, having previously penned a Valentine’s Day poem to the United Kingdom reading:

Roses are Red

But they soon fade away

For romance that lasts

Sign a new FTA!

While former U.S. President Barack Obama and his would-be successor both suggested Britain would be sent to “the back of the queue” for a trade deal if it left the European Union — allegedly at the behest of former prime minister David Cameron — current U.S. President Donald Trump is keen to put the mother country at “the front of the line” and strike a “powerful” new deal as soon as possible.

The future partnership with the EU which the Remainer-dominated British political establishment appears to be pursuing may make this impossible, however, as it would see the EU retain effective control over British trade policy through the imposition of various onerous obligations with respect to customs and maintaining a “level playing field” economically.

Trump’s Ambassador: Britain First in Line for ‘Ambitious’ Trade Deal… If You Manage to Leave the EU https://t.co/3qESgb5RIC

— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) November 28, 2018

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

Over the next year, with a brand new Attorney General William Barr, this country, we've got to decide. Do you want to save the United States? Do you want to be a constitutional republic? Do you want actual justice under the law? Do you want a dual justice system or do you want America to be handed off to your kids and grandkids as a banana republic? 

Conservative News Today

Published  1 week ago

A clown-faced Vogue editor who looks like the obese version of the Red Queen from a dystopian Alice in Wonderland criticized Melania Trump's fashions.

Newsweek

Published  1 week ago

Former White House adviser Sebastian Gorka continued to promoted a conspiracy theory that Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died as the Supreme Court Justice returned to work.

On Friday, NBC News reporter Ben Collins wrote that "Now that RBG will be out in public soon, the conspiracy that she's secretly dead will only evolve. Too many people—not just Qanon folks (where it started) but also guys like Seb—got into this one. Expect lots of weird, close-up shots of ears to prove it's an old lady body double."

Gorka responded "How is there a 'public' appearance behind closed doors? Let the Games begin!"

Ginsburg, 85, had been absent from the court since receiving surgery to remove two cancerous nodules from her left lung in December. CNN reported that Ginsburg went to the court for a closed-door conference on Friday, the first such appearance since her operation.

While Democrats have worried about the justice's health -- she fell and fractured three ribs in November -- others have used Ginsburg's time away from the court to postulate that she was actually dead.

In her absence from the court, QAnon conspiracy theorists had circulated the idea that Ginsburg had died and Democrats were covering up her passing to prevent President Donald Trump from appointing a third Supreme Court justice.

Gorka previously

promoted the conspiracy on January 30.

Fox & Friends helped fuel the conspiracy last month by airing a graphic indicating that Ginsburg had died. The show apologized for the mistake, but online commentators capitalized on the error to promote their claims.

QAnon supporters promote an broad, nebulous and constantly changing set of claims that include the idea that Trump and special counsel Robert Mueller are working together to arrest pedophiles and criminal political figures while uprooting the "deep state."

They say an unidentified figure, known as "Q," has high-level security clearance and is revealing highly classified information about the inner workings of government.

Adherents of the pro-Trump theory think that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and presidents before Trump have engaged in child molestation and other crimes.

Believers have promoted the idea that figures in the "deep state" tried to shoot down Air Force One and that Trump will send his enemies, including Clinton and Obama, to Guantanamo Bay, according to The Daily Beast.

In August, prominent QAnon believer Michael Lebron, known as Lionel online, met Trump in the White House, CNN reported.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 week ago

President Trump is expected to declare a State of Emergency at the US southern border on Friday.

Declaring the immigration crisis a national emergency is overdue.

Presidents have declared national emergencies for nearly 50 years.

Barack Obama declared 13 national emergencies, 11 of which continue to this day.

The Obama emergencies included the Swine Flu, Flint water crisis and Iran.

The Conservative Tribune reported:

As it turns out, there are currently 31 ongoing national emergencies over which the president wields certain authorities, the first of which has been in existence since 1979 and is one of only two emergencies declared by Carter.

There were a total of six national emergencies during former President Ronald Reagan’s tenure, as well as four more during the administration of former President George H.W. Bush, all of which have ended.

Former President Bill Clinton declared 17 national emergencies — six of which remain in effect — while former President George W. Bush declared 12 national emergencies, of which 10 remain ongoing.

Then we get to former President Barack Obama, who declared 13 national emergencies, 11 of which continue to this day. Thus far, President Trump has declared three active and ongoing national emergencies.

The Federalist

Published  1 week ago

The New York Times revealed that the FBI investigation of Trump was retaliation for firing James Comey, an incompetent and corrupt FBI director.

The Old School Patriot

Published  1 week ago

In the military we have a saying, “never get in your enemy’s way when they are self-destructing.” I cannot think of a better adage when it comes to the insidious, absurd, and, yes, stupid, things emanating from the progressive socialist left . . . the folks who have taken control of the Democrat Party.

It is somewhat like the movie, “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.” Some alien life form has taken over the bodies of these Democrats, and the insane screeching noise from their mouths is non-nonsensical. As always. there were some great contestants for this week’s Old School Patriot “Stuck on Stupid Saturday” recognition, including the chuckleheads who undermined thousands of new high paying jobs coming to NYC. But, in the end, there was one clear-cut choice, and I think you will agree.

This week’s recipient of the “Stuck on Stupid Saturday” award is none other than Ms. “We have to pass the bill in order to find out what is in it,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

As reported by The Hill:

“Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday issued a warning to Republicans poised to support President Trump’s decision to declare a national emergency at the southern border: the next Democratic president, she said, could do the same on guns.

“A Democratic president can declare emergencies, as well,” Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. “So the precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans.” Pelosi noted that Thursday marked the one-year anniversary of the shooting at a high school in Parkland, Fla., that left 17 students and faculty dead. She argued that the real national emergency is not illegal border crossings, but gun violence in the U.S.

“Let’s talk about today: The one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America,” Pelosi said. “That’s a national emergency. Why don’t you declare that emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would.”

“But a Democratic president can do that.” Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) also shared a tweet calling several issues championed by Democrats, such as climate change and income inequality, a “national emergency.”

Oh boy, the progressive socialist left just let us in on something. They believe that non-compliance with their ideological agenda qualifies as a national emergency. Rep. Cleaver reiterated that gun violence, and even access to healthcare, are real national emergencies. Border security is not, as he asserted in his Twitter post. There is no way that Speaker Pelosi can delete what she said, we have video evidence forever.

It is quite disconcerting, disturbing, that the left, under a Democrat president, would use their ideological agenda as the basis for declaring a national emergency. For Speaker Pelosi to hint that an individual act of violence presents grounds for a Democrat president to enact a national emergency is Constitutionally dangerous. I must ask, Ms. Pelosi, what would be the specific details of a national emergency on “gun violence?” Does this mean that by way of an executive order, action, the left will erase the Second Amendment? Part of our Constitution’s individual Bill of Rights? Does this mean that a Democrat president would authorize a violation of the Fourth Amendment and nationally violate due process criminalize millions of innocent Americans by way of firearms confiscation . . . forcibly?

Does this mean that a Democrat president would declare income inequality a national emergency and by executive order force wealth redistribution? Will we be forced only to purchase certain types of cars and forcibly be made, by national emergency executive mandate, to make our houses “green?” Don’t laugh. Already in California, they passed a law that all newly built houses must have solar panels.

I have stated before, and will say so again, the progressive socialist left bases what is lawful, and now what will constitute an emergency, based upon their ideological agenda.

So what does this mean? It’s simple, Barack Obama said that he had a pen and a phone and the Democrats cheered. Now, Nancy Pelosi has told us exactly what will happen if We the People are stupid enough to vote in Democrat president — they will declare national emergencies to enact their ideological agenda.

The first objective would be gun control, disarming the American people. This is what I mean by not getting in their way as they declare to us exactly what their plan is . . . and they are triple dog daring us to stop them. They do not believe that we can, or will. Just think about the shooting yesterday in Aurora, Illinois. Yep, before the details and evidence are released, here comes the national emergency.

Why are we awarding Nancy Pelosi the “Stuck on Stupid Saturday” recognition? Because, only someone so stupid would make such a declaration, in an official and public manner.

Going forward into the 2020 presidential election the question to every Democrat candidate is, “Would you declare a national emergency on gun violence, income inequality, climate change, and access to healthcare?” If they say no, then who is the liar, them or Pelosi? If they say yes — which the progressive socialist base will demand — then will have shown their hand. They are not running to govern, but to rule, and the dictatorship will have begun, and America will be unrecognizable. This is who the left is in America, they seek ideological domination, and will use any aspect of power to assure that vision.

To the left, Americans being killed by illegal immigrants is not a national emergency. Americans dying at the hands of illicit drugs flowing across our border is not a national emergency. Criminal illegal immigrant gangs thriving in America is not a national emergency. American taxpayers surrendering their resources to pay for social welfare benefits for illegal immigrants is not a national emergency.

But, disarming the American people? That is worthy of being declared a national emergency by a Democrat president.

Thanks so very much, Nancy, for being so stupid as to let the American people know what your plan is for America if a Democrat president is sworn into office in January 2021. You are indeed deserving of the “Stuck on Stupid Saturday” award, and we thank you for being such a dunce. We are now forewarned . . . and we shall forever be forearmed!

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

Andrew McCabe, you see, has reminded us once again that there really is a powerful deep state, and that there has not been a full accounting of rampant FBI misconduct during the presidential campaign of 2016.

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

Former Texas Democratic Rep. Beto O'Rourke said Thursday that he would "absolutely" support tearing down existing barriers along the southern border with Mexico, in a full-throated embrace of open-borders rhetoric that has left conservatives wondering where other potential 2020 Democratic White House hopefuls stand on the issue.

O'Rourke's comments came as the House and Senate passed a compromise spending bill that would partially fund President Trump's proposed border wall, to the tune of $1.4 billion. Trump, who had been pressing for billions more, has vowed to declare a national state of emergency to fund the remainder of the project.

Amid the congressional debate, Texas GOP Rep. Dan Crenshaw wrote on Twitter earlier Thursday that he wanted O'Rourke to answer a simple question: "If you could snap your fingers and make El Paso’s border wall disappear, would you?" He cited Department of Homeland Security (DHS) figures suggesting that illegal border crossings dropped sharply in El Paso following the construction of a wall there.

WHAT'S IN THE BILL PASSED BY CONGRESS THURSDAY NIGHT? MORE DETENTION BEDS FOR ICE, MONEY FOR WALL

MSNBC host Chris Hayes posed a version of that question to O'Rourke on-air: "Would you, if you could, would you take the wall down here -- knock it down?"

"Yes, absolutely," answered O'Rourke, who is widely thought to be a potential candidate in 2020 but has not formally announced his intention to run. "I'd take the wall down."

Asked whether El Paso residents would support that move in a referendum, O'Rourke replied, "I do."

He continued: "Here's what we know. After the Secure Fence Act [of 2006], we have built 600 miles of wall and fencing on a 2,000-mile border. What that has done is not in any demonstrable way made us safer. It's cost us tens of billions of dollars to build and maintain. And it's pushed migrants and asylum seekers and refugees to the most inhospitable, the most hostile stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border, ensuring their suffering and death."

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and other Democrats, including then-Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, supported the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorized the construction of some 700 miles of fencing at the border. As of 2015, virtually all of that fencing had been completed, according to government figures.

"More than 4,000 human beings, little kids, women and children, have died," O'Rourke continued. "They're not in cages, they're not locked up, they're not separated -- they're dead, over the last 10 years, as we have walled off their opportunity to legally petition for asylum, to cross in urban centers like El Paso, to be with family, to work jobs, to do what any human being should have a right to be able to do, what we would do if faced with the same circumstances they were."

In response, Trump's 2020 campaign manager, Brad Parscale, asked on Twitter whether other possible or declared Democratic White House hopefuls agreed.

Earlier this month, Trump challenged House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has called the White House's proposed southern border wall "an immorality," to explain why she is not insisting on the removal of existing physical barriers, or opposing ongoing construction of new wall projects near San Diego.

"If Nancy Pelosi thinks that Walls are 'immoral,' why isn’t she requesting that we take down all of the existing Walls between the U.S. and Mexico, even the new ones just built in San Diego at their very strong urging," Trump tweeted. "Let millions of unchecked 'strangers' just flow into the U.S."

Some progressives in Congress, including Democratic Texas Rep. Veronica Escobar, insisted this month that "we know walls don't work." Escobar, signaling she may support removing some barriers, called walls "ugly" and "monuments to division."

The San Diego Union-Tribune has reported that physical barriers, including walling and fencing, encompass some 46 miles of the city's 60-mile border with Mexico. In February, construction is slated to begin on 14 miles of additional secondary walling, with work to begin on 15 miles of replacement wall this summer.

Earlier this month, in an interview with CNN, Democratic California Rep. Juan Vargas acknowledged that those physical defenses were effective and enhanced security for local residents.

"I mean, you go to the border and you see long lines of people waiting to come in. ... So we do have a problem of having huge wait lines to come in,” Vargas told anchor Don Lemon. “You know, there is fencing already there, to be honest with you. There are places where we already have fencing where it made sense for some security.”

O'Rourke's comments to MSNBC on Thursday, however, were the most stark anti-wall comments yet by a prominent Democrat -- and set up another potential confrontation between Trump and the progressive star. On Monday night, Trump held a campaign-style rally in El Paso — just as O'Rourke led a border wall protest roughly a half-mile away.

Fox News' Nicole Darrah contributed to this report.

Law & Crime

Published  1 week ago

Clinton did it for the people of Burma. Bush did it for the people of Belarus. Obama did it for the people of Burundi. Trump does it for the people of America. Guess who Democrats object to the use of emergency powers for?

What is the first obligation of the federal government under the Constitution? To secure and provide for the “common defense.” To accomplish this, Congress gives the President plenary authority to declare a national emergency under 50 USC § 1621. If Congress disagrees, it can pass a joint resolution terminating the emergency under 50 USC § 1622. USC §1631 only requires the President to invoke the specific emergency powers he intends to use. Then you have 33 USC § 2293, which says that the emergency “may require use of the Armed Forces.”

One of the main groups of the Armed Services is the Army Civil Engineering Corps, which spends most of its time and personnel building domestic projects needed for the civil defense of the country and the security of the people. Indeed, their mission is to “deliver vital public and military engineering services … to strengthen our Nation’s security.” Those claiming military funds can never be used for domestic construction (e.g., #Wall) apparently missed that the Army Corps of Engineers have been doing domestic construction for decades as their mission is “military engineering services…to strengthen our Nation’s security.”

Congress even passed a law codified and titled “construction authority” in the event of a declaration of “emergency.” Another statute explicitly authorizes the President to “apply the resources of the Department of the Army’s civil works program” including funding originally intended for “construction, operation, maintenance, or repair” of other civil works projects to funding the “construction, operation, maintenance and repair” of other “civil defense projects” or “civil works” needed “to the national defense.” How is building a border wall not a“civil defense project” when border walls have been the foundation of civil defense for literally tens of thousands of years since the beginning of civilization?

Historical precedent also supports the President as much as the express language of the legislative text. The Continental Congress frequently passed emergency acts. As scholars and studies alike affirm, “the granting of emergency powers by Congress is implicit in Article I, section 8 authority to provide for the common Defense.” An emergency merely means “a resulting state that calls for immediate action.” Congressional hearings recognized it as “the existence of conditions of varying nature, intensity and duration” merely sufficient that they are “perceived” to “threaten well-being beyond tolerable limits.” Eminent Constitutional scholars admitted it means an “existing danger to life or well-being beyond that which is accepted as normal.”

George Washington himself used emergency powers. Abraham Lincoln employed it repeatedly. Teddy Roosevelt championed it. FDR employed it more often than anybody. Harry Truman and Richard Nixon both applied it. After Congress codified it in 1976, Jimmy Carter gladly used it. Every President since employed it, including both George W. Bush and Barack Obama more than a dozen times apiece, with over 30 national emergencies still in force, some since 1979. Almost all of them stripped Americans of property or a right to property, restricted cross-border movement of people or property, and employed both American military and policing powers domestically.

Even Trump haters acknowledge the broad discretion of the President’s emergency powers. Even the critical legal blogosphere acknowledged Trump’s broad discretionary authority in using emergency powers. Coequally, Congressional Service studies repeatedly reaffirm the broad Constitutional and Congressionally-provisioned emergency powers of the Presidency. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service acknowledge the long legal history of Presidents using emergency powers. “Federal law provides” for “national emergency powers” which “are not limited to military or war situations” and “are continuously available to the President with little or no qualification.” Indeed: Thirty of the national emergencies declared via the National Emergencies Act since 1976 are technically still in effect.

Equally, plans for physical structures along the border date to World War II. Congressional legislation over the decades “established a mandate” that provided the President “with broad authority to waive all legal requirements that may impede construction of barriers” to secure the border. Even the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service acknowledged “nothing in current statute would appear to bar DHS from installing hundreds of miles of additional physical barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border, even beyond the 700 miles required by law.”

Bill Clinton declared more than a dozen national emergencies, as did Obama. If Burundi & Burma can be protected by the President’s national emergency powers, why can’t the American people?

[Image via LUDOVIC MARIN/AFP/Getty Images]

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.

dailycaller

Published  1 week ago

'He should make clear he will veto it'

The Atlantic

Published  1 week ago

Meanwhile, the Democratic-led House committee is gearing up for a reinvigorated inquiry.

American Greatness

Published  1 week ago

After the Coup is Gone

02/14 1:51 pm

Post by @theamgreatness.

True Pundit

Published  1 week ago

Congressional investigators and intelligence veterans have uncovered a clandestine group of anti-President Trump federal employees who have reportedly been working to sabotage the President of the United States, according to Congressional and federal law enforcement sources. On YOUR dime. VOTE NOW: Should Trump Use The Military To Build The Wall? -----> This isn’t just any…

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

Democrat legislators added numerous aid and welfare programs in the 2019 spending bill for the growing wave of economic migrants.

Washington Examiner

Published  1 week ago

The national debt hit $22 trillion this week. You won’t find many in either major party who think this is a healthy development.

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

Barack Obama was the first U.S. president to install a golf simulator in the White House, according to a bombshell report in the far-left Washington Post.

In other news, what we have here is yet another example of just how determined the Washington Post and the rest of the media are to live in their own heads; because they don’t even realize what a dazzling self-own this report is.

Seriously, think about it: the Washington Post “bombshell” on President Trump updating Obama’s golf simulator, and doing so with his own money, just proves once again how useless and corrupt the establishment media are.

Gee, what a crack team of inspiring investigative journalists America is blessed with. At long last, even though he has been out of office for two years, we have finally been told Barry had a golf simulator installed in the White House.

And this is real news, because it is a first.

Before Barry, there had never been a golf simulator in the White House. So it was Bill Ayers’ Friend who set a national precedent, and thanks to a dogged and persistent Washington Post, we now know this truth, we finally have all the facts, because democracy dies in darkness n’ stuff.

But with its stupid bombshell about Trump’s golf simulator, all the far-left Post is doing is admitting it did not report on Obama’s golf simulator, is admitting that were it not for the Post’s obsessive hatred of Trump, the public never would have learned about Obama’s golf simulator.

Jimmy Carter made a point of posing as a workaholic and look at the job he did, so as someone who only cares about results and could not care less about how much time a Obama or Trump play golf or vacation or enjoy “executive time,” my only takeaway from the from the Post bombshell was: Look at what it takes to force the corrupt media to report on something they did not want us to know about Obama.

If the installation of golf simulators at the White House is such a big deal — and anyone looking at today’s media coverage can only assume it is a Watergate-level Big Deal — why are we just finding out now that Obama not only enjoyed a golf simulator but was the first president in history to install one?

We all know the answer: the Washington Post, along with the rest of the unethical and inept corporate media, had no curiosity when it comes to Obama; and when the media did accidently discover something out about Obama they did not want the public to know, the media covered it up — like this photo of Obama hanging out with anti-Semitic hate preacher Louis Farrakhan.

My guess, and it is a safe one, is that almost everyone in the national political media knew about Obama’s golf simulator but chose to not report because they knew his critics would have a field day with it.

And so, if you read between the lines. all the Washington Post reported on yesterday, all the Washington Post revealed with its big scoop about Trump’s golf simulator, is just how awful, unreliable, biased, lazy, and worthless the media have always been.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 week ago

So, is Kamala doing well in her fundraising, or NOT? If you believe the leftist news media, then you would probably think she's the best fundraising machine since Beto O'Rourke. As reported by Politico: Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

President Trump said Friday he is declaring a national emergency on the southern border, tapping into executive powers in a bid to divert billions toward construction of a wall even as he plans to sign a funding package that includes just $1.4 billion for border security. 

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

We know this is a president that keeps his promises. And he goes at the speed of Trump. And if you watch every speech, if you actually listen to Donald Trump's words, you know, especially you people in the hate-Trump media, he telegraphs. He's saying exactly what he's planning to do.

NaturalNews.com

Published  1 week ago

It is widely reported today that President Trump is declaring a national emergency over the continued migrant invasion of the United States of America that's taking place via a largely [...]

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 week ago

Former Vice President Joe Biden may have run for president in 2016 were it not for the death of his son, Beau. If recent polls are accurate, Joe may have the best chance to unseat

The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com

Published  1 week ago

A number of prominent Jewish Organizations, publications, and some media outlets have sharply criticized the manner in which the Obama administration has gone about defending the Iran nuclear agreement by attacking its critics.

Tablet Magazine accused certain proponents of the agreement of using “Jew-baiting and other blatant and retrograde forms of racial and ethnic prejudice” such as “accusing Senators and Congressmen… of being agents of a foreign power…” to smear their opponents. Similarly, Abraham Foxman, the former director of the Anti- Defamation League, attacked President Obama for fueling the anti-Semitic stereotype of Jews as warmongers. Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesental Center also attacked the administration for bullying opponents of the deal with the “crock of dual loyalty.”

The New York Post, went a step further, and railed that “Anti-Semitism is all over the drive to make Chuck Schumer shut up about his opposition to the Iran nuke deal….” Others have attacked President Obama directly. Lee Smith, also writing in Tablet, claims that “Obama is using a dog whistle. He is hinting at broadly at anti- Semitic conceits.”

President Obama and his administration are not anti-Israel, nor are they anti- Semitic. There is little doubt, however, that as the debate over the Iran deal has grown increasingly heated, President Obama, members of his administration, and various supporters of the deal have impugned the integrity of their opponents, sometimes using language that some see as code words.

They have suggested that those members of Congress who have come out against the deal are in the pockets of billionaires and lobbyists. They have also sought to conflate opposition to the Iran deal with support for the US led invasion of Iraq in 2004. Finally, President Obama has accused Mr. Netanyahu and the pro-Israel lobby of exercising an inappropriate level of pressure on American politicians in attempting to influence the course of the debate over the Iran agreement.

The notion that foreign leaders do not seek to influence American political discourse is patently false. More to the point, however, the cumulative thrust of the attacks leveled by the administration has engendered disturbing arguments from some quarters.

The Daily Kos, for example, recently published a cartoon questioning whether Chuck Schumer opposes the agreement out of loyalty to the United States or to Israel. Reza Marashi of the National Iranian American Institute commented: “shame on Chuck Schumer for putting Israel’s interests ahead of America’s interests.” Such suggestions of dual loyalty have been echoed in more respectable publications such as the New York Times, whose editorial board commented on the “unseemly spectacle of lawmakers siding with a foreign leader against their own commander in chief…” as if members of Congress—an independent branch of our government—should always kowtow to the President (who is not the Commander in Chief of Congress).

Certainly, it is clear at this point that President Obama, and supporters of the agreement are doing themselves no favors by attacking the motivations of those who oppose the deal. So too Republicans who have used deliberately loaded language in their effort to score political points against a president who they deeply dislike. The only result of these invectives has been to inject unnecessary vitriol into a debate whose result will have far reaching consequences for the United States, for Israel, and for the Middle East.

Rather than doubling down on his misguided and misleading accusations, President Obama should be seeking to elevate the tone of the national discussion. He should directly address concerns regarding the strength of the inspections regime envisioned by the deal, and he should insist on the release of the content of the side agreements between the IAEA and Iran regarding access to Iranian nuclear sites.

Regardless of what Congress and the President decide to do, these are issues that demand serious and substantive debate, and all interested parties should be encouraged to contribute their opinions. The arguments made in recent weeks by supporters of the deal have been completely counterproductive in that regard. We might expect such attacks by partisans on both sides of the isle. However, we should demand that the President elevate the tone of the discussion.

Join Jerusalem Post Premium Plus now for just $5 and upgrade your experience with an ads-free website and exclusive content. Click here>>

barack obama

iran deal

iran nuclear deal

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

President Donald Trump demanded Wednesday evening that the State of California return $3.5 billion in federal funds after Gov. Gavin Newsom canceled most of the state’s high-speed rail project, saying it was too expensive.

“California has been forced to cancel the massive bullet train project after having spent and wasted many billions of dollars,” the president tweeted. “They owe the Federal Government three and a half billion dollars. We want that money back now. Whole project is a “green” disaster!”

California has been forced to cancel the massive bullet train project after having spent and wasted many billions of dollars. They owe the Federal Government three and a half billion dollars. We want that money back now. Whole project is a “green” disaster!

Newsom responded that it was “California’s money”:

Fake news. We’re building high-speed rail, connecting the Central Valley and beyond.

This is CA’s money, allocated by Congress for this project. We’re not giving it back.

The train is leaving the station — better get on board!

(Also, desperately searching for some wall $$??) https://t.co/9hxEfEX8Vm

— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) February 14, 2019

Newsom devoted the opening portion of his first “State of the State” address Tuesday to attacking Trump and his policies on the border. Yet he then bowed to conservative criticism — and, arguably, to fiscal reality — by canceling the high-speed rail project championed by his predecessors.

The governor added that while the bullet train would no longer connect San Francisco and Los Angeles, as first envisioned, the state would still continue “phase one” of the project between the rural towns of Bakersfield and Merced. “I know that some critics will say this is a ‘train to nowhere,'” he said. “But that’s wrong and offensive.”

Newsom added that the state had to continue the project if it wanted to keep the federal funds it had taken: “I am not interested in sending $3.5 billion in federal funding that was allocated to this project back to Donald Trump.”

The money was granted to California as part of President Barack Obama’s stimulus, which set aside “$8 billion in federal stimulus money to create 13 high-speed rail corridors,” the New York Times reported at the time.

Obama pressured states to take the cash — which Democrat-governed states eagerly did. But the Republican wave of 2010 brought new governors to office, and several rejected their state’s high-speed rail plans as costly and unnecessary.

California has already spent over $5 billion on the high-speed rail project — roughly the same amount that Trump had requested for the border wall.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Photo: file

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

The top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee is demanding to know why the panel's Democratic leadership made the "costly" decision this week to hire two prominent anti-Trump consultants to conduct a purportedly impartial investigation of the the White House.

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

President Trump took bold and decisive action in the best interests of the American people when he declared a national emergency Friday to enable construction of a badly needed barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border to stymie human trafficking, drug trafficking and criminal crossings.

MAGAMEDIA

Published  1 week ago

The Clinton Collusion

02/13 2:29 pm

Two years and more than 50 million dollars later, the Senate Intel Committee has finally released a statement: There was no collusion between Trump and Russia. Suck it Libs!

Senator Richard Burr, The Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, just announced that after almost two years, more than two hundred interviews, and thousands of documents, they have found NO COLLUSION BETWEEN TRUMP AND RUSSIA! Is anybody really surprised by this?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 10, 2019

This whole investigation was a farce to begin with, and we all knew it, but fake news ran with it like it was the next Watergate, screaming impeach trump all the way to the bank. My question is this: when does the REAL investigating begin? What about the wiretap on then-candidate Donald Trump, initiated by Barack Obama and his cohorts?

What about Hillary and her team of flunkies coming up with this whole collusion thing to begin with?

When are we going to see some real justice? It was Hillary and the rest of the Democrats who are guilty of colluding with the Russians. It was Hillary who ran illegal servers, who put the nation’s security at risk, and who had her shit stolen. Bleaching the servers and lying about everything to try to get away with it.

What about the Clinton Foundation?

Oh yeah, and then there’s this thing called the Steele Dossier….

Hillary and her cohorts, the DOJ and the FBI hired former British spy and FBI informant Chris Steele, together with Fusion GPS to manifest a Russian narrative. To invent one…To lie. Hillary’s campaign and the DNC paid a cool $1million for the dossier. The FBI and DOJ then used the phony document as basis for a FISA warrant to bug Trump Tower. Congress is now in possession of various emails and texts to this effect.

These are all serious felonies. Question is, which one will they charge Hillary and Obama with? All? Some? None? My patience is growing thin. These people are stupid, these people are un-American, and it’s time they’re punished for what they’ve done.

Clinton’s friend, and big time 25 million dollar donor to the Clinton Foundation, Alexander Downer, tells the FBI the Russians have some dirt on Hillary.

The FBI launches an investigation.

Hillary then pays former British spy, British spy to dig up dirt on Donald Trump, with Russian officials’ help. The resulting dossier is used as a reason for launching a spying operation against Trump.

Meanwhile, Comey and a bunch of NeverTrumper FBI officials, including James Strzok and Bruce Ohr, collude to stop the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s unlawful email server. Intelligence officials are certain it was hacked by foreign governments. NOT good…

Finally, after two years, they admit it’s a big nothing burger… what’s funny though, is the damage has been done…the bullying of patriots, the defamation and undermining of our great president, the constant hate spewed forth by the left chanting, “Russia Russia Russia,” has already done irreparable damage…

Somebody owes us a big apology, and a court date set for Clinton and Obama.

So..i wonder if I will still be called a Russian bot on Twitter….

The Federalist

Published  1 week ago

Top political appointees at intelligence agencies are engaged in a dangerous and discrediting full-scale war against Donald Trump.

Neon Nettle

Published  1 week ago

Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom declares taxpayer fund is 'California's money' now

Salon

Published  1 week ago

"Big Mean Sexy Daddy"? Salon turns to Dr. Susan Block for answers to questions you didn't want to ask

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 week ago

The former Border Patrol chief who served in President Barack Obama's administration left a CNN host speechless over the weekend when he detailed exactly why he supports President Donald Trump on the border wall. During a

Washington Examiner

Published  1 week ago

When President Trump said Monday at a campaign rally in El Paso that, “We’ve actually started a big, big portion of the wall today at a very important location, and it’s going to go up pretty quickly over the next nine months," I assumed it was nonsense he was spreading in hopes that his supporters might not mob him on stage for so far failing to keep the central promise of his campaign.

He similarly said Tuesday at the White House, "We just started a big, big section [of wall] on the Rio Grande."

I'm happy to say I was wrong. Trump was telling the truth.

I checked in with agents at the Rio Grande Valley border sector to see if they knew what new "wall" Trump was talking about. They sent me information on construction for new border barrier announced last year. The project funds six miles-worth of concrete and steel barrier of the sort that agents told me in January is immensely successful in deterring illegal border crossings.

The wall will be supplemented by "detection technology, lighting, video surveillance, and an all-weather patrol road parallel" to the barrier, according to a release sent out by the CBP in November.

And the $145 million for it didn't come from some long-ago-passed funding bill passed under former President Barack Obama. It was included in U.S. Customs and Border Patrol's budget for fiscal year 2018. Unlike other parts of new barrier construction and reparation, Trump can actually take credit for this one!

NBC News

Published  1 week ago

President Donald Trump has had a $50,000 room-sized golf simulator installed in the White House, two sources confirmed to NBC News.

The installation of state-of-the-art simulator — which allows him to play virtual rounds of golf — was first reported by the Washington Post.

The simulator allows players to hit a ball at a large video screen, which has images from courses around the world. It was described as an upgrade of a more modest simulator that had been installed during the Obama administration.

A source told the Post that Trump, a golf fanatic who owns several courses and plays often, paid for the system and its installation himself, and that he has not yet used it.

Other details about the simulator were not available, but the Post noted that three of Trump's 16 golf courses have simulators made by the Danish company TrackMan Golf, and the system costs $49,995. The simulators offer "Hyper-realistic 3D courses mirroring the feeling of being on the real courses," the company's website boasts.

The White House already has an outdoor putting green, which was first installed in 1954 by President Dwight Eisenhower. It has other amusements as well, including a movie theater, basketball court and a one-lane bowling alley.

Trump, who complained repeatedly on Twitter about Barack Obama going golfing when he was president, has visited his own golf properties 168 times since taking office, an NBC News analysis found. It's unclear whether he's actually golfed during every visit — the White House generally refuses to acknowledge when he's hitting the links .

Can you believe that,with all of the problems and difficulties facing the U.S., President Obama spent the day playing golf.Worse than Carter

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 14, 2014

That likely has to do with his former habit of teeing off on his predecessor during the 2016 campaign. "I'm going to be working for you," Trump told his supporters at one rally. "I'm not going to have time to go play golf."

Trump was forced to keep off the greens during the 35-day government shutdown, but went back out on the green with greats Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods at his Florida golf course earlier this month.

AP News

Published  1 week ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler says he has hired two veteran lawyers and critics of President Donald Trump as his committee begins to investigate the president and his administration.

The hiring of the two prominent lawyers, Barry Berke and Norman Eisen, comes as lawmakers from both parties are pressuring Trump attorney general nominee William Barr to release a full accounting of special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe when it’s complete. The new additions to Nadler’s staff could also provide expertise for impeachment proceedings, if Democrats decide at some point to pursue them.

Nadler said in a statement that the panel is determined to “ask critical questions, gather all the information, judiciously assess the evidence, and make sure that the facts are not hidden from the American people.”

He did not mention impeachment, but noted that Trump faces “numerous allegations” of corruption and obstruction.

“His conduct and crude statements threaten the basic legal, ethical and constitutional norms that maintain our democratic institutions,” Nadler said. “Congress has a constitutional duty to be a check and balance against abuses of power when necessary.”

Nadler said Berke and Eisen “have been retained on a consulting basis as special oversight staff” to the committee’s Democratic majority. He said they would consult on matters related to the Department of Justice and Mueller’s Russia probe.

Both men have been high-profile critics of Trump, and they co-authored a Brookings Institution report released last year that laid out a case for his impeachment. The report said “it has become apparent that the president’s pattern of potentially obstructive conduct is much more extensive than we knew.”

Eisen served as a White House counsel for President Barack Obama and has focused on government ethics and corruption as a co-founder of the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Berke is a top trial lawyer and white collar criminal defense lawyer who is based out of New York.

Democrats have been cautious in speaking about impeachment, with most arguing that they want to see the Mueller report before they would even consider such a step. Nadler has called impeachment a “trauma” that should be approached judiciously and with bipartisan support.

Still, he has said he believes Trump has engaged in a pattern of obstruction — one of the issues Mueller is investigating.

“This is a critical time in our nation’s history,” Nadler said in the statement.

Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the Judiciary panel, criticized the hires and the “sharply partisan op-eds” that Eisen and Berke have written together.

“Looks like Democrats are staffing up for impeachment before Mueller’s report is even out,” Collins said.

Associated Press writer Eric Tucker contributed to this report.

The Rush Limbaugh Show

Published  1 week ago

RUSH: He said this in a podcast that has been reported by ABC News. ABC News is devastated by this news.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 week ago

Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., lost his mind this week and accused President Donald Trump of "criminalizing" illegal alien drunk drivers. During an interview Monday on CNN with host Wolf Blitzer, Menendez attacked Trump for apparently being

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 week ago

President Trump declares a state of emergency at the southern border to keep Americans safe and the left goes bananas. President Obama declared 13 national emergencies during his time in office, 11 of which continue

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

Barack Obama was the first U.S. president to install a golf simulator in the White House, according to a bombshell report in the far-left Washington Post.

In other news, what we have here is yet another example of just how determined the Washington Post and the rest of the media are to live in their own heads; because they don’t even realize what a dazzling self-own this report is.

Seriously, think about it: the Washington Post “bombshell” on President Trump updating Obama’s golf simulator, and doing so with his own money, just proves once again how useless and corrupt the establishment media are.

Gee, what a crack team of inspiring investigative journalists America is blessed with. At long last, even though he has been out of office for two years, we have finally been told Barry had a golf simulator installed in the White House.

And this is real news, because it is a first.

Before Barry, there had never been a golf simulator in the White House. So it was Bill Ayers’ Friend who set a national precedent, and thanks to a dogged and persistent Washington Post, we now know this truth, we finally have all the facts, because democracy dies in darkness n’ stuff.

But with its stupid bombshell about Trump’s golf simulator, all the far-left Post is doing is admitting it did not report on Obama’s golf simulator, is admitting that were it not for the Post’s obsessive hatred of Trump, the public never would have learned about Obama’s golf simulator.

Jimmy Carter made a point of posing as a workaholic and look at the job he did, so as someone who only cares about results and could not care less about how much time a Obama or Trump play golf or vacation or enjoy “executive time,” my only takeaway from the from the Post bombshell was: Look at what it takes to force the corrupt media to report on something they did not want us to know about Obama.

If the installation of golf simulators at the White House is such a big deal — and anyone looking at today’s media coverage can only assume it is a Watergate-level Big Deal — why are we just finding out now that Obama not only enjoyed a golf simulator but was the first president in history to install one?

We all know the answer: the Washington Post, along with the rest of the unethical and inept corporate media, had no curiosity when it comes to Obama; and when the media did accidently discover something out about Obama they did not want the public to know, the media covered it up — like this photo of Obama hanging out with anti-Semitic hate preacher Louis Farrakhan.

My guess, and it is a safe one, is that almost everyone in the national political media knew about Obama’s golf simulator but chose to not report because they knew his critics would have a field day with it.

And so, if you read between the lines. all the Washington Post reported on yesterday, all the Washington Post revealed with its big scoop about Trump’s golf simulator, is just how awful, unreliable, biased, lazy, and worthless the media have always been.

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

Jews should stop supporting the Democratic Party in the wake of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel comments by freshmen Democratic House members. Trump and Republicans are now the true friends of Israel and the Jewish people.

The Atlantic

Published  1 week ago

The former deputy director of the FBI explains why the bureau felt obligated to investigate the president—and how the Mueller probe might end.

DC Tribune

Published  1 week ago

Now that Donald Trump has passed the 7,500-lie mark, according to the Washington Post Fact Checker that’s been keeping track, it’s easy to forget that there was a time when we were surprised by all of this, perhaps even horrified to find out that a President would openly lie at all, let alone at a pace of more than 10 lies a day on average.

But America is now at the point where Trump is actually shouting his lies at us, angry that they’re no longer automatically accepted, and we here at DC Tribune think the past is prologue as to why he might be melting down over losing his magic powers: He didn’t realize he’d have to convince more people than just the ones predisposed to vote for him.

Take the conversation that Jared Kushner, who at one point was the publisher of the New York Observer, had with the woman who was his lead editor at the paper, Elizabeth Spiers. A right-wing blogger had taken exception to Ms. Spiers calling Donald Trump a liar, and on social media, she gave an anecdote from her time at the Observer as an example for him as to why she might use the word “liar” for the President:

To recap there, that’s Spiers telling Kushner that she was “appalled” by Trump’s racist birtherism, which you’ll recall was the rampant speculation among racists who hated Barack Obama that his birth certificate was forged and that he was not actually born in the United States. The President’s own son-in-law then admits to his former editor that Trump doesn’t actually believe the things he himself is saying, but that he says them because he knows the people he’s trying to fool will be fooled.

He just knows Republicans are stupid and they’ll buy it.”

Unfortunately, Republicans are so committed at this point that if Trump did lie about the time of day, they would tear apart anyone who tried to get them to look at a clock.

Featured image via screen capture

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

The Democrat Party is now defined my Ilhan Omar, Ralph Northam, Rashida Tlaib, Joy Reid, Dianne Feinstein and Louis Farrakhan.

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

In an effort to get what they want, Big Tech companies have reached a level of hypocrisy that beggars belief.

The same companies that shamelessly censor conservatives and tilt public discourse in the left’s favor have suddenly decided they’re into “free expression.”

House Democrats recently rewarded their Big Tech backers by holding a hearing titled “Preserving an Open Internet for Consumers, Small Businesses, and Free Speech.”

FACEBOOK DOESN'T REALLY BELIEVE IN FREE SPEECH. WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN (AND ACTIVELY PRACTICE) IS CENSORSHIP

No, Twitter, Google, and Facebook haven’t suddenly decided to stop working with left-wing groups to stigmatize and silence their political enemies, and the Democrats certainly weren’t there to address Big Tech’s growing list of privacy and bias scandals. The whole point of the hearing was to help these monopolies present themselves as defenders of free speech and competition while they advocate for a return to the “net neutrality” policies that help their bottom line.

Although there were no representatives from the “big three” tech companies present at the hearing, all three have been vociferous advocates of net neutrality, and that perspective was amply represented.

Back in 2017, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) repealed these burdensome Obama-era regulations. Both CNN and socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders told us that meant the “end of the internet as we know it.” Nancy Pelosi called it a “Trump assault” that “set into motion the destruction of the free and open Internet.”

Every Big Tech gatekeeper from Amazon to YouTube put their differences aside and used their combined platforms to whip consumers into a frenzy to “save net neutrality.” Some people literally took to the streets.

A few people took it way too far. As The Boston Globe’s Jeff Jacoby wrote, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai ”was showered with racist insults (Pai is Indian-American) and death threats -- some of them serious enough to compel Pai to cancel major public appearances.” Signs posted near Pai’s home invoked his young children by name, and charged that their “‘Dad murdered democracy in cold blood.’”

“Net neutrality” is a fake controversy, ginned up to give cover for certain tech giants wanting to save some money at the expense of some other, slightly less massive companies.

All this was over a complicated regulation that most of the protesters couldn't even explain beyond the catchy “net neutrality” moniker.

Obviously, “the Internet as we knew it” didn’t end. Speedy high-speed browsing was not replaced by endless pinwheel loading icons. Not a single website is even claiming they were blocked by a vindictive Internet service provider. In fact, Internet speeds are estimated to have increased by 40 percent since the end of so-called “net neutrality.”

The Internet works just fine. “Net neutrality” is a fake controversy, ginned up to give cover for certain tech giants wanting to save some money at the expense of some other, slightly less massive companies.

For Silicon Valley lobbyists working for companies like Twitter to claim it’s all in the name of “free speech” is rich. Twitter had the nerve to beg the federal courts to overturn the FCC’s decision and put Barack Obama’s tech policy back in place, arguing it would protect, “innovation, consumer choice, and free expression.”

This is the same company that is suspending conservatives and journalists right now because they dare to tweet the words “learn to code.”

For those who don’t know, “learn to code” is a joke poking fun at liberal journalists who mocked blue-collar Americans who’d lost jobs to globalization. For years, these self-appointed coastal tastemakers blithely assured working-class Americans in the heartland that they had nothing to complain about. They could just become computer programmers.

When the bottom dropped out on left-wing, online click-bait last month, hundreds of Buzzfeed, VICE, and HuffPo workers were laid off. Fittingly, people told them it was no big deal, they could “learn to code” -- just like the coal miners and the other laid-off workers.

In a shocking indication of just how deep liberal journalists’ self-important victim complex goes, they tried to claim it was all a “hate” campaign aimed at “harassing” them. They tattled to Big Tech to come save them and Twitter quickly obliged by suspending accounts that engaged in the light-hearted trolling.

Sorry, Twitter, but the “free speech” schtick just isn’t credible when you’re simultaneously suspending people for a joke that made a few liberal journalists feel badly. The same goes for Facebook, Google and every other Big Tech corporation trying to convince the American people that they support free expression even as they systematically stifle the viewpoints held by half the country.

Despite having the political cover from their liberal soulmates who now control the U.S. House, Big Tech companies can’t disguise their gross hypocrisy.

Frontpage Mag

Published  1 week ago

This is important.

It's far more important than the question of whether Governor Northam wore blackface 34 years ago, but it's also going to be ignored. Actual hard core racism of the black nationalist variety gets a pass. Rep. Keith Ellison started his political career in the Nation of Islam. Multiple members of the Congressional Black Caucus have met with Farrakhan and pressed his flesh and praised him.

There's been no House condemnation of them. Nor will there ever be.

Barack Obama even posed with Farrakhan. He has never been asked about it to his face by the same media outlets running the "Trump is a racist" loop 24/7.

So this just makes Rep. Tlaib one of the gang. It shows that she paid her dues in Dem politics.

Rashida Tlaib was elected to Congress in 2018 and has quickly become a lightning rod for her criticism of Israel and her associations with Palestinian activists, at least one of whom has compared Zionism to Naziism. Tlaib recently told the New York Times regarding her support for such Palestinians, "respect for free speech does not equate to anti-Semitism."

When Tlaib worked for the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services in Detroit in 2006, she wrote an article for Louis Farrakhan's publication The Final Call:

The article is unremarkable. The publication is.

If a Republican House member had been caught writing an article for a white supremacist publication, there would be hell to pay. (Assuming it was politically useful for hell to pay. Ron Paul got a pass for that sort of thing because he was politically useful during the Iraq War.) But this is just what the new Dem reality is. Farrakhan had posed with a two term president. He's on good terms with a nice chunk of the CBC. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if Cory Booker or Kamala Harris meet up with him at some point. If they haven't already.

Anti-Semitism and racism are the new Dem normal.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 week ago

President Donald Trump has asserted that he believes Congresswoman Ilhan Omar should either resign from Congress or at least from the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The comment from the president comes in response to a controversial tweet from the lawmaker that has been widely regarded as antisemitic. Omar had said that Republican support for Israel […]

eviemagazine

Published  1 week ago

Love her or hate her, you can't ignore her. Meet the activist and trailblazer who is leading a movement, the likes of which we haven't seen in a long time.

wbay

Published  1 week ago

A bipartisan group of lawmakers announced an emerging agreement -- in principle -- breaking an impasse over border protection and immigration.

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

The toxic belief that Jews manipulate politicians to harm America is one Ilhan Omar shares with the murderer at the Tree of Life Synagogue.

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

Dan Shapiro, Obama's ambassador to Israel from 2011 to 2017, called on fellow Democrats to denounce the antisemitic views of Ilhan Omar.

MAGAMEDIA

Published  1 week ago

Democrats are crazy. That’s all there is to it. Just plain crazy. The latest negotiations regarding the border wall have had lackluster results to say the least. Their latest demands call for…

Reason.com

Published  1 week ago

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, is a latter-day convert to legalizing pot. As a prosecutor and California attorney general, she was opposed to legalization. Indeed, as Scott Shackford noted yesterday, in her 2014 race to become Golden State AG, her Republican opponent favored legalization, a position she literally laughed at.

In an interview yesterday with the radio show The Breakfast Club, Harris admitted to smoking weed in college ("I did inhale," she said, laughing, "I just broke news!") and that she listened to Snoop Dogg and Tupac Shakur while getting high. Here's the problem: Harris graduated from Howard in 1986 and law school in 1989. Snoop Dogg, then known as Snoop Doggy Dogg, didn't get started until 1992 and Tupac's "career did not take off until the early 1990s when he debuted in Digital Underground's 'Same Song' from the soundtrack to the 1991 film Nothing but Trouble."

So either Harris was baked enough to time travel or she hit the bong after being in school. Not cool for a candidate whose slogan is "speaking truth, demanding justice." Most likely, she's just trying to curate a playlist that sends the right message. In this, she's hardly alone. We can recall, for instance, the way in which Al Gore quickly morphed from hosting a Senate panel on "porn rock" in 1985 (which included testimony from his wife Tipper, who headed up the Parents Music Resource Center, a group committed to combating sex, drugs, and satanism in popular entertainment) to becoming the world's most public—if unconvincing—Grateful Dead fan just a few years later. In 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama dictated an iPod playlist to Rolling Stone that was curiously inclusive of just about every possible demographic that might vote for him. Especially in an age of forced transparency, why do politicians feel a need to do this?

For a deep dive on how Kamala Harris is messaging her not-so-progressive past on a range of issues, go here. Or watch below:

The Electronic Intifada

Published  1 week ago

Is the influence of the Israel lobby waning?

Daily Intelligencer

Published  1 week ago

White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, appearing on Fox News Sunday, repeated the official administration line that Democrats had to choose between legislation and investigation. Chris Wallace reminded Mulvaney that he had supported a Republican Congress that had engaged in continuous investigations of the White House, reopening probes to chase conspiracy theories even after they had been conclusively debunked.

This prompted Mulvaney to make an interesting confession. The Republican Congress never wanted to pass laws in the first place:

WALLACE: You were there, of what the Republicans did to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on Benghazi, on Fast and Furious. And they got some things done despite the fact that these were aggressive partisan investigations.

MULVANEY: Well, we didn’t get very much done. Listen, I’ll be the first to admit that when the tea party wave, of which I was one, got here in 2011, the last thing we were interested in was giving President Obama legislative successes.

When somebody says “I’ll be the first to admit,” it’s usually an idiom, suggesting they are not trying to hide a fact that is widely known and frequently confessed. But in this case the sentence construction makes more sense if read literally. Mulvaney may actually be the first person to admit that congressional Republicans did not want to give Obama any legislative successes at all.

Mitch McConnell boasted that he pressured Republicans to refuse to compromise with any of the Obama administration’s priorities in his first two years (“We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals. Because we thought — correctly, I think — that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan.”).

Yet after Republicans won control of Congress on the shoulders of a tea party wave of debt hysteria in 2010, a conventional wisdom took hold that President Obama needed to get Republicans to make a deal. Most outside observers conceded that the congressional GOP might not be the easiest negotiating counterparty. Still, Obama was widely held to bear a share of the blame for his inability to get Republicans to make a deal. He didn’t play enough golf with them, or drink enough with them, or “lead.” The idea that Obama could and should force Republicans to make deals with him was pure conventional wisdom for years on end.

As a high-profile link between the Obama-era Republican Congress and the Trump administration, Mulvaney has retrospectively clarified a lot of points people refused to understand at the time. Mulvaney casually confessed last week that nobody cares about the deficit. Mulvaney of course spent the Obama era claiming to care about the deficit a lot — so much, indeed, that he was willing to shut down the government or even default on the national debt in order to reduce it. The debt hysteria was manufactured to cover a different agenda. Republicans wanted to force Obama to reduce popular domestic spending programs so they could cut taxes for the affluent. But since neither cutting retirement programs nor reducing taxes for the rich are popular goals, Republicans framed their policy as “deficit reduction,” and the debt-scold community and most of the mainstream news media took this framing at face value.

That’s one reason why Obama couldn’t make a deficit deal with Republicans: They didn’t care about the deficit. Also, as Mulvaney now casually concedes, they didn’t want to give him any accomplishments at all, so even if Obama offered a deal they could live with, they would have opposed it rather than allow him to claim legislative success.

The Republican Party of the last quarter century regularly toggles between methodological extremes. When they gain the presidency, they dismiss congressional oversight and fiscal responsibility alike as totally unnecessary. When they relinquish it, they pursue both to fanatical extremes. Either they are blowing up the deficit and covering up wild crime sprees, or they are demanding senseless austerity and conducting permanent, redundant investigations of phantasmal Fox News–generated nonevents.

Typically, they roll out a new cast of characters to justify the stance of the moment and allow the old ones to fade into the sunset. The Clinton-era inquisitors of Capitol Hill were gone from the scene when the Bush administration was escaping oversight and rolling up debt. The Bushies faded into the background when Obama-era Republicans waxed hysterical about debt and scandal. Now a new reversal is upon us. Unfortunately for Trump’s party, Mulvaney is still with us to answer for the past.

Leave a Comment

YourVoice America

Published  1 week ago

THE GATEWAY PUNDIT: President Trump’s approval rating reached 52% on Monday following the State of the Union Address last Tuesday.

Barack Obama’s approval rating was at 50% at a similar point in his presidency.

This is also despite national mainstream media reporting negatively on the highly successful President Trump 92% of the time.

Barack Obama had a cake walk with the media.

When President Trump gets a chance to tell his side of the story — unfiltered — and he gets a chance to tell THE FULL STORY with all of his accomplishments that are ignored by the state-run media his approval ratings skyrocket.

Trump should hold quarterly addresses to the nation.

Source: BOOM! Trump Approval Hits 52% — 9 Point Jump in 10 Days and One SOTU Address!

TheBlaze

Published  1 week ago

Sen. Rand Paul is on the right track

newsobserver

Published  1 week ago

President Donald Trump and Senate Republicans have prioritized the judiciary. Now Trump has three vacancies to fill on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers five states including NC and SC.

U.S.

Published  1 week ago

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a tough state law requiring voters to show photo identification, a decision critics say could keep some blacks, poor people and other traditional Democratic supporte...

NewsComAu

Published  1 week ago

In the public eye, some people like to play the high risk game of Russian roulette when it comes to their careers.

WayneDupree.com

Published  1 week ago

Los Angeles has officially declared itself a sanctuary city and safe haven to those who felt like they’ve been under attack by the Trump administration.

How idiotic is that?

Doesn’t it seem as if common sense, logic and rational thinking got locked away in some abandoned asylum these lunatics on the city council escaped from?

Think about that again. Sanctuary city. Sanctuary from what, America’s laws? As Barack Obama and Donald Trump have said, “We are a nation of laws.” Illegal aliens have broken the law so why shouldn’t they be prosecuted! They are criminals. If you listen to Democrats tell the story, these people are law-abiding criminals who chose to shortcut their way into the country bypassing others waiting on line, doing it the right way.

We hear how illegals are contribute to these so-called Sanctuary cities? I can’t believe they believe the crap they justify harboring undocumented individuals with no allegiance to the country they have corrupted.

“We declare, for all those who have been under attack in this Trump era, that this city, in this day, in this time, will be a city of sanctuary,” City Councilman Gilbert Cedillo said. “It will be a place where people will know that they will be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin, and not by who they choose to love, and not by when they got here. They will be judged by their contributions to our city.”

The City Council voted 12-2 to approve the non-binding resolution nearly a year and a half after it was first proposed. Other cities like have adopted their own sanctuary city policies.

Friday’s resolution declares Los Angeles to be a “City of Sanctuary, protecting the human rights of all our residents.”

The federal government should start buying up buildings all over California and increase staffing for ICE, Border Control, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the FBI. Build jails, courts, and whatever it takes to pick up, process, and deport anyone who is here illegally. They have the right to do so if Congress funds it and we should start doing it immediately.

If they aren’t going to cooperate with federal laws, then take the federal government force to California. There are all kinds of federal prisons, courts, FBI departments, and others in states, so it is lawful to do so. Surround the city with federal forces.

Here’s the question that needs to be answered, sooner rather than later. When is the DHS going to round up all these advocates of sanctuary cities and arrest them for harboring illegal aliens? Why is the law against harboring illegals being tossed aside like 3-4 day old trash?

Just like ancient Rome, we’re being invaded by the barbarians, and now they are inside the cities.

Please consider making a donation to WayneDupree.com

and help our mission to make the world a better place

If you find inaccurate information within this article, please use the contact form to alert us immediately.

NOTE: Facebook and Twitter are currently censoring conservative content. We hope they will reverse their policy and honor all voices shortly. Until then, please like our page on Facebook and PLEASE check the Wayne Dupree homepage for the latest stories.

Having problems finding a source for real news links in real time, click on Whatfinger.com. Visit, bookmark and share this resource and then tell your friends and family.

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

Attorney General nominee William Barr said in 2017 that he believed there was more basis to investigate failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for her alleged role in the Uranium One agreement than President Donald Trump’s purported collusion with the Russian government in the 2016 election.

Following a call last year by President Trump for the Department of Justice to probe into Clinton’s role in the deal, Barr told the New York Times that there was “nothing inherently wrong” about a president requesting a probe — but cautioned that one shouldn’t be undertaken because the White House wants one. Barr also told the Times: “I have long believed that the predicate for investigating the uranium deal, as well as the foundation, is far stronger than any basis for investigating so-called ‘collusion.’”

“To the extent it is not pursuing these matters, the department is abdicating its responsibility,” he added.

In his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday, Barr was asked about his previous comments regarding Uranium One. “I have no knowledge of Uranium One,” he told lawmakers. “I didn’t particularly think that was necessarily something that should be pursued aggressively. I was trying to make the point that there was a lot out there. I think all that stuff at the time was being looked at by [Utah U.S. Attorney John] Huber.”

Huber, tasked by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is looking into whether the law enforcement officials ignored allegations of Clinton involved in the sale of American uranium rights.

“The point I was trying to make there was that whatever the standard is for launching an investigation, it should be dealt with evenhandedly,” Barr added.

Brought to the forefront by Breitbart News senior editor-at-large Peter Schweizer in his New York Times best-selling book, Clinton Cash, the Uranium One scandal refers to an alleged scheme in which then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave Russia control over more than 20% of America’s uranium supply in exchange for $145 million in pledges benefiting the Clinton family and their foundation.

Rosatom acquired a majority stake in Uranium One in 2010 and bought the remainder of the company in 2013. Because Uranium One had holdings in American uranium mines, which at the time accounted for about 20 percent of America’s licensed uranium mining capacity, Rosatom’s 2010 purchase had to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. Such committee, known as CFIUS, is made up of officials from nine federal agencies, including the State Department. Other agencies represented on the committee include the departments of Treasury, Defense, Commerce, Energy, and Homeland Security and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

In April 2015, The New York Times published an article echoing much of the Schweizer book, including one item that not long after the Russians said they wanted to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, former president Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a speech in Moscow. The speech was paid for by a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin as it promoted Uranium One stock.

Canadian financier Frank Giustra, a top Clinton Foundation donor, sold his company, UrAsia, to Uranium One, which was chaired by Ian Telfer, also a Clinton Foundation donor. Giustra has said he sold his stake in the deal in 2007, while Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were vying for the Democratic presidential nomination.

According to Schweizer, who also serves as president of the Government Accountability Institute, the FBI, headed up by now special counsel Robert Mueller at the time, appears to have ignored evidence of Russian involvement in the uranium market when they approved the deal in 2010. “There was a megatons program that was designed to, in a sense, help the Russian nuclear industry transition from sort of military-based work to civilian work — a lot of detailed corruption that the FBI tracked in the 1990s and 2000s, so going up to the 2010 approval for Uranium One, it’s really impossible for senior FBI officials, including the director at the time — Mueller — to argue that they are just completely shocked that Uranium One and these kickbacks were taking place. It was widely known,” Schweizer told SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight co-hosts Rebecca Mansour and Joel Pollak last February.

The congressional testimony of “Uranium One whistleblower” William Douglas Campbell has led to the convictions of Russian executives tied to Rosatom in 2015 on bribery and money-laundering charges in connection to the Uranium One agreement. “This is a guy who was an FBI witness. It’s known that the Russians were paying him $50,000 a month to do work for them, and some of that work included, according to his job description, setting up meetings with high-level ranking U.S. officials. That’s all not in dispute,” Schweizer said of Campbell. “So this is a guy that certainly was there. The FBI found him credible. He got FBI executives thrown into jail, and they eventually pleaded guilty to a variety of charges, including bribery and kickbacks. So you can’t dismiss, as some Clinton defenders want to, this whistleblower as if he has no credibility because he was there.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Conservative Tribune

Published  1 week ago

Speaker Pelosi warned that if President Trump declares a national emergency it would set a precedent that a future Democratic president could use.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 week ago

President Donald Trump's approval rating has soared in recent weeks and is much higher than former President Barack Obama's was at the same point in his respective presidency. According to a new poll from Rasmussen, Trump's

The Atlantic

Published  1 week ago

When the U.S.S.R. collapsed, Washington bet on the global spread of democratic capitalist values—and lost.

American Greatness

Published  1 week ago

The Indecent Inquisitors

02/09 2:56 pm

Post by @theamgreatness.

dcclothesline

Published  2 weeks ago

(Natural News) Stunning new video footage released exclusively by InfoWars.com shows FBI personnel directing the CNN camera man who filmed the armed raid of Roger Stone. The new footage exposes the pure theater of the armed “Gestapo” raid on Roger Stone, which was carried out by 29 armed, geared-up FBI agents who now function as Robert Mueller’s domestic terrorism mercenaries.

The shocking video footage proves that the corrupt FBI was complicit in the theatrical staging of the arrest for CNN’s cameras, further proving that CNN was tipped off by someone in Robert Mueller’s office. Leaking this information to the media is a felony crime, demonstrating that Robert Mueller’s deep state mafia is, itself, a criminal operation engaged in domestic terrorism tactics against Americans.

The FBI attempted to confiscate this footage but reportedly failed to find and remove the DVR that captured it. Some of the video footage shows the FBI placing tape over the lens of one of the cameras, confirming that the FBI is actively engaged in attempts to cover up their crimes of violence that target innocent Americans for political purposes.

See the video screen grabs below, and share everywhere. This is now the America in which we live: A deep state, police state bureaucracy run by federal terrorists who stage armed raids against political enemies while collaborating with the anti-Trump media to stage such raids for propaganda “news” broadcasts. (All while the tech giants censor the independent media to silence the truth.)

Both CNN and the FBI are now clearly enemy combatants in a civil war being waged against America’s President and anyone linked to him. It’s time for all Americans to stand up and demand the arrest and criminal prosecution of Robert Mueller, James Comey, top FBI officials and CNN collaborators. The rogue deep state is out of control and has crossed the line into total criminality. The bureaucracy is now run by actual enemy combatants who are attempting to carry out a political coup in America, and they are now using Gestpo-style terrorism tactics to accomplish their intended goals.

Help support Roger Stone’s mounting legal costs by donating at StoneDefenseFund.com.

The CNN production vehicle arrives, having been illegally tipped off about the imminent raid:

FBI thugs meet with CNN personnel and direct them to capture the footage of the imminent raid:

Armed FBI “Gestapo” thugs launch the raid, carrying numerous rifles and handguns which are aimed at Roger Stone and his innocent wife:

Roger Stone is handcuffed and arrested for “lying to Congress” — something that James Comey, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have repeatedly done on countless occasions. Notice the armed, rifle-wielding FBI mercenary on the right side of this frame as he’s pointing his rifle at the front window of Roger Stone’s home:

Stay informed. More video footage is coming. This is why the tech giants are desperately censoring all independent media, so that they can dominate the news narratives with their fake news and staged acts of terrorism. Twitter banned Natural News yesterday, and Apple has threatened to ban the Natural News app if we continue to publish stories that expose the lies and terrorism of the lunatic Left.

Learn the truth at StoneColdTruth.com.

A Note From The Publisher: On January 17th I received another 30 day suspension from Facebook for sharing this article. The truth is a violation of community standards. We will keep publishing the truth, but please understand that we just lost a lot of traffic and I need you to help spread the word if we are to keep growing. I can't share anything on Facebook, but YOU can. Please do what you can to help. God Bless You, Dean Garrison

NBC News

Published  2 weeks ago

NBC News uncovered graphic and offensive tweets sent by Russian trolls in an attempt to further divide an already-divided nation.

Homeland Security

Published  2 weeks ago

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the new House Intelligence Committee chairman, is facing calls to recuse himself from the Russia investigation after photos emerged of him at an undisclosed meeting (colluding?) with Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, a key figure in the Russia collusion scandal.

This comes as the Democrat-led committee is massively expanding the Russia probe to include Trump's business dealings.

The photos in question were taken at a prestigious Aspen security conference last July, The Hill's John Solomon reported. They show Schiff wearing a "sport coat and open-neck dress shirt, and Simpson wearing casual attire," according to Solomon, who has seen the pics.

Fusion GPS, which was hired on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to find dirt on then-candidate Donald Trump, has a long history of smearing Republicans for profit. In 2012, for instance, Barack Obama's presidential campaign hired Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, as well as his donors, to literally create an enemies list.

During a November 14, 2017, closed-door deposition before the House Intelligence Committee, Simpson said Fusion GPS was originally hired in the fall of 2015 by the Free Beacon to take "an open-ended look at Donald Trump's business career and his litigation history and his relationships with questionable people, how much he was really worth, how he ran his casinos, what kind of performance he had in other lines of work."

Work for the Free Beacon ceased in spring 2016, he said. Fusion GPS was later hired by law firm Perkins Cole, which had been retained by the DNC. "We began to review what we had learned over the previous months and talk about what we would do, you know, now that we would have resources to pursue this - some of these matters further," Simpson said.

"Specific lines of inquiry" into the GOP presidential candidate "were a lot of Mr. Trump's overseas business deals, his history with regard to tax disputes" and labor practices with his clothing line.

Simpson hired former British spy Christopher Steele, who compiled the unverified anti-Trump dossier and went on to work closely with the FBI and DOJ official Bruce Ohr before, during, and after the 2016 presidential election. The Steele dossier was used by the FBI to obtain FISA warrants to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

After the FBI officially stopped using Steele as a confidential source (because he had leaked to the media), they used then-associate deputy attorney general Ohr as a backchannel to Steele.

As Solomon notes, Simpson was an important witness in the House Intelligence Committee's Russia probe at the time of his encounter with Schiff in Aspen.

www.theepochtimes.com

Published  2 weeks ago

Commentary We are now living in a unique era in American history. A political party that long ago ...

Townhall

Published  2 weeks ago

'Russian Collusion' by Saul Alinsky - Wayne Allyn Root: Do you know Saul Alinsky? He was the mentor of .02/09/2019 15:18:32PM EST.

LifeZette

Published  2 weeks ago

Christian singer Jason Crabb took the honors for this

Breitbart

Published  2 weeks ago

Democratic legislators are using the budget/wall negotiations to reopen catch-and-release loopholes which have been narrowed since 2016.

WayneDupree.com

Published  2 weeks ago

Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, called out Pres. Trump, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo in a speech to one of his huge weekly packed crowds. He told those in attendance that when he says ‘Death To America,’ he means to those three American leaders.

Burning American flags, taking hostages, abusing and imprisoning people, shouting Death to America, Death to Israel, Funding Radical Islamic Terrorism, and they are the victims? Get out of here with that mess.

“ Death to America’ means death to Trump and John Bolton and Pompeo,” the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said, referring to John R. Bolton, the president’s national security adviser, and Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state. “It means death to American leaders, who happen to be these people at this time,” he added.

Ayatollah Khamenei has reflected on the phrase repeatedly as Iran prepares to commemorate the 40th anniversary of its Islamic revolution, and engages in an increasingly bitter standoff with the Trump administration. The United States has withdrawn from a nuclear accord with Iran, reimposed economic sanctions on the country, and stepped up measures designed to pressure and perhaps to change its leadership.

“Death to America” would remain part of Iran’s official discourse, Ayatollah Khamenei’s website, Khamenei.ir, quoted him as saying on Monday, until the United States changed its “evil and mean” ways.

Should we expect anything other than death threats to the United States from the terrorism Capitol of the Middle East? Barack Obama paid them millions and they hated him too. Now that Trump is the President, the flow of cash has come to a screeching halt, so of course, they hate him.

For some reason, these people forgot Pres. Trump dropped the Mother Of All Bombs on Afghanistan during his first few months in office. Don’t they realize that Pres. Trump could wipe them off of the map in about five minutes?

Please consider making a donation to WayneDupree.com

and help our mission to make the world a better place

If you find inaccurate information within this article, please use the contact form to alert us immediately.

NOTE: Facebook and Twitter are currently censoring conservative content. We hope they will reverse their policy and honor all voices shortly. Until then, please like our page on Facebook and PLEASE check the Wayne Dupree homepage for the latest stories.

Having problems finding a source for real news links in real time, click on Whatfinger.com. Visit, bookmark and share this resource and then tell your friends and family.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 weeks ago

President Donald Trump took a few swipes at Democrats and former President Barack Obama in a Saturday morning tweetstorm.

President Trump bragged about his record economy and slammed former President Obama for his failed results.

President Trump: We have a great economy DESPITE the Obama Administration and all of its job killing Regulations and Roadblocks. If that thinking prevailed in the 2016 Election, the U.S. would be in a Depression right now! We were heading down, and don’t let the Democrats sound bites fool you!

We have a great economy DESPITE the Obama Administration and all of its job killing Regulations and Roadblocks. If that thinking prevailed in the 2016 Election, the U.S. would be in a Depression right now! We were heading down, and don’t let the Democrats sound bites fool you!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2019

Barack Obama had the worst economic recovery in US history; Obama is the only president in history to never see a single year of 3.0% GDP growth yet he later took credit for Trump’s historic accomplishments.

In September 2018 Kevin Hassett, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under the Trump administration, addressed the White House press briefing. Kevin went through ISM Purchasing Managers’ index, durable goods, employment and other statistics to explain the difference between Trump’s booming economy and Barack Obama’s massive failures.

President Trump then accused Democrats of vicious and hateful attacks in yesterday’s Congressional hearing with Attorney General Matt Whitaker.

Trump accused Democrats of “trying to win an election in 2020 that they know they cannot legitimately win!”

The Democrats in Congress yesterday were vicious and totally showed their cards for everyone to see. When the Republicans had the Majority they never acted with such hatred and scorn! The Dems are trying to win an election in 2020 that they know they cannot legitimately win!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2019

Breitbart

Published  2 weeks ago

Six of the seven Democratic Party presidential candidates in the U.S. Senate voted against a pro-Israel bill this week that would make it easier for states to oppose the “boycott, divestment, sanctions” (BDS) movement.

Some critics have called BDS not only anti-Israel, but antisemitic, because it targets only Israel and not the Palestinians, and because it singles out Israel while ignoring human rights abuses committed by its neighbors.

As Ron Kampeas of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency noted (via the Jerusalem Post):

The Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act (S.1), which the American Israel Public Affairs Committee said “contains critical pro-Israel provisions,” passed 77-23, earning yeas from every Republican but one, Rand Paul of Kentucky. It codifies $38 billion in defense assistance to Israel and provides legal cover to states that target the boycott Israel movement.

However, Democrats were split on the bill. Initially, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) even blocked the bill from coming to a vote, blaming the government shutdown at the time.

Democrats were almost evenly split on the final vote. As Kampeas notes, Sen. Amy Klobucher (D-MN), who is expected to announce her candidacy for president this weekend, was the only contender to vote for the bill.

The others — Kamala Harris (D-CA), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) — all voted against the bill. Most cited free speech concerns — though anti-BDS laws have been found not to violate free speech laws. Last month, for example, a federal judge in Arkansas upheld that state’s anti-BDS law, which prevents the state from doing business with companies that boycott Israel. Even left-wing California, Harris’s home state, has an anti-BDS law in force.

A likelier reason for their “no” vote has to do with the increasing importance of anti-Israel political forces in the Democratic Party coalition.

Last month, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) appointed the avowedly anti-Israel Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, despite concern over her radical views and past antisemitic rhetoric.

Booker, once a favorite of Jewish donors in the Democratic Party, has effectively switched sides on the issue after supporting President Barack Obama’s ill-fated Iran nuclear deal in 2015.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 weeks ago

President Trump’s approval rating is up 7 points since last Friday, February 8.

President Trump’s approval rating reached 50% on Friday following the State of the Union Address on Tuesday.

Barack Obama’s approval rating was at 49% at a similar point in his presidency.

This is also despite national mainstream media reporting negatively on the highly successful President Trump 92% of the time.

Barack Obama had a cake walk with the media.

When President Trump gets a chance to tell his side of the story — unfiltered — and he gets a chance to tell THE FULL STORY with all of his accomplishments that are ignored by the state-run media his approval ratings skyrocket.

Trump should hold quarterly addresses to the nation.

Liberals fear truth and goodness.

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

Published  2 weeks ago

The Green New Deal will be up for a vote in the presidential and congressional elections, whether establishment Democrats like it or not.

She’s a walking, talking social justice warrior soundbite machine, someone whose knowledge is a mile wide and an inch deep. Social media, where she excels, is perfect for shallow but woke wisdom.

At one level, she is the gift Donald Trump and Republicans could not have hoped for in their wildest dreams. Her wacky Green New Deal is so preposterous in many of its details and in its totality, it is a caricature. It’s a prime example of what I call Progressive or Parody?, where it’s “very hard to distinguish progressive political and social positions from parody.”

That four of the leading Democrat presidential candidates (Harris, Warren, Booker, Gillibrand) rushed to co-sponsor or endorse the Green New Deal will be a theme Republicans will drive home from today through Election Day 2020. That these four kneecapped themselves as General Election candidates is Ocasio-Cortez’s greatest accomplishment (for Republicans) so far.

At another level, though, Ocasio-Cortez should be taken seriously precisely because she is a character familiar to anyone who has spent time on campuses in the past two decades. She represents an ignorant ahistorical adoration for socialism that has captured a significant portion of the Democratic Party. Socialists like Ocasio-Cortez are the energy in the Democratic Party, which explains why presidential candidates immediately jumped on her bandwagon.

Capitalism versus Socialism is one battle line for 2020. Whether or not the ultimate Democrat nominee endorses the Green New Deal, the Green New Deal will be made to be the Democrat platform whether Democrats like it or not. Let’s have a vote on Capitalism versus Socialism.

At another level, it’s not just Capitalism versus Socialism. In listening to a 2015 audio of Mark Levin, I heard a term I had not heard before: Degrowth.

What is Degrowth? An academic association devoted to Degrowth describes it as follows:

Sustainable degrowth is a downscaling of production and consumption that increases human well-being and enhances ecological conditions and equity on the planet. It calls for a future where societies live within their ecological means, with open, localized economies and resources more equally distributed through new forms of democratic institutions. Such societies will no longer have to “grow or die.” Material accumulation will no longer hold a prime position in the population’s cultural imaginary. The primacy of efficiency will be substituted by a focus on sufficiency, and innovation will no longer focus on technology for technology’s sake but will concentrate on new social and technical arrangements that will enable us to live convivially and frugally. Degrowth does not only challenge the centrality of GDP as an overarching policy objective but proposes a framework for transformation to a lower and sustainable level of production and consumption, a shrinking of the economic system to leave more space for human cooperation and ecosystems.

Watch this video promoting degrowth, and it sounds a lot like the Green New Deal.

As Levin explains, the Degrowth movement is fundamentally at war with Capitalism, which is devoted to economic growth (transcription via Jeff Poor, Breitbart):

“In the last 15 year, many of the tenets of utopian statism have coalesced around something called the ‘degrowth movement,’” he said. “It is called the degrowth movement in Europe. It originates in Europe but is now taking a firm hold in the United States. The ‘degrowthers,’ that is what I call them, the ‘degrowthers,’ and like other words I’ve used in the past, it’ll be picked up. But that’s OK. The degrowthers include in their ranks none other than Barack Obama.”

The conservative talker pointed to aspects of the movement, which are in some forms parts of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-NY) “Green New Deal.”

“I am telling you, this environmental movement is a communist movement, and I’ve been saying it for years,” he continued. “Now what I have done is dug much deeper into this degrowth movement, which we have imported to the United States. All of this: class warfare, immigration, race-based attacks — all of it actually circles around this degrowth movement, which is an attack on a developed nation, our nation. You might have well had a cover on it calling it the ‘Communist Manifesto.’”

“So the Reds have taken over the environmental movement,” Levin later concluded. “That’s what so-called climate change and global warming are all about.”

Levin also discusses Degrowth in his book Plunder and Deceit.

So the battle lines in 2020 are not simply Capitalism versus Socialism, but Growth versus Degrowth.

Let’s have a vote on two fundamentally different ideologies. It’s a vote we can still win, for now.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 weeks ago

The House Democrats launched an investigation into President Trump’s tax returns on Thursday.

Currently there is no law requiring a presidential candidate release their tax returns, but the Democrats don’t care about laws — they want to harass President Trump.

A hearing of a Ways and Means oversight subcommittee on Thursday was meant to begin building a legal case that Trump withholding his tax returns was potentially hiding violations of federal tax laws therefore compromising US interests.

The Democrats argued in the hearing that they have legal authority to invoke an obscure provision in the federal code that allows the Chairman of the committee to access private tax information, reported the New York Times.

What comes next is far less clear. The statute in question — Section 6103 of the federal tax code — gives the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee extraordinary powers to request that the Treasury Department release to him tax information on any filer, including the president. The provision allows the committee to review the tax information privately, but it would have to vote to disclose any return information or findings to the public.

There is scant precedent for its use to investigate an individual, much less someone of Mr. Trump’s stature. That and an all but certain legal challenge from the administration will most likely leave the outcome to the federal courts.

The committee’s chairman, Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA), is working with the House’s general counsel, Doug Letter, to build a legal argument that will withstand a court challenge, reported the NY Times.

Democrat lawmakers insist they aren’t trying to ‘get Trump,’ rather, they are merely interested in following the law.

House Speaker Pelosi says Americans “overwhelmingly” want to see President Trump’s tax returns.

“Overwhelmingly, the public wants to see the president’s tax returns,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California. “They want to know the truth. They want to know the facts. And he has nothing to hide.”

Congressional Republicans however are fighting back and accusing Democrats of seeking to violate Trump’s privacy and setting a very dangerous precedent.

President Trump unleashed on his Twitter account earlier Thursday, saying “The Dems and their committees are going nuts,” adding, “Presidential harassment! It should never be able to happen again!”

….The Dems and their committees are going “nuts.” The Republicans never did this to President Obama, there would be no time left to run government. I hear other committee heads will do the same thing. Even stealing people who work at White House! A continuation of Witch Hunt!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 7, 2019

We still have not seen Barack Obama’s records — perhaps President Trump should unseal all of Obama’s records so the American people can know the truth.

Charleston Gazette-Mail

Published  2 weeks ago

The employer of a West Virginia lawmaker says it’s investigating after he said on social media that presidential candidate Hillary Clinton should be publicly executed.

Delegate Michael Folk, R-Berkeley, tweeted to Clinton late Friday afternoon that she should be “should be tried for treason, murder, and crimes against the US Constitution... then hung on the Mall in Washington, DC.”

United Airlines, which employs Folk as a commercial pilot, tweeted that they are looking into the situation.

“We are definitely aware, and are investigating this,” the airline responded to a Twitter user who asked them about it. “Thanks for letting us know.”

Folk said Saturday that he wrote the tweet after watching a video of Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah,, head of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, ask Charles McCullough, the inspector general of the intelligence community, to see classified emails Clinton is alleged to have had on a private email server. McCullough explained that he couldn’t show the emails to Congress without getting permission from the agency that owns the information.

Folk said if a private person had done what Clinton did they would be put in prison -— which contradicts what FBI Director James Comey said on July 5 when announcing the decision not to charge Clinton.

Comey, a Republican who was a deputy attorney general under President George W. Bush before being named FBI director by President Barack Obama, said the FBI’s “judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” although he said Clinton had been “extremely careless” with her emails.

“The mention of hanging and implication of murder should never, ever be acceptable. To think that a person in a leadership position in our state can say these types of things is baffling and should not be tolerated,” West Virginia Democratic Party Chairwoman Belinda Biafore said in a statement. “Folk’s actions should deem him as unfit to serve and Speaker Tim Armstead should take action if Folk doesn’t resign.

The Democratic statement also said, “Such rhetoric has been on the rise within the Republican Party on a state and national level and has become increasingly dangerous.”

“What I called for is for her to be tried and the maximum penalty for treason is death,” Folk said. “Technically it’s not death by hanging...”

Folk said his employer had not contacted him about the tweet as of Saturday afternoon. He defended his tweet as free speech.

“People do wrong they need to be held accountable,” he said. “And exercising a First Amendment right is not necessarily doing wrong.”

Executive director Nate Lerner said coalition members have been contacting the state Republican Party demanding he resign. They are also encouraged to tweet at United Airlines and sign a petition about the matter.

The Hive

Published  2 weeks ago

Stephanie Winston Wolkoff was the mastermind event producer behind Trump’s inaugural celebration, which has since come under S.D.N.Y. investigation. Now, taped conversations reveal Wolkoff’s concerns with how money was being spent, the general chaos of the process, the involvement of the Trump family, and the people in charge, namely Rick Gates and Tom Barrack.

HuffPost

Published  2 weeks ago

Wallace said on Friday’s broadcast of “Outnumbered” that he found it “kind of rich that Republicans are so outraged that there would be this kind of a hearing of the other party’s president and administration.”

It came during an analysis of acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.

“You know, it’s not like Republicans sat on their hands when Barack Obama was president,” Wallace said. “They investigated Benghazi, they investigated Fast & Furious, they investigated the IRS, and you know, look, those were all legitimate issues to investigate. Sometimes they found some things, sometimes they didn’t find things.”

Wallace noted how it was all “part of oversight.”

“When Republicans are, have oversight of a branch of Congress or a house of Congress and they’re investigating a Democratic president, they’re gonna make life difficult for them, and now the Democrats are in control of the House and have the control of these committees,” he said.

“That’s the way it works.”

Conservative Tribune

Published  2 weeks ago

Meghan McCain said that Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner were not welcomed and wished they had not attended her father's funeral last September.

Breitbart

Published  2 weeks ago

Back in 2015 on his nationally syndicated radio show, conservative talker Mark Levin warned that what some were calling the environmental movement was nothing more than a “degrowth” movement, which apparently has much larger aims than curing environmental ails.

Levin noted that the origins of the movement come out of Europe and it had a following of prominent figures on the left, including now-former President Barack Obama.

“In the last 15 year, many of the tenets of utopian statism have coalesced around something called the ‘degrowth movement,'” he said. “It is called the degrowth movement in Europe. It originates in Europe but is now taking a firm hold in the United States. The ‘degrowthers,’ that is what I call them, the ‘degrowthers,’ and like other words I’ve used in the past, it’ll be picked up. But that’s OK. The degrowthers include in their ranks none other than Barack Obama.”

The conservative talker pointed to aspects of the movement, which are in some forms parts of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-NY) “Green New Deal.”

“I am telling you, this environmental movement is a communist movement, and I’ve been saying it for years,” he continued. “Now what I have done is dug much deeper into this degrowth movement, which we have imported to the United States. All of this: class warfare, immigration, race-based attacks — all of it actually circles around this degrowth movement, which is an attack on a developed nation, our nation. You might have well had a cover on it calling it the ‘Communist Manifesto.'”

“So the Reds have taken over the environmental movement,” Levin later concluded. “That’s what so-called climate change and global warming are all about.”

newsobserver

Published  2 weeks ago

Judges of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday overturned North Carolina’s 2013 elections law that included a provision requiring voters to show ID at the polls.

Conservative News Today

Published  2 weeks ago

It appears that there was plenty of collusion when it comes to allegations of Russian interference, it just doesn’t involve President Donald Trump. In what’s being dismissed as a coincidental crossing of paths, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the new chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, met with Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson last July at […]

Conservative News Today

Published  2 weeks ago

President Donald Trump blasted Democrat Congressman Adam Schiff for his party’s ongoing “presidential harassment” by launching yet another pointless investigation into his finances and personal life. In a fiery tweetstorm (see below), Trump underscored that the ongoing “Russia collusion” investigation has yielded no evidence after two years. Former NYC Police Chief Bernard Kerik noted that Adam Schiff […]

WND

Published  2 weeks ago

The American people should not take personally the chants of “death to America” frequently led by Iran’s mullah dictators, according the nation’s supreme leader.

The Ayatollah Ali Khamenei made the clarification on Friday at a gathering of Iranian Air Force officers marking the 40th anniversary of the nation’s Islamic revolution.

“‘Death to America’ means death to Trump, John Bolton and (Mike) Pompeo. It means death to American rulers,” he said, referring to the national security adviser and the secretary of state along with the president.

“As long as America continues its wickedness, the Iranian nation will not abandon ‘Death to America,'” he said.

Trump pulled out of Iran’s 2015 nuclear deal with world powers last year and re-imposed sanctions on Tehran, dealing a blow to the country’s economy.

Jihad Watch Director Robert Spencer pointed out that Iranian leaders chanted “Death to America” during the presidencies of Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

“But now it only means ‘Death to Trump,'” he said.

Spencer commented that it’s “worth remembering in this context that deception of unbelievers is an Islamic concept based on the Qur’an (3:28), but its theological elaboration as the concept of taqiyya is a specifically Shi’ite enterprise.”

“The Shi’ite Islamic regime in Tehran makes liberal use of deception,” he wrote.

National Review

Published  2 weeks ago

Mueller scours Team Trump for Russian collusion as Dems marinate in it.

Townhall

Published  2 weeks ago

I realize that Republicans' failed "repeal and replace" adventure feels like ancient history at this point -- especially with Democrats increasingly embracing their next reckless healthcare scheme -- but going back to review the record can occasionally be quite illuminating. You may recall that one of the rhetorical lynchpins of the Left's anti-repeal fear mongering was the ubiquitous assertion that "millions" would "lose healthcare" if the GOP had succeeded in their legislative effort. I spent quite a lot of energy during that debate debunking various claims and checking facts. One of the major points I emphasized was that the projections of "lost coverage" relied on extremely questionable analyses from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office:

Fully 73 percent of "lost" coverage would arise from individuals making a choice to exit the marketplace after the federal government ceased requiring every American to purchase insurance. CBO analysts apparently believe the mandate has mystical influence over consumers' decisions, unlike other incentives built into Republican bills -- such as a surcharge for non-continuous coverage, or a six-month waiting period to obtain plans for people with nonexistent or lapsed coverage. The folly of this approach is exposed by the second factor Roy mentions, which accounts for almost all of CBO's remaining coverage differential between Obamacare and various replacement plans: The "outdated baseline." What does that mean? Put simply, CBO has always vastly overestimated how many people would be compelled by the individual mandate tax to purchase plans. Even as their projections have been disproven by actual Obamacare sign-ups, CBO hasn't sufficiently updated their expectations to reflect, well, reality. They've instead rooted their latest analyses in 2016 projections that have already been debunked by real-life results, to the tune of millions of people.

My point was that of the big, scary "lost coverage" number (in the ballpark of 23 million people), almost all of it was based on a combination of (a) estimates of people choosing to forego Obamacare plans if they weren't required to buy them, and (b) CBO's wildly and provably inaccurate enrollment projections. In the excerpt above, I reference "Roy," as in healthcare wonk Avik Roy, who'd been beating the drum on this very same issue. Another flaw he raised was CBO's bizarre assumption that if Obamacare's individual mandate tax were repealed, millions of people would supposedly drop their Medicaid coverage, which was costing them nothing out-of-pocket. Anyway, I've rehashed these arguments because new government data confirms that CBO's number crunchers were, indeed, catastrophically wrong:

CBO estimated eliminating mandate penalties would mean 13 million fewer covered. CMS actuaries, in footnote, now project the number is more like 2.5 mln in 2019 & "smaller" thereafter. https://t.co/wDWP01AGSD

— Philip Klein (@philipaklein) February 21, 2019

A new report from government actuaries has revealed that the Congressional Budget Office was scandalously off in its estimates of the impact of Obamacare's individual mandate, a miscalculation that has had significant ramifications for healthcare and tax policy over the past decade. CBO estimates about the importance of an individual mandate to a national healthcare scheme prodded President Barack Obama into including the unpopular provision into the law in the first place. The mandate projections also played a key role in President Trump's two major legislative initiatives. The fact that the CBO assumed 14 million could lose coverage mainly due to the elimination of mandate penalties helped kill the effort to repeal and replace Obamacare...the CMS report revealed that 2.5 million more people would go without insurance in 2019 due to the repeal of the individual mandate's penalties, and the impact would be "smaller" thereafter...Medicaid enrollment is [now] assumed to be unaffected.

In guessing the enrollment impact of axing the individual mandate tax on both the exchanges and Medicaid, CBO was off by more than...15 million people. "While any CBO analysis of the Republican bills was likely to project large coverage losses due to the cuts to Medicaid and subsidies, if CBO had more realistic assumptions about the mandate, the numbers would have been significantly smaller, and perhaps left more room to convince centrist Republicans to get on board," Klein writes.

He also points out how CBO's absurdly inaccurate analysis actually helped the GOP make the math work on tax reform. The tax law repealed Obamacare's central mandate, which created new (on-paper) revenues to play with. Between Obamacare's passage, the unsuccessful repeal fight, and tax reform, CBO's flagrant misjudgment on this crucial issue has now reverberated in significant ways, for years. Klein concludes, "given the outsized influence that the CBO has on policymaking in Washington, the CBO's misfire on the individual mandate should be a major story." Yes, it should be, especially as it pertains to the pressing question of how we move forward from here:

The CBO estimate on repealing Obamacare’s individual mandate was wrong. Really wrong. We need accountability. We need the CBO Show Your Work Act. https://t.co/upxs1aoz4R

— Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) February 21, 2019

While the CBO fulfills a vital role in the realm of American governance, it's clear that some reforms are desperately needed. Some of these suggestions seem like a good place to start.

Washington Examiner

Published  2 weeks ago

It was a big deal when 14 high-school students had President Trump in their classroom.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 weeks ago

President Trump’s approval rating is up 9 points since Friday, February 1.

President Trump’s approval rating reached 52% on Monday following the State of the Union Address last Tuesday.

Barack Obama’s approval rating was at 50% at a similar point in his presidency.

This is also despite national mainstream media reporting negatively on the highly successful President Trump 92% of the time.

When President Trump gets a chance to tell his side of the story — unfiltered — and he gets a chance to tell THE FULL STORY with all of his accomplishments that are ignored by the state-run media his approval ratings skyrocket.

Trump should hold quarterly addresses to the nation.

B B C

Published  2 weeks ago

The biography provided by Barack Obama to his literary agent specified his birthplace as “Kenya” and, over the course of 17 years, despite multiple revisions by Obama, the Kenyan birthplace remained a fundamental part of the bio on the agent’s website.

I’ve used the Wayback Archive to explore the exact transformations of Obama’s biography on his agent’s site.

“BARACK OBAMA, the junior Democratic senator from Illinois, is currently campaigning to become the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee. He was born in Hawaii to a father who was raised in a small village in Kenya and a mother who grew up in small-town Kansas. Barack’s father eventually returned to Kenya, and Barack grew up with his mother in Hawaii, and for a few years in Indonesia. Later, he moved to New York, where he graduated from Columbia University before moving to Chicago, where he became a community organizer. He went on to earn his law degree from Harvard, where he became the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. His first book, DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE, has been a long-time New York Times bestseller.”

Old media’s feeble handling of this issue — parroting the laughable assertion that clerical errors caused Obama’s birthplace to be incorrectly listed, when former clients and the agency’s policy itself states that authors provide the biographical briefs — is pathetic.

As I’ve demonstrated here, Obama’s bio was carefully edited over the course of 17 years to reflect his various accomplishments.

It was only a few months after his presidential candidacy was announced that his Kenyan “birthplace” became Hawaiian to confirm his eligibility for office. Obama remains a client to this day, which helps explain the literary agent’s willingness to instantly offer an explanation for the discrepancy.

Note: This Article is Not Meant as Proof that Obama was Born in Kenya but rather to Show Proof That He Did Use Kenya as His Birthplace on his Literary Agent’s Site until 2007. This Could Mean Two Things:

1) He Used Kenya as His Birthplace in Order to Benefit From Foreign Scholarships

2) He was indeed Born in Kenya

Whatever the true reason, I cannot speculate. My Job is to provide to you the evidence I am given.

Big League Politics

Published  2 weeks ago

President Donald J. Trump made broadcast history on Tuesday night when his State of the Union Address pulled over 46 million viewers, something rarely achieved in American television.

President Trump’s second State of the Union Address reached nearly 47 million American viewers after the final numbers were tabulated by respected ratings group Nielsen, showing an increase over last year’s State of the Union Address and a massive uptick in viewers from President Barack Obama’s record low final State of the Union Address, which reached a mere 33 million viewers.

President Obama’s low viewership numbers are only mirrored by the final State of the Union Address delivered by President Bill Clinton, as he was embroiled in the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

According to Broadcasting Cable:

It was the biggest audience for a traditional address since 2010, when President Obama spoke to Congress. Bigger audiences saw the president speak in 2017 and 2009, but those speeches were officially called an Address to the Joint Sessions of Congress.

More people watched the State of the Union on Fox News Channel than any other single network. Fox News delivered 11.1 million people.

The broadcast networks had the next most viewers, with 7.1 million viewers on NBC, 6.7 million on CBS, 5.9 million on ABC and 5.9 million on Fox.

President Trump’s 46.8 million viewers surpassed the series finale of several iconic American shows from the 20th century, including The Cosby Show, All In The Family, Frasier, Dallas, Everybody Loves Raymond, and Star Trek: The Next Generation.

The majority of broadcast events to surpass President Trump’s viewership are broadcasts of various football games and several years’ Super Bowl, which is routinely the most watched annual broadcast, thus making President Trump’s State of the Union Address one of the only non-sporting events to capture such a large audience in American broadcast history.

POLITICUSUSA

Published  2 weeks ago

Ahead of Donald Trump’s annual physical, White House staff seem to be doing their best to lower expectations about the president’s health.

Not only hasn’t Trump stuck to his diet, but he reportedly hasn’t set foot inside his personal fitness room a single time since taking office.

“The President received a diet and exercise plan last year after his annual physical, but the President admits he has not followed it religiously,” said principal deputy White House press secretary Hogan Gidley, according to CNN.

The report notes that the only thing Trump has done to improve his health is eat a fish dinner prepared by the White House. Aside from that, the president is “reluctant to change his eating habits.”

This despite the fact that, as CNN reports, Trump has high cholesterol, an obsession with burgers and fries and a common form of heart disease.

It’s one thing that Trump is in his 70s, has high cholesterol, a heart condition and poor diet. He makes matters worse by refusing to exercise.

As CNN reports, “Nearly a dozen White House officials and sources close to Trump said they don’t believe he’s set foot in the fitness room in the White House residence, maintaining his view that exercise would be a waste of the energy he has always touted as one of his best attributes.”

“I get exercise. I mean I walk, I this, I that,” Trump said, according to the report. “I run over to a building next door. I get more exercise than people think.”

Compare Trump’s nonexistent workout regimen to his most recent predecessors, Barack Obama and George W. Bush, who made exercise central to their lives.

It should also be noted that this president has plenty of time to hit the gym once or twice a week. His private schedules released by Axios this week show that the majority of his time is spent watching TV and tweeting.

Given the amount of free time Donald Trump has on his hands, it’s stunning that he hasn’t accidentally stumbled into the White House fitness room at least once.

The Daily Signal

Published  2 weeks ago

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton discusses the latest updates in the Hillary Clinton email scandal and how the emails relate to the Benghazi talking points in an interview with The Daily Signal.

Katrina Pierson

Published  2 weeks ago

As reported by WashingtonExaminer

Former Vice President Joe Biden, who has been emphasizing his civil rights record as he considers a 2020 White House bid, once praised notorious segregationist George Wallace and later claimed to have received an award from him.

“I think the Democratic Party could stand a liberal George Wallace — someone who’s not afraid to stand up and offend people, someone who wouldn’t pander but would say what the American people know in their gut is right,” Biden told the Philadelphia Enquirer on Oct. 12, 1975, referring to the racist then-Alabama governor. During 1987 fundraising trips across the South for his unsuccessful 1988 presidential bid, he sought to appeal to white voters, telling audiences that he had received an award from Wallace in 1973 and that the segregationist had lauded him as “one of the outstanding young politicians of America.”

Last week, Biden, who could face at least two African-American opponents in the 2020 race for the presidency, told an audience in Fort Lauderdale that “I came out of the civil rights movement.” He has also stressed his closeness to “my buddy” Barack Obama, America’s first black president, who chose him as his vice presidential running mate in 2008 and 2012.

Wallace, an open segregationist who in later life apologized for his positions, famously punctuated his 1963 inaugural address with the rallying cry: “Segregation now, segregation forever!” He ran for president as a segregationist three times in 1964, 1968, and in 1972, when his campaign was cut short after he was shot and crippled in Laurel, Md.

Biden’s 1975 comments came on the heels of a legislative victory in the Senate, when he sponsored an amendment to prevent the federal government enforcing busing policies to desegregate school districts. Biden’s amendment appalled civil rights activists who claimed it set back desegregation efforts and struck down parts of the Civil Rights Act.

“The pro-busers and the civil rights lobby were dumbstruck … although I had put them on notice months earlier,” said Biden in the interview. “I think I’ve made it possible for liberals to come out of the closet … If [anti-busing] isn’t yet a respectable liberal position, it is no longer a racist one.”

The Washington Examiner reported last week that Biden embraced segregation in October 1975, the same month he said Democrats could do with “a liberal George Wallace,” stating that it was a matter of “black pride.”

Biden’s historical praise for Wallace is a marked contrast to his recent statements about the late Alabama politician. In October 2018, Biden lambasted President Trump for being like Wallace.

“No president has ever led by fear. Not Lincoln. Not Roosevelt. Not Kennedy. Not Reagan,” said Biden during a Democratic rally in Orlando, Fla. “This president [Trump] is more like George Wallace than George Washington!”

Biden stressed his anti-busing legislation while campaigning for white votes in Southern states for his campaign for the 1988 Democratic presidential nomination.

You can read more here.

timesofisrael

Published  2 weeks ago

Former Basij militia chief says no country can mediate between Tehran and Jewish state: 'I myself will hoist the flag of the Islamic Revolution in Jerusalem, Allah willing'

The Washington Times

Published  2 weeks ago

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Here’s a scoop for you: The so-called “Green New Deal,” onto which 70 leading Democrats have signed, doesn’t exist. Like a salesman parked at a corner hawking a small bottle filled with a mystery substance that will cure everything from insomnia to cancer, the Democratic Party is promoting a fraud-work quilt promising a cure for all.

In reality, this hoax targeting the liberal base, GenXers and progressives, is nothing more than an elaborate Get Out the Vote organizing effort. As a former community organizer, I respect that work when it’s about real proposals, actual legislation and serious ideas.

Yet, courtesy of a letter being sent by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York to Democratic colleagues in the House of Representatives, we now know that there is no package of implementable ideas or policy. What they do have is a press release word salad of platitudes, slogans and talking points.

Bloomberg reported on the letter, with a revealing headline: “Ocasio-Cortez begins to sketch out details of ‘Green New Deal.’ ” That confirms the thing Democrats, including Sens. Kamala D. Harris of California and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, have endorsed isn’t even formulated yet. As Winston Churchill might note, it’s a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. It would be more honest to call it the “Green New Hoax.”

Bloomberg’s first paragraph outlining Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s “blueprint” is at least honest: “Environmental legislation dubbed a ‘Green New Deal’ and championed by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has drawn widespread attention — despite the fact that no one really knows for sure what it is.”

No one knows, because it doesn’t exist.

” ‘Next week, we plan to release a resolution that outlines the scope and scale of the Green New Deal,’ according to a letter the New York Democrat sent to colleagues. ‘In it, we call for a national, social, industrial and economic mobilization at a scale not seen since World War II,’ ” Bloomberg reported. “Goals laid out in the letter include reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions ‘through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers,’ creating millions of ‘good, high-wage jobs’ while ensuring prosperity and economic security for all, and investment in infrastructure and industry.”

Sounds like a cultural revolution to me. What’s the “fair and just transition for all communities” she’s talking about? Vague enough to be modeled on Pol Pot or Chairman Mao Zedong or maybe just Martha Stewart. Who knows, and that’s the point.

“The resolution will also call for clean air and water, climate resiliency, healthy food, access to nature and ‘a sustainable environment for all for generations to come,’ according to the letter. Lastly, the Green New Deal will ‘promote justice and equity by preventing current and repairing historic oppression to frontline and vulnerable communities,” the newswire reported.

Further proof of the lack of seriousness is this outrageous pitching of “protecting vulnerable communities,” as the young woman in front of this charade has said nothing in opposition to her party moving in several states to legitimize infanticide.

In December 2018, in a story about the genesis of the scheme, the New Yorker magazine inadvertently exposed the real agenda.

“Sunrise, founded a year and a half ago by a dozen or so twentysomethings, began its campaign for the Green New Deal last month, when two hundred activists occupied Nancy Pelosi’s office a week after the midterm elections. The movement has allied with the incoming congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. … Inside Luther Place Memorial Church, cheers erupted as activists unfurled a yellow and black ‘green new deal now’ banner from the balcony. The crowd hushed as the first speaker, Varshini Prakash, came to the microphone. Prakash … is one of Sunrise’s co-founders. She later told me that a highlight of her activism career was when she participated in a musical disruption of a Trump administration panel at the United Nations climate conference in Bonn, in 2017…” the New Yorker reported.

Included in its coverage is this comment from Ms. Prakash, who also happened to be a guest of Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts at the State of the Union address: “‘Our strategy for 2019 is going to be continuing this momentum to build the people power and the political power to make a Green New Deal a political inevitability in America,’ Prakash told me. ‘In 2020, we, along with our partners, are going to be attempting to build the largest youth political force this country has ever seen.’ “

Further, the New Yorker reported that the founders of “Sunrise” met through groups such as Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter.

The Sunrise Movement’s website makes it clear — its members are all about organizing at the local level, highlighting their goal to “Build our movement in every corner of the country so we can reach the millions of young people who are scared about climate and keep building support for a Green New Deal.” Which, as we now know, is an apparition.

But one does need a cause — preferably one that is malleable and pushes all the right emotional buttons. No one asked former President Barack Obama for specifics of his “hope and change” plan, and we all know how that worked out. Now the same leftists trust you won’t ask for specifics as they plan the next round of wrecking your life.

• Tammy Bruce, president of Independent Women’s Voice, author and Fox News contributor, is a radio talk show host.

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

Deadline

Published  2 weeks ago

2ND UPDATE, 2:43 PM: Whatever the critics or political rivals say about his State of the Union speech, Donald Trump had a good night on Tuesday.

Breaking the tradition of declining viewership that usually afflicts Presidents this deep into their terms, the embattled ex-Celebrity Apprentice host snared an audience of 46.8 million.

Airing on ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, Telemundo, Univision, PBS, CNN, CNNe, FOX Business, FOX News Channel and MSNBC in the 9 – 10 PM ET slot, the third longest SOTU in history topped Trump’s first official address to Congress in 2018 by over 1 million viewers.

In a number that will also be important to the 45th POTUS, the address before the now Democrats’ dominated House of Representatives, the Senate and invited guests also beat Barack Obama’s second SOTU of January 25, 2011 by over 9%. That speech by the 44th POTUS was shown on the 11 outlets of ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, Telemundo, Univision, CNN, Centric, CNBC, FOXNC, and MSNBC.

PREVIOUSLY: UPDATED with early Nielsen numbers: Donald Trump never mentioned the unprecedented government shutdown nor the Democrats’ newly installed majority in the House of Representatives in his second official State of the Union address Tuesday night, but it sure felt like he talked about everything else.

At 82 minutes and with POTUS’ red tie askew, the primetime speech also received some unexpected applause from unexpected areas when white-suited female Democrats and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rose for Trump’s comments about the growing role of women in the workforce and in Congress.

Almost as long as Bill Clinton’s 2000 SOTU and two minutes more than his own 2018 address, last night’s speech saw the former Celebrity Apprentice host hold pretty tight to the teleprompter like last year as he hailed the economy and insisted the state of the union is strong.

What was also strong was the audience at home for a President well known to be obsessed with ratings. Fox News Channel topped all networks covering the speech for a second year in a row, drawing 11.1 million viewers and 2.8 million in the key adults 25-54 news demo from 9-10:30 PM ET in early Nielsen numbers. That topped No. 2 NBC, which drew 7.1M viewers and 2.6 million in the demo. That outpaced fellow broadcast net CBS, which had been leading among the Big 4 in the early metered markets.

Fox News led its cable rivals in primetime (8-11 PM ET) too, with 8.5M viewers and 2.02M adults 25-54; MSNBC was a distant second in viewers, while CNN was second in the demo. During the 9-10:30 time slot, MSNBC delivered 3.8M viewers and 798,000 in the demo, and CNN 3.4M and 1.2 million in the demo.

Coverage of Stacey Abrams’ Democratic response following the address was also paced by Fox News, with 6.4 million viewers and 1.6 million in adults 25-54. MSNBC and CBS followed with 4.7 million viewers apiece, with the latter edging the former in demo viewers (1.4M-1.1M).

With individual rises for all of the Big 4, last night’s SOTU was up overall more than 10% in the early metrics from Trump’s official inaugural address to the House members and the Senate of January 30 last year. It’s a rare feat for any President this deep into his term, the rise also shows that Trump will eclipse not only his own first SOTU and his 2017 address to Congress but also the second SOTU of his predecessor Barack Obama.

Over 11 outlets, the 44th POTUS pulled in 30.9 million for his January 25, 2011 speech – a number Trump looks likely to beat with ease when the final numbers come in later today.

Speaking of final numbers, Trump’s first SOTU last year ended up snaring 45.6 million viewers watching on ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, Univision, PBS, Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, FBN, NBC Universo and Estrella.

With that, as always, we’ll update with more SOTU numbers as we get them.

UPDATE, 8:37 AM: As more and more responses to Donald Trump’s second State of the Union speech trickle in this morning, more ratings are also being delivered.

Now, fast affiliate numbers from Nielsen are almost always subject to significant change in live events like major league sports, Hollywood awards ceremonies and SOTUs. Which means the real solid results, including ratings from the cable newers and the eventual total audience figure, will come later.

However, as it is right now, POTUS seems to have certainly bested himself with what is now the third longest SOTU ever.

Between 9 – 11 PM ET, the address to Congress and subsequent pundit and political response on top rated NBC (1.4/7), Fox (1.1/5), CBS (1.0/5) and ABC (0.9/4) has pulled in around 20.4 million viewers. At least in sets of eyeballs that’s a bop up of 3% over the 2018 State of the Union address, Trump’s first one officially.

Looking back at Trump’s first official SOTU, the two-minute longer 2019 version was up 2.3% overall among adults 18-49 on the Big Four compared to 2018.

As for the rest of the small screen night, NBC’s pre-SOTU offering of Ellen’s Game of Games (1.4/7) slipped 13% in the key demo from last week to a season low. ABC’s American Housewife (0.8/4) and The Kids Are Alright (0.8/4) were pretty much the same as their last originals among the 18-49’s, but the demo season low hitting former rose to a season viewership high of 4.7 million. Not showing Trump’s speech, the CW saw The Flash (0.7/3) speed ahead a tenth from its January 29 show. Follow up Roswell, New Mexico (0.4/1) was also up a tenth from last week.

Washington Examiner

Published  2 weeks ago

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., disinvited President Trump from delivering the State of the Union on its originally scheduled date, Jan. 29, the White House and Republicans in Congress brainstormed about what to do. Should Trump travel somewhere, such as the U.S.-Mexico border, and give his speech there? Should he show up at the Capitol on the 29th and demand to speak? Should he deliver the address in writing, as it was for many years of the nation's history?

Fortunately for Trump, none of those ideas passed muster. Then, when the partial government shutdown was temporarily resolved, the speaker relented and invited the president to appear Feb. 5. Trump agreed, which to some Republicans seemed like a surrender but was in fact a wise decision. Trump realized that there simply was no equally good alternative to delivering the State of the Union from the House chamber, with most of the United States government gathered inside and millions watching not only on the cable news channels but the broadcast entertainment networks, too.

That was especially true with the issue that sparked the shutdown — Trump's proposal for a barrier along some parts of the southern border — still unresolved. A House-Senate conference committee has a little more than a week to come to an agreement over the barrier, or the government could well shut down again. With both sides dug in, the State of the Union was Trump's best chance to make his case to the American people that the barrier should be part of a broader border policy. Trump had already tried a prime-time address to the nation, on Jan. 8, and failed to move the needle. The State of the Union was his last chance.

But it was also a chance to make a much bigger case — a case for the results Trump has achieved during his presidency and his agenda for the rest of his term. And Trump made the best of that chance.

The speech was big, not just in length — about 80 minutes — but also in concept. It had a structure. It had a message. It had passages to appeal to all Americans. It had passages to appeal to Trump's conservative base. And it had passages to appeal to opposition Democrats, who otherwise hated nearly every word of it.

The strongest part of Trump's speech that appealed to all Americans came after his "choose greatness" introduction, when he walked through recent progress in the American economy. "In just over two years since the election, we have launched an unprecedented economic boom — a boom that has rarely been seen before," Trump said. Then the details: 5.3 million new jobs; 600,000 manufacturing jobs; rising wages; Americans off food stamps; low unemployment; low minority unemployment; low unemployment for disabled Americans; more people working (157 million); lower taxes; an increased child tax credit; soaring energy production; deregulation, and more.

At times Speaker Nancy Pelosi, sitting behind the president, didn't quite seem to know what to do. "Pelosi's face during Trump's comments about job growth could not have been more strained," tweeted Miranda Green, a reporter for The Hill. Indeed, Democrats didn't have much to say in response to Trump's economic record. They could quibble with the numbers — maybe it's really 4.9 million new jobs instead of 5.3 million, or maybe Trump was taking credit for President Barack Obama's accomplishments — but the fact is, Trump had a strong case to make for the performance of the economy during his presidency, and he made it the first part of his speech.

[Related: Nancy Pelosi shakes her head as Trump declares, 'The state of the union is strong']

Immigration, of course, was Trump's appeal to his base. He offered some of the stories that Democrats hate to hear, of Americans who have been killed by illegal immigrants. But in a bigger sense, he stressed that immigration was a jobs issue, an economic issue, and ultimately a culture and class issue for millions of Americans. "No issue better illustrates the divide between America's working class and America's political class than illegal immigration," Trump said. "Wealthy politicians and donors push for open borders while living their lives behind walls and gates and guards. Meanwhile, working-class Americans are left to pay the price for mass illegal migration — reduced jobs, lower wages, overburdened schools and hospitals, increased crime, and a depleted social safety net."

"This is a moral issue," Trump said, in an indirect dig at Pelosi, who has called his border barrier proposal "immoral." Trump continued: "We have a moral duty to create an immigration system that protects the lives and jobs of our citizens."

Trump's strong pro-life message was another direct appeal to his most passionate supporters. But Trump also took care to include issues to specifically appeal to Democrats, issues such as lowering prescription drug prices, family leave, medical research, and criminal sentencing reform. It won him some muted applause from the Democratic side of the House chamber. But it likely won't do him much good in dealing with the House, given that some of the Democrats who applauded would also vote to remove him from office in a heartbeat. But he still tried.

Part of Trump's plan was to show how far the Democratic Party has moved to the left. A particularly deft way of doing that came during Trump's discussion of socialism. After noting the failure of socialism in Venezuela, Trump said, "Here in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country. America was founded on liberty and independence — not government coercion, domination, and control. We are born free, and we will stay free. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country."

Some Democrats expressed approval of Trump's words. But others remained stone-faced. Republicans in the room were almost beside themselves with delight as they watched those Democrats remain silently in their seats. Trump, those Republicans thought, had essentially proposed a socialism test, and a good portion of the Democratic majority failed it on national television.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the media star of the new Democratic class who also embraces socialism, was irritated by the president's tactics. "I think at the end of the day, it's not about an 'ism,' and I think that's exactly what the president is trying to do," Ocasio-Cortez told NBC News after the speech. "I think what he's seeing is that he's losing the war on the issues, and so he's going to try to go ad hominem, he's going to try to call names ... "

How did the public respond to it all? Quickie polls by CBS and CNN showed broad approval of Trump's message, but those unscientific surveys could have been skewed by too many Trump supporters to be statistically reliable. More dependable polls will come out later, but it's important to remember that public reaction to something like Trump's speech takes a while to gel. People who watched the speech need a little time to decide what they think about it, and people who didn't watch need to hear from others and watch news coverage to reach an opinion.

Still, it seems likely Trump helped himself on Tuesday night. He delivered a big, broad, far-ranging statement of his approach to the presidency and to the country. It was a deeply American appeal — he said the word "America" or "American" a total of 76 times in the speech. And there is a reasonable chance a lot of Americans liked it.

The American Conservative

Published  2 weeks ago

“Great nations do not fight endless wars,” declared President Donald Trump to bipartisan applause belied by many of the assembled lawmakers’ actual voting records.

The State of the Union address is often where presidential promises go to die. This is especially true once at least one house of Congress is controlled by the opposition party. Let us hope Trump’s stand against forever war—unmistakable, if not as bold as I’d originally hoped—is an exception to the rule.

“Our brave troops have now been fighting in the Middle East for almost 19 years,” Trump said in the highlight of his speech. “In Afghanistan and Iraq, nearly 7,000 American heroes have given their lives. More than 52,000 Americans have been badly wounded. We have spent more than $7 trillion in the Middle East.”

Trump has cited these sad statistics many times. In recent weeks, he appears to have renewed his commitment to acting on them. It was therefore noteworthy he repeated his calls to withdraw from Syria and begin to draw down troops in Afghanistan, our country’s longest war.

“As a candidate for president, I loudly pledged a new approach,” Trump said. And here it was: Declare victory and bring our courageous men and women home.

Trump crowed that the United States and its allies against ISIS “have liberated virtually all of that territory from the grip of these bloodthirsty monsters.” The difference is what he said next. “Now, as we work with our allies to destroy the remnants of ISIS, it is time to give our brave warriors in Syria a warm welcome home.”

In Afghanistan, Trump pledged talks with the Taliban that would have caused a Republican meltdown under former President Barack Obama. There too Trump said that “the hour has come to at least try for peace.”

Trump called for bipartisanship throughout his speech, but didn’t flinch from taking shots at the Democrats. He condemned socialism, once again in fashion among progressives. He made note of comments by Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam—currently in the headlines for other reasons—in defense of late-term abortions bordering on infanticide. He was booed as he warned of the migrant caravans massing at the southern border.

While Trump credited the economic boom to the enactment of the agenda he shared with congressional Republicans—“historic” tax cuts and deregulation, energy innovation, and the repeal of the penalty enforcing Obamacare’s individual mandate, making House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hesitate to applaud low unemployment figures—his wedge issues against the Democrats were more distinctively Trumpian.

Trump defended his tariffs and urged Congress to ratify the trade pact with which he would “repeal and replace” NAFTA. He called for a robust infrastructure program and efforts to tamp down on drug prices that would only only partially be endorsed by free-market conservatives. He said he would pull out of the Middle East and guard the southern border.

The president’s apparently ad libbed endorsement of “record” legal immigration isn’t exactly what some of his more populist supporters want, though it is consistent with his rhetoric on the issue dating back to the early days of his campaign. He has given serious restrictionists a place at the table but has mostly doubled down on the politically smart yet oversimplified Republican talking point that the only immigration problem that America faces stems from its frequent illegality.

Even on foreign policy, Trump’s appeals to the nation’s war-weariness sat uneasily alongside his hawkishness on Iran and perhaps Venezuela, his junking of arms control treaties, and the unmentioned atrocities in Yemen. It is clear, however, that Trump would prefer to go down in history as a dealmaker—even a peacemaker.

“If I had not been elected president of the United States, we would right now, in my opinion, be in a major war with North Korea,” Trump said. “Much work remains to be done, but my relationship with Kim Jong Un is a good one.”

Trump had clever lines designed to make even the sea of liberal women dressed in white in protest stand to applaud, including his tribute to their unprecedented numbers in Congress (thanks in no small part to the Resistance). But foreign policy and ending the wars gives him the best chance at a meaningful bipartisan achievement as the Democratic Party’s center of gravity shifts from Hillary Clinton to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and perhaps even Tulsi Gabbard.

Intense opposition to Trump has liberal hawks flying again too. And Trump almost certainly had more leverage to accomplish his less conventionally Republican goals when he first took office than now, when Democrats think they have him on the ropes and many GOP insiders agree.

Nevertheless, Trump made the case that renewing American greatness means summoning it to peace. That could be a winning message for a Republican candidate in 2020 too.

W. James Antle III is editor of The American Conservative.

Fox News

Published  2 weeks ago

Tuesday night the president clearly laid out a vision of compromise, cordiality and working together. He highlighted areas of commonality with Democrats

Breitbart

Published  2 weeks ago

During President Donald Trump’s State of the Union Address (SOTU) on Tuesday evening, the president slammed the country’s political elite and donor class for supporting open borders for the nation while living “behind walls.”

“No issue better illustrates the divide between America’s working class and America’s political class than illegal immigration,” Trump said. “Wealthy politicians and donors push for open borders while living their lives behind walls, and gates, and guards.”

As Breitbart News has chronicled, this is true as many of the country’s political elite and donor class advocate for mass illegal and legal immigration while living in gated communities, walled-off mansions, and behind enormous barriers designed to keep intruders out.

Most notably are the gates, walls, and fences surrounding the homes of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton (D-NY), tech billionaire Bill Gates, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio (D), former House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D), and former President Barack Obama.

PHOTOS: From Vatican Walls to Obama’s Fence, 20 Barriers Around the Worldhttps://t.co/oHkPOTwIzx

The Clintons enjoy a massive white security fence around their Chappaqua, New York, home where onlookers can barely get a glimpse of their house because of the widescale barrier.

Billionaire Bill Gates, who dishes out hundreds of thousands of dollars every election cycle to pro-mass immigration lawmakers, enjoys safety and security at his mansion off Lake Washington as it is surrounded not only by enormous gates but also a natural lake and tree barriers.

Outside Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) Cambridge, Massachusettes, home stands an iron fence that surrounds not only her front entrance but her entire yard to keep pedestrians off her property.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.

dailycaller

Published  2 weeks ago

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will not attend President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address Tuesday as she is currently recovering after surgeons removed two cancerous nodules from her left lung in December.

Though the configuration of justices who attend the event has fluctuated over the years, one variable remains constant — Ginsburg has never attended an address to Congress given by a Republican president. She is currently recovering after surgeons removed two cancerous nodules from her left lung

The Daily Caller News Foundation reviewed CSPAN’s archive of past State of the Union addresses and confirmed she was not present for any of the nine speeches former President George W. Bush gave to Congress.

TheDCNF’s review found that only two justices have not attended a congressional address given by a president of the opposite party. One is Ginsburg and the other is Justice Neil Gorsuch, who has not yet served under a Democratic president. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan attended Trump’s first speech to Congress on Feb. 28, 2017.

The Court’s involvement with the State of the Union seems somewhat incongruous, as the event usually serves partisan interests and the justices themselves are ostensibly apolitical. Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged as much in 2010 during remarks at the University of Alabama.

“It does cause me to think whether or not it makes sense for us to be there,” he said. “To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I’m not sure why we’re there.”

In that vein, Ginsburg’s absence in the early years of the Bush administration was not unusual. Justice Stephen Breyer was the only member of the Court to attend Bush’s addresses in 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2005. During that period, Breyer was the junior justice, or the justice who ranked last in the order of seniority. As such, he is a natural candidate to represent the full Court at an event some see as a tedious obligation, especially if the Court’s decisions have prompted public indignation. Scattered boos greeted Breyer’s entrance to the House chamber on Feb. 27, 2001, just months after the Bush v. Gore ruling.

Breyer has consistently attended State of the Union addresses. The justice believes that the Court’s presence at a major television event is important in a world dominated by imagery.

“I think it’s important that when people say ‘there is the government,’ they be able to see the judges, too, because the judges are here — our court and others — to try to make certain that groups who are unpopular are protected when [the Constitution] calls for their protection,” he told Larry King in 2010.

Still, Ginsburg was not among the five justices who attended Bush’s Sept. 20, 2001 speech to Congress on the 9/11 terror attacks, and remained absent from speeches during Bush’s second term, when attendance among the justices increased to include Roberts, Breyer and Justices Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito.

Alito has not attended a State of the Union since 2010, where he drew criticism for mouthing the words “not true” when former President Barack Obama lambasted the Court’s Citizens United v. FEC ruling. Though Justice Clarence Thomas was present for Bush’s 2006 address and former President Barack Obama’s first speech to Congress in 2009, he generally does not attend political functions.

Ginsburg was also present for Obama’s first congressional address. She greeted him with a hug as he approached the dais, as she would in subsequent years.

Freedom of Speech Isn’t Free

The Daily Caller News Foundation is working hard to balance out the biased American media. For as little as $3, you can help us. Make a one-time donation to support the quality, independent journalism of TheDCNF. We’re not dependent on commercial or political support and we do not accept any government funding.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The Texas Tribune

Published  2 weeks ago

Beto O'Rourke, the former Democratic congressman and U.S. Senate candidates, discussed his 2020 deliberations Tuesday during an interview with Oprah Winfrey.

Newsweek

Published  2 weeks ago

White supremacist and former GOP Louisiana state senator David Duke appeared to endorse Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard's 2020 campaign for president as other Democrats are being blasted by pro-Israel lobbyists and publications.

Duke, who was head of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1970s, posted a set of tweets endorsing Gabbard's 2020 presidential run and changed the background of his Twitter account Monday, which boasts more than 50,000 followers. A "Tulsi Gabbard for President" banner features the banner tagline, "Finally a candidate who will actually put America First rather than Israel First!"

Duke also endorsed Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election, although the then-Republican candidate Trump denied any knowledge of the former KKK Grand Wizard in a March 2016 interview with CNN's Jake Tapper. Duke again lauded Trump's presidency following the deadly Charlottesville, Virginia rally in which Trump claimed there were decent people on "both sides."

Gabbard has received fairly supportive coverage from pro-Israel and Jewish media publications despite her mild criticism of Israel during last May's border crisis in Gaza. She was highly touted by pro-Israel lobbyists and U.S. conservatives after criticizing former President Barack Obama for refusing to use the phrase "radical Islamic terror" during his tenure.

"Tulsi Gabbard is currently the only Presidential candidate who doesn't want to send White children off to die for Israel," Duke tweeted Monday evening in a now-pinned post showing a picture of Gabbard meeting with a U.S. military member and his child in a hangar. However, Gabbard is not mentioned once in The New York Times article Duke shared about the president calling to keep U.S. troops in Iraq to "watch Iran."

Gabbard is of Samoan heritage and a military veteran, having served with the Army National Guard in Iraq from 2004 to 2005. She was first elected to office in Hawaii in 2013 and announced her run for president last week. Gabbard received this bizarre, perhaps disingenuous trolling endorsement from the virulent anti-Semite Duke despite several moves signaling her potential support for Israel. American Evangelicals, Israel and U.S. Jews have a long and at times hypocritical political relationship.

Gabbard, unlike many Democrats under the Obama administration, attended Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's controversial March 2015 speech to Congress.

Israeli media ranging from Haaretz to the Times of Israel are blasting Democrats this week for refusing to support Republican Sen. Marco Rubio's "anti-BDS" legislation that would block any Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions moves against Israel. Newly elected Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and the first two Muslim women elected to Congress this past year -- Michigan's 13th District Rep. Rashida Tlaib and Minnesota 5th District Rep. Ilhan Omar -- are being lambasted by criticism from conservative Israeli figures.

The BDS, pro-Palestinian movement backed by those Democrats and many others is particularly focused on companies conducting business in disputed territories occupied by Israel, including the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The powerful pro-Israel lobby in America is set to face off against the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) over the BDS legislative moves in Congress.

Gaza gained national fame from liberal voters in February 2016 when she made the politically risky move to resign her position as vice chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) after allegations first arose of the organization's collusion with Hillary Clinton's campaign against Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

USA TODAY

Published  2 weeks ago

As our porous border continues creating and exacerbating humanitarian crises, it would be immoral not to secure our borders and build a wall: Opposing view

The clock is ticking, and Congress must quickly develop comprehensive border security legislation. America is waiting. But first, Democrats must realize something simple — something the American people already understand: We need a wall.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi dismisses a border wall as “immoral.” This claim is brazenly false.

Consider Turkey, Hungary and Israel, which experienced dramatic reductions in illegal crossings since building walls. Israel’s illegal crossings, because of the wall and other policies, dropped by 99 percent!

In the parts of America where walls have already been built, they have been incredibly successful. In San Diego, illegal crossings plummeted 95 percent after building a wall and instituting several other personnel and technology changes.

President Barack Obama’s own Border Patrol chief, Mark Morgan, recently said: “I cannot think of a legitimate argument why anyone would not support the wall as part of a multilayered border security issue.”

Prominent Democrats — including Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden and Obama — supported legislation in 2006 for walls, technology and other measures, resulting in the construction of a physical barrier at Yuma. Illegal crossings into Yuma dropped by 90 percent.

(Photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)

OUR VIEW: Trump's border demand lacks key details

Democrats know walls work. Naturally, many prominent Democrats have physical barriers guarding their mansions and their gated communities.

Apparently, walls are only “immoral” when they protect regular citizens, and when a man named Trump is the president.

As our porous border continues creating and exacerbating humanitarian crises — child trafficking among migrants, drugs and crime flowing into America — it would be immoral not to secure our borders and build a wall.

This is not a left or right issue, nor even a political issue. It is a commonsense issue. It is time we fulfill our promise, and deliver what our country needs and what American citizens deserve. It is time to build the wall.

Republican Matt Gaetz represents Florida’s 1st congressional district.

If you can't see this reader poll, please refresh your page.

I Love My Freedom

Published  2 weeks ago

Not sure if you got a chance to watch the State of the Union address last night, but if you didn't, boy did you miss a great show! According to a CBS News Poll, 76% percent

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 weeks ago

President Trump holds a 48% approval rating today after nearly two years into his first term despite a continued barrage of fake news and vicious media attacks.

This is 2 points higher than Barack Obama at the same point in his presidency.

This is despite national mainstream media reporting negatively on the highly successful President Trump 92% of the time.

They even applauded him like a movie star.

President Trump IS a movie star and American icon and they treat him worse than a dog.

dailycaller

Published  2 weeks ago

Democratic Washington Sen. Patty Murray moved to block a measure Monday that would have outlawed infanticide.

The bill, presented by Republican Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse, was titled the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act” and would have offered medical care and legal protections to infants who survived attempted abortions.

Sasse addressed the topic from the Senate floor Monday evening, calling for unanimous consent and saying, “Frankly, this shouldn’t be hard.” (RELATED: Ben Sasse Is Putting Senators On The Record Over Stance On Infanticide)

In this country, all of us are created equal. If that equality means anything, surely it means that infanticide is wrong. Frankly, this shouldn’t be hard. pic.twitter.com/9MyPVGpw7p

— Senator Ben Sasse (@SenSasse) February 5, 2019

Murray objected to the measure, saying that it was unnecessary to move forward since infanticide is already illegal — and her objection prevented the bill from receiving the support Sasse had asked for.

Sasse took up the effort following remarks from embattled Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, who had been speaking in defense of a late-term abortion bill in his home state.

“We are actually talking about babies that have been born. The only debate on the floor tonight is about infanticide. . . . This is about fourth-trimester abortion,” Sasse said Monday. “Everyone in this Senate ought to be able to say that the little baby deserves life, that she has rights, and that killing her is wrong.”

Sasse’s effort is not the first attempt to protect infants who survive late-term abortions, either — and it’s not the first time a Democrat has moved to block the move. In 2002, former President George W. Bush signed a similar measure into law. One year later, Barack Obama voted against an identical bill in the Illinois Senate. In January 2018, H.R.4712 – Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act passed the House.

The push to legalize late-term abortions has hit several states — most notably New York, Virginia and Rhode Island — and has drawn criticism from Republicans, pro-life advocates and even physicians.

Dr. Omar Hamada, a former flight surgeon and theologian who appeared on Fox News to discuss New York’s recently-passed legislation expanding abortion rights, took to Twitter to explain why access to late-term abortions was not about the health of the mother or the child. “There’s not a single fetal or maternal condition that requires third trimester abortion,” he tweeted. “Not one. Delivery, yes. Abortion, no.”

I want to clear something up so that there is absolutely no doubt.

I’m a Board Certified OB/GYN who has delivered over 2,500 babies.

There’s not a single fetal or maternal condition that requires third trimester abortion. Not one. Delivery, yes. Abortion, no.

— Omar L. Hamada, MD, MBA (@OmarHamada) January 23, 2019

Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop offered a similar take in 1980, saying, “Protection of the life of the mother as an excuse for an abortion is a smoke screen. In my 36 years of pediatric surgery, I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother’s life. If toward the end of the pregnancy complications arise that threaten the mother’s health, the doctor will induce labor or perform a Cesarean section. His intention is to save the life of both the mother and the baby. The baby’s life is never willfully destroyed because the mother’s life is in danger.”

Follow Virginia on Twitter

I Love My Freedom

Published  2 weeks ago

Super Bowl LIII was not just the lowest rated in the last decade, but also the worst SUPER BOWL of all time. The game was horrible, the commercials were horrible, and even the half time show

Daily Wire

Published  2 weeks ago

Report AdxReason: --Select please--

On Monday, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), blocking a Senate bill that would require doctors to give aid to babies who survived abortions, objected to the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, and her one vote was enough to prevent the Senate from passing the bill in a unanimous consent vote, LifeSiteNews reports.

Last Thursday, Senator Ben Sasse (R-NB) requested the unanimous consent vote after Virginia Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam, a pediatric neurologist, had made comments indicating he did not object to letting an infant die after its birth, indicating that a born-alive “infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired.” Sasse had already called for a unanimous consent vote to pass a resolution defending the Knights of Columbus in mid-January. That resolution was passed unanimously.

According to the rules of the Senate:

A senator may request unanimous consent on the floor to set aside a specified rule of procedure so as to expedite proceedings. If no Senator objects, the Senate permits the action, but if any one senator objects, the request is rejected. Unanimous consent requests with only immediate effects are routinely granted, but ones affecting the floor schedule, the conditions of considering a bill or other business, or the rights of other senators, are normally not offered, or a floor leader will object to it, until all senators concerned have had an opportunity to inform the leaders that they find it acceptable.

Sasse appealed to the conscience of the entire Senate, saying, “Just a few years ago, the abortion lobby was really clear in its talk about hoping abortion would be … safe, legal, and rare. Now we’re talking about keeping the baby comfortable while the doctors have a debate about infanticide. You’re either for babies, or you’re defending infanticide … please, don’t let Governor Northam define you.”

Murray objected to the unanimous consent vote, stating, “This is a gross misinterpretation of the actual language of the bill that is being asked to be considered and, therefore, I object.”

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) responded to Murray’s objection by asserting:

There is nothing great, there is nothing moral, or even humane about the discussion that we have before us today. Over the past week, we have witnessed the absolutely ugly truth about the far-reaching grasp of the abortion industry and its increasingly radicalized political agenda. Politicians have not only defended aborting a child while a woman is in labor, but have gone so far as to support the termination of a child after his or her birth. A child. A baby. Rationality, decency, and basic human compassion have fallen by the wayside.”

Majority Leader Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who will have to gauge whether to call later for a roll-call vote, said the Act was “legislation that ought to be the very definition of something that receives unanimous consent in this body. It’s harrowing that this legislation is even necessary. It was even more disturbing when last week, a Democrat governor was unable to simply state that of course — of course — these newborn babies have human rights that must be respected.”

LifeSite News noted:

It is not likely that the House version of the bill would pass in the Democrat-controlled House, if even allowed to be voted on. This is despite the fact that the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which defines infant survivors of abortion as “human beings” entitled to all the rights in the U.S. Constitution, was passed by both Democrats and Republicans in 2002 and signed into law by then-President George W. Bush. … In 2015, only five House Democrats supported the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which then-President Barack Obama said would have a “chilling effect” on “access to care.”

I Love My Freedom

Published  2 weeks ago

Liberals once again find themselves hanging on the tree of woe after Sunday’s Super Bowl was won by “Trump’s team” as the New England Patriots and their superstar quarterback Tom Brady who just snagged his

America First with Sebastian Gorka

Published  2 weeks ago

When President Donald J. Trump takes to the Speaker’s dais in the United States House of Representatives, he can truly do so with pride. After two years of being in The Swamp, the president has led the country to near-total victory over the Islamic State of Iraq and Al Sham (ISIS), the president has also stabilized the situation in Afghanistan so well that he can now make peace with the previously-intractable Taliban, and begin bringing our troops home.

Meanwhile, the president has stared down a rising China and has brought them to heel with his so-called “trade war” and his commitment to standing with America’s allies in the Indo-Pacific region. And, despite what his political rivals claim, the president has been tougher on the resurgent Russia than any of his predecessors since Ronald Reagan were.

While more work is still to be done in foreign policy, the fact remains that the president has been extraordinarily effective as the commander-in-chief. In fact, any other president (from either party) would be happy to claim such victories in the last year of their time in office. Trump has achieved these momentous successes in year two. His call to put “America First” during the 2016 campaign has been the core of the “Trump Doctrine.” And, subsequently, the president has made the country safer, stronger, and more respected by the rest of the world.

Not only has this president been immensely successful in foreign policy, but President Trump has also accomplished so very much on the homefront. Thanks to a winning combination of massive deregulation coupled with tax cuts, the president has presided over a booming economy–our largest ever. Unemployment levels–particularly for minorities, which had been abandoned by the Obama Administration–are at record lows. Meanwhile, the country’s growth rate has expanded at a hitherto unimaginable rate. Even a much-maligned government shutdown for 32 days could not stop Trump’s economic renaissance from taking flight.

According to the Heritage Foundation, the president has achieved 64 percent of their policy best case prescriptions–by year two! Another report states that the President is the most conservative leader this country has had since Ronald Reagan was in office. And, it shows. Americans are confident again. Consumer confidence is at record highs. Even unemployment levels in the manufacturing sector have declined at a precipitous rate. All of this, as former President Barack Obama and his chosen heir, Hillary Clinton, traveled the country in 2016 telling Americans to accept a “new normal” of chronically unimpressive growth rates and depressed employment levels.

Donald Trump vowed to “Make America Great Again” by putting the interests of American citizens ahead of those of illegal immigrants or the interests of other countries. The Democrats arrogantly told struggling Americans to “learn to code.” After two years, it’s clear whose vision was best for the country.

Tonight, the House of Representatives will resemble the Mos Eisley cantina scene from the original “Star Wars” film. It will be a “hive of wretched scum and villainy,” as Democrats seek to embarrass and lampoon every single one of the president’s momentous accomplishments and, as the Conservative Coward Caucus, remains silent, afraid what challenging the Left and supporting the president during his speech may do for their standing in the world’s “greatest deliberative body.” The Democrats have even invited an illegal alien to Congress to demonstrate their “decency.”

But, the truth is on the president’s side.

In two years, despite staggering opposition not only from intransigent Democrats but also the feckless Congressional Republicans, he has still managed to overcome them and achieve record-breaking results. Faced with even more opposition–particularly from the House Democrats–the president will have to be bolder and stronger than ever. Yet, judging from his record to date and an unflappable will to defy the odds, it is likely that he is up to the challenge.

Further, the President has been running circles around the Democrats and the rest of The Swamp since taking office. He doesn’t speak their language and certainly won’t play by their rules. The President has a tendency to always be moving and to keep his political rivals off-balance. Not only is the president going to push the remainder of his agenda through–namely increasing border security–but, he might even start trying to bring some of the weaker Democrats along with him.

Although they appear unable to agree with the President on anything substantive, the fact is that most Democrats do support an infrastructure bill. And, most of the Democratic Party’s voters have wanted to end America’s “endless wars” for years. The president shares their goals in this way. Whether the President declares a national state of emergency along the border or not, he will get his wall. This is a fait accompli.

The Democrats will have to come to terms with this reality–even if they manage to slow the border wall construction down by challenging it in court. While the courts have challenged the President’s policies at a record-breaking clip, the big cases–such as the temporary moratorium on travel from unstable states–have been won by Trump. Even the transgender ban in the military has been allowed to go forward, while the courts reach a decision on the matter. Ultimately, the President will get his wall, it’s simply a question of “when?” In the interim, the Democrats are going to need to achieve something legislatively. Once they get it through their collective “head” that the President will win on the wall, they just may be in a more amenable mood.

Tonight, the President can bring his list of achievements and simply re-state them to the American people. He can remind the voters that it was he who remained in Washington, D.C. during the shutdown–foregoing his own Christmas plans in Florida–while the Democrats refused to engage in negotiations over the shutdown and the wall. The President can also show that he has acted in good faith, offering compromises on the “Dreamers” in order to get funding for the wall, while the Democrats screamed, “No!” It is the president, not the Democrats, who continues trying to be reasonable.

All the Democrats can do is glower and scowl from their seats. The President will appear presidential (because he is), armed with the truth and a slew of victories to further his cause–which is the cause of all Americans: to Make America Great Again.

Breitbart

Published  2 weeks ago

Radio host Mark Levin used his Thursday evening show to outline the known steps taken by President Barack Obama’s administration in its last months to undermine Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and, later, his new administration.

Levin called Obama’s effort “police state” tactics, and suggested that Obama’s actions, rather than conspiracy theories about alleged Russian interference in the presidential election to help Trump, should be the target of congressional investigation.

Drawing on sources including the New York Times and the Washington Post, Levin described the case against Obama so far, based on what is already publicly known. The following is an expanded version of that case, including events that Levin did not mention specifically but are important to the overall timeline.

1. June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.

2. July: Russia joke. Wikileaks releases emails from the Democratic National Committee that show an effort to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) from winning the presidential nomination. In a press conference, Donald Trump refers to Hillary Clinton’s own missing emails, joking: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing.” That remark becomes the basis for accusations by Clinton and the media that Trump invited further hacking.

3. October: Podesta emails. In October, Wikileaks releases the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, rolling out batches every day until the election, creating new mini-scandals. The Clinton campaign blames Trump and the Russians.

4. October: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.

5. January 2017: Buzzfeed/CNN dossier. Buzzfeed releases, and CNN reports, a supposed intelligence “dossier” compiled by a foreign former spy. It purports to show continuous contact between Russia and the Trump campaign, and says that the Russians have compromising information about Trump. None of the allegations can be verified and some are proven false. Several media outlets claim that they had been aware of the dossier for months and that it had been circulating in Washington.

6. January: Obama expands NSA sharing. As Michael Walsh later notes, and as the New York Times reports, the outgoing Obama administration “expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.” The new powers, and reduced protections, could make it easier for intelligence on private citizens to be circulated improperly or leaked.

7. January: Times report. The New York Times reports, on the eve of Inauguration Day, that several agencies — the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Treasury Department are monitoring several associates of the Trump campaign suspected of Russian ties. Other news outlets also report the exisentence of “a multiagency working group to coordinate investigations across the government,” though it is unclear how they found out, since the investigations would have been secret and involved classified information.

8. February: Mike Flynn scandal. Reports emerge that the FBI intercepted a conversation in 2016 between future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — then a private citizen — and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The intercept supposedly was part of routine spying on the ambassador, not monitoring of the Trump campaign. The FBI transcripts reportedly show the two discussing Obama’s newly-imposed sanctions on Russia, though Flynn earlier denied discussing them. Sally Yates, whom Trump would later fire as acting Attorney General for insubordination, is involved in the investigation. In the end, Flynn resigns over having misled Vice President Mike Pence (perhaps inadvertently) about the content of the conversation.

9. February: Times claims extensive Russian contacts. The New York Times cites “four current and former American officials” in reporting that the Trump campaign had “repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials. The Trump campaign denies the claims — and the Times admits that there is “no evidence” of coordination between the campaign and the Russians. The White House and some congressional Republicans begin to raise questions about illegal intelligence leaks.

10. March: the Washington Post targets Jeff Sessions. The Washington Post reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had contact twice with the Russian ambassador during the campaign — once at a Heritage Foundation event and once at a meeting in Sessions’s Senate office. The Post suggests that the two meetings contradict Sessions’s testimony at his confirmation hearings that he had no contacts with the Russians, though in context (not presented by the Post) it was clear he meant in his capacity as a campaign surrogate, and that he was responding to claims in the “dossier” of ongoing contacts. The New York Times, in covering the story, adds that the Obama White House “rushed to preserve” intelligence related to alleged Russian links with the Trump campaign. By “preserve” it really means “disseminate”: officials spread evidence throughout other government agencies “to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators” and perhaps the media as well.

In summary: the Obama administration sought, and eventually obtained, authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign; continued monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found; then relaxed the NSA rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within the government, virtually ensuring that the information, including the conversations of private citizens, would be leaked to the media.

Levin called the effort a “silent coup” by the Obama administration and demanded that it be investigated.

In addition, Levin castigated Republicans in Congress for focusing their attention on Trump and Attorney General Sessions rather than Obama.

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.

Sean Hannity

Published  2 weeks ago

New footage surfaced on social media this week that showed Rep. Ilhan Omar blaming a 2013 Kenyan terror-attack on American ‘involvement’...

LifeSiteNews

Published  2 weeks ago

The US Senate 'can no longer unanimously condemn murder,' lamented Sen. Joni Ernst, R-IA.