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.


Published  4 weeks ago

A juzgar por lo que sabemos hasta ahora, la visita del Príncipe Carlos será un golpe propagandístico para Cuba, la dictadura más antigua y obsoleta de América Latina.


Published  1 month ago

The original U.S. Constitution can survive a bomb, a massive fire -- even a nuclear blast. But can it survive the House majority’s agenda? Based on their latest bill, no one is quite sure.

Some reporters at yesterday’s Equality Act press conference wondered if they were at a party. And in retrospect, maybe they were -- the Left’s farewell to the First Amendment. Religious liberty and free speech have had a good run, but as far as Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) concerned, they’ve stood in the Left’s way long enough. It’s time to get back to the business of controlling how every American thinks, speaks, and acts on issues of human sexuality. (How ironic that these same people accused Republicans of being fixated on America’s bedrooms!)

Most people were outraged by Barack Obama’s nationwide bathroom mandate, but that’s a conservative love pat compared to the boom Democrats are trying to lower on mainstream morality. If you can imagine a country without women’s sports, boys and girls restrooms, gender-specific pronouns, privacy, parental rights, workplace dress codes, business autonomy, Christian wedding vendors, and conscience protections -- you’ve got the Equality Act. It’s a world that hunts down and punishes anyone who thinks differently from the Left on gender or sexuality. And that includes schools, businesses, food banks, adoption agencies, homeless shelters, day cares, faith-based ministries, and government offices.

Picture walking into your child’s preschool for mandatory transgender story hour. Or think about your teenage daughter finishing gym class and being forced to shower and change with biological boys. Imagine being fired for calling someone “him.” Or maybe you’re standing over the counter of your new store, holding a subpoena because the “nonbinary” you interviewed wasn’t the best candidate for the job. These aren’t hypotheticals. This is the reality of a nation that embraces the phony “equality” liberals are selling.

But this about tolerance, the Left will say. The country is on board! Liberals will point, as so many did yesterday, to the polls. Look! Americans want to end discrimination, they argued. Well, of course they do. We all do. But how the country defines “discrimination” and how the Left does are two very different things. One man’s “intolerance” is another man’s religious freedom. The surveys Democrats trotted out yesterday didn’t ask people how they felt about transgender restrooms or slapping thousands of dollars of fines on bakers and florists. They didn’t poll small businesses to see if they could afford transgender health coverage or the money it will take to make their facilities gender-free. That’s because Democrats know, like we do, that once they start talking about the realities of the plan, they can’t win. See here, here, and here for proof.

Still, Big Business seems intent on carrying the water for a bill that would destroy the very climate that makes companies successful in the first place. Forty-four groups, including the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, sent a letter to the House and Senate urging members to “combat discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the workplace… We look forward to working with Congress to promote and perfect the Equality Act.”

Of course, they say all of this without any acknowledgement of the crushing burden this law would force on every unwilling corner of corporate America. While they walk lock-step with the Left, do they realize they’re endorsing a proposal that would put new mandates for health care coverage on business? Mandates that could cost in the tens of millions for hormones, psychotherapy, and gender reassignment surgery? We’re talking about a price tag of $89,050 for female-to-male procedures and $110,450 for male-to-female procedures alone. Do they know the implications of these countless new regulations – or the overwhelming costs of compliance? What about the legal fees for settling workplace disputes, the higher taxes that will inevitably come from more government oversight, or the loss of competitiveness that comes with more regulation?

Big Business is desperately trying to have its cake -- and make you bake them too. They want the admiration of the Left and the favorable economic policies of conservatives. And while they embrace this miserable excuse for fairness that robs every Americans of their speech, privacy, and beliefs, where will they look to bail them out when their profits start tanking? To conservatives. But they can’t have it both ways. Big Business can either embrace the social structure that leads to growth, or they can sit and watch their revenues implode because they cared more about political correctness than the future of their corporations.

Tony Perkins' Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC Action senior writers.

Also in the March 14 Washington Update:


Published  1 month ago

The deeply influential Open Society Foundations has announced that Tom Perriello - a former congressman, pro-abortion rights gubernatorial candidate and co-founder of controversial Catholic political groups linked to John Podesta amid speculation of a “Catholic Spring” revolution against the bishops - will oversee grantmaking and advocacy for the U.S. programs branch of financier George Soros’ philanthropy network.

Business Insider

Published  1 month ago

Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York applauded New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern for taking legislative action after her country faced its deadliest shooting in history.

Ardern on Thursday announced a sweeping ban on "military-style semiautomatic" firearms — including assault weapons — following the attacks in Christchurch.

"Christchurch happened, and within days New Zealand acted to get weapons of war out of the consumer market," Ocasio-Cortez said on Twitter. "This is what leadership looks like."

Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York applauded New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern for taking legislative action within days after her country faced its deadliest shooting in history.

Ardern announced a sweeping ban on "military-style semiautomatic" firearms — including assault weapons — six days after 50 people were killed and over 40 were wounded in shootings at two mosques in Christchurch last week.

"The time for the mass and easy availability of these weapons must end," she said. "And today they will."

Ocasio-Cortez recalled the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, in which 20 children and six adults were killed in December 2012.

"Sandy Hook happened 6 years ago and we can't even get the Senate to hold a vote on universal background checks w/ #HR8," Ocasio-Cortez said on Twitter. "Christchurch happened, and within days New Zealand acted to get weapons of war out of the consumer market. This is what leadership looks like."

Following the Sandy Hook shooting, President Barack Obama delivered an emotional speech advocating new legislation. He would later describe meeting the victims' parents as "the toughest day of my presidency."

"We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true," Obama said at the time. "No single law — no set of laws — can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society."

"But that can't be an excuse for inaction," he added.

The Democrat-held Senate failed to secure 60 votes to pass a background-check amendment months after the shooting.

"All in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington," Obama said in 2013. "But this effort is not over."


Published  1 month ago

North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis said he would vote with Democrats for a resolution of disapproval against President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration, a move that has upset some NC Republicans.

BBC News

Published  1 month ago

The government outlines tariff regime for no-deal Brexit ahead of Philip Hammond's Spring Statement.

Conservative News Today

Published  1 month ago

A California woman named Bambi Larson was brutally murdered by an illegal immigrant with a long, violent criminal history who’s a self-admitted gang member. Sanctuary State Protected Illegal from Deportation Shockingly, ICE wanted to take Carlos Eduardo Arevalo Carranza into custody, but Santa Jose–a sanctuary city in Sanctuary State California–said no. And now a 59-year-old woman is […]

The Washington Times

Published  1 month ago


In December 1943, a woman named Grace Marsh stood outside the post office in Chickasaw, Alabama, distributing religious literature. Chickasaw, a company town privately owned by the Gulf Shipbuilding Corp., arrested Ms. Marsh, a Jehovah’s Witness, on trespassing charges and her case went to the U.S. Supreme Court pitting private property rights against the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Lower courts affirmed the corporation’s right to police constitutionally-protected activities on private land, but the Supreme Court reversed this, arguing the public’s constitutional freedoms supersede the owner’s rights if that owner sufficiently opens up his property to the public.

The Marsh decision has renewed interest among the increasingly demoralized proponents of online free speech. After all, a well-funded litigant arguing before the Supreme Court appears the most equitable compromise in an environment where the debate on how to reign in Silicon Valley has become trifling and enfeebled, paralyzed in an ideological stalemate between two highly unpalatable extremes: the intellectually lazy libertarians who argue “start your own Twitter,” to those calling for regulation of social media companies as public utilities.

But First Amendment lawyer Ron Coleman says don’t count on a SCOTUS decision anytime soon. “What we’re missing is a political moment. Courts are not deft to political moments. Anyone who thinks so is not familiar with how the New Deal became reality,” Mr. Coleman, who is representing Twitter-exile Gavin McInnes in a defamation suit against the Southern Poverty Law Center, says. “But courts are not going to step-up until there is movement from the other branches of government. The legislative branch and the executive branch are not doing a thing. And until they do, the courts are not going to be the answer.”

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor famously said, “the Court of Appeals is where policy is made.” While the statement may have been a gaffe, she illuminated how the left advances its agenda, like gay marriage or, today, legalized marijuana. There was no political moment for gay marriage — even Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s wouldn’t touch it — until blue state governments circumvented Washington, voters and the courts to pass legalization, beginning with Massachusetts in 2004. When one state passes controversial legislation, such as gay marriage, it’s as though all 50 have, as an inevitable domino effect of like-minded jurisdictions results in a court challenge.

“Isn’t there one red state out there that can pass a statute making it unlawful for a coherently-defined category of social media to deprive a user of his account on arbitrary or capricious grounds and requires bans or other adverse action to be appealable?” Mr. Coleman asks.

One Florida lawmaker is attempting to do just that. On Friday, Republican state Sen. Joe Gruters introduced the Stop Social Media Censorship Act, which proposes a minimum $75,000 penalty on social media giants if they censor or delete a user’s political or religious speech. Large social media websites will be prohibited “from using hate speech as a defense,” as hate speech is not recognized by the First Amendment. The bill does not protect calls for violence or obscene, pornographic, or criminal content.

“It should be done on a state-by-state basis,” Mr. Gruters tells me. “When you have these social media companies that are interwoven in our society, it’s like speaking on a street corner. It’s so part of your everyday life, by taking away someone’s ability to communicate, even if you don’t agree with them, it does more harm than good.”

The bill is awaiting in committee and Mr. Gruters, who describes himself as center-right and is supporting and anti-LGBT discrimination bill, is optimistic, despite already getting smeared as an advocate for fringe extremists.

“If someone says hateful or mean-spirited things, I think their own words will do them in. They’ll eventually pay the price for those harmful things with public feedback and amongst their peers. But to ban them completely is the wrong path to go down,” he says. “It’s very easy to block or mute someone if you don’t want to see their information.”

Despite Silicon Valley’s unabashed election-meddling and left-wing politicking, technology companies do abide by the speech laws in places they do business. Conservative pundit Michelle Malkin learned firsthand when, last week, Ms. Malkin, an American-born citizen residing in the United States, received a bizarre message from Twitter that one of her posts violated Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. Last year, Google capitulated to the Muslim government of Indonesia and removed over 70 gay-themed apps from its Play Store. Tech giants scramble to keep up with the European Union’s ever-evolving anti-speech codes, and they’re more than happy to completely hand the keys over to China in order to do business there. If Pakistan can strong-arm Twitter to respect its speech restrictions, there’s no reason the United States can’t enforce its own speech freedoms.

Mr. Coleman says the stakes are high and may be up to mavericks like Mr. Gruters. “A rotten rough of adopted, in-house, court conservatives are absolutely hands-off on this issue because their legitimacy is premised on them being affiliated with legacy names and legacy media,” he says. “This is going to be not only the death knell of the Republican party, but of democracy, because the Democrat party is absolutely embracing fascism.”

• Chadwick Moore is a New York-based journalist and political commentator focusing on trade, free speech and media accountability. He is currently working on his first book.

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

The Atlantic

Published  1 month ago

This year, the United States marks 18 years of combat in Afghanistan. We remember and honor the more than 2,300 brave U.S. service members who made the ultimate sacrifice and the over 20,000 who have been wounded in action. We thank the courageous men and women in uniform who are still abroad, a world away from their homes and families, fighting this war.

Soon, we will reach a watershed moment in Afghanistan, as American soldiers begin deploying to fight in a war that began before they were born. As we meet this solemn milestone, we must reexamine our approach to the longest war in the history of the United States and reconsider whether keeping tens of thousands of troops on a sprawling mission in Afghanistan will make Americans any safer going forward. And we must listen to the American people, who—overwhelmingly—oppose endless war in the Middle East.

That’s why we recently introduced a bipartisan joint resolution, the American Forces Going Home After Noble (AFGHAN) Service Act, to return our combat forces home from Afghanistan in an orderly and responsible way, while also setting a framework for political reconciliation in Afghanistan without a permanent U.S. presence.

It’s not the first time we’ve issued this call. In 2011, President Barack Obama proposed pulling all regular combat troops out of Afghanistan by 2014. “It is not too late to change course,” we wrote at the time, calling on the president to accomplish his goal by the end of 2012. It’s now 2019—and our forces are still deployed in Afghanistan.

Our brave women and men in uniform have served with valor, honor, and effectiveness. It is Congress that has failed to assert its constitutional duty to conduct forceful oversight over the war in Afghanistan, which has now been waged for nearly two decades. Congress must step up and step in to ensure that another generation of Americans is not sent to fight a war with no end in sight, especially when there is no military solution to the challenges facing Afghanistan.

For nearly two decades, and under three presidents—both Democratic and Republican—we have committed America’s blood and treasure toward securing Afghanistan. On top of the thousands of American lives lost and forever changed, as the mission has dragged on, we have been left with the fraying of vital relationships and a bill greater than what our nation spent on the Marshall Plan—upwards of $2 trillion.

Despite the exceptional efforts and extraordinary sacrifices of our armed forces and diplomatic corps, we still face enormous obstacles that will not be solved by military force—ranging from rampant corruption fueled by billions of dollars in multilateral aid to a drug-trafficking problem that has upended the rule of law to deep-seated issues of governance that demand a political solution.

By now, it’s clear that American troops have achieved the mission they were sent to carry out in October 2001, including the removal of al-Qaeda’s base and the death of Osama bin Laden. But the continued commitment of our troops will not enable the Afghan people to rebuild their own nation or stabilize the central government. We should not risk more American lives, or continue squandering more than $51 billion each year on these impossible tasks.

We urge our colleagues in Congress to step up to the plate and do our jobs as laid out in the Constitution—to evaluate whether our continued interests in Afghanistan justify the enormous sacrifices required of the brave women and men serving there. The AFGHAN Service Act will enable Congress to act as the Constitution envisioned, bringing our troops home after nearly two decades of courageous service.

For their heroism and valor, our legislation says “Thank you” by ensuring we recognize and honor that service. Drawing from the billions saved by ending the war in Afghanistan, our bill provides a $2,500 bonus within one year to all the members of our volunteer military who have served in the Global War on Terrorism.

Endless wars require endless resources and endless sacrifices. We simply cannot maintain a prolonged military footprint in Afghanistan, putting more Americans in harm’s way and pouring billions of dollars into an endless war, while also addressing the urgent needs we face at home and abroad. The troops who have served valiantly in support of America’s mission in Afghanistan deserve no less. It is time for us to bring them home.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to


Published  1 month ago

Trump said he wouldn’t be like "every other Republican." He is.


Published  1 month ago

Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blamed the Keystone XL pipeline for leaking about 5,000 barrels of oil in rural South Dakota about two years ago.

There’s just one problem: The Keystone XL pipeline has not been built yet.

During a House hearing Tuesday, Ocasio-Cortez claimed that “Keystone XL, in particular, had one leak that leaked 210,000 gallons across South Dakota” while she questioned Wells Fargo president and CEO Timothy Sloan.

And then @RepAOC shifts to asking about #WellsFargo‘s role in the Dakota Access Pipeline#NoDAPL

— Alexis Goldstein (@alexisgoldstein) March 12, 2019

Ocasio-Cortez probably confused the Keystone XL pipeline with the Keystone pipeline, which has been operating since 2010. Keystone XL is still under construction, but would also bring oil sands from Canada to Nebraska where it would connect to existing pipeline.

Environmentalists spent years opposing the Keystone XL pipeline, filing court challenges and successfully lobbying former President Barack Obama to personally reject the project in late 2015. President Donald Trump reversed that decision in early 2017, but Keystone XL’s progress has since been delayed by activist lawsuits.

The existing Keystone pipeline, however, was responsible for leaking up to 9,700 barrels in South Dakota in 2017. The initial estimate for the spill was about 5,000 barrels, or 210,000 gallons of oil. Both Keystone and the planned XL line are operated by Canadian pipeline giant TransCanada.

TransCanada said it repaired the pipeline and cleaned-up the spill, Reuters reported in 2018, though the event has been used by environmental activists to gin up opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline.

Ocasio-Cortez, who recently introduced the Green New Deal resolution, also took aim at Wells Fargo’s financing of the Dakota Access Pipeline, which sparked violent protests along the project’s planned route throughout 2016. (RELATED: Greenpeace Tries To Erase Inconvenient Co-Founder From History)

Like Keystone XL, the Trump administration reversed the Obama administration’s blocking of the project. Dakota Access went into service in 2017. TransCanada had plans to begin building the Keystone XL pipeline later this year, but a February federal court ruling could delay construction until 2020.

Ocasio-Cortez also grilled Wells Fargo’s Sloan over their financing of the Dakota Access Pipeline, asking the bank CEO if his company should be responsible for cleaning up any oil spills. The freshman Democrat also claimed the Dakota Access pipeline has leaked five times since it began operating two years ago.

“So, hypothetically, if there was a leak from the Dakota Access Pipeline, why shouldn’t Wells Fargo pay for the cleanup of it, since it paid for the construction of the pipeline itself?” Ocasio-Cortez asked in Tuesday’s hearing.

“We don’t operate the pipeline, we provide financing to the company that’s operating the pipeline,” Sloan said, also noting Wells Fargo had an environmental oversight group.

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

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is facing another fact-check, this time for claiming President Trump did not transfer any money to address the country’s opioid crisis.

“Amount President Trump has transferred from other agencies to fund his ‘Build the Wall’ Emergency: $10s of millions, & has identified billions more. Amount he’s transferred to address the Opioid National Emergency: $0,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted Friday night.

The tweet included a previous CSPAN post of a five-minute clip taken as the New York Democrat was questioning James W. Carroll, the White House director of drug policy. The tweet included the caption: “@AOC compares #OpioidCrisis to #SouthernBorder: ‘So, we've got two emergencies, one is treated with an actual action and the other is just to raise awareness.’”

The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler dished out a “three Pinocchio” rating, which the Post assigns for comments containing a “significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.”

The main point of contention for the Post was Ocasio-Cortez trying to connect the two scenarios.

“Ocasio-Cortez is making a highly misleading comparison,” Kessler wrote, before adding: “the situations are not comparable.

While Congress refused Trump $6 billion for a wall, Kessler noted, "Congress acted to give the administration more than $6 billion for the opioid crisis, so there was little need for him to transfer funds without congressional authorization."

He concluded: “Trump has no need to transfer billions of dollars for the opioid emergency because Congress already has appropriated billions of dollars. Trump’s backing of a national public-health emergency did more than raise awareness; it triggered a congressional response. So it’s the exact opposite of the standoff over the wall.

“One can question the effectiveness of the Trump response to the opioid epidemic without resorting to red herrings and false equivalency.”

Tuesday’s rebuke from the Post is not the first time the newspaper has taken issue with one of Ocasio-Cortez’s claims.


In January, Kessler defended his decision to give the Democrat another "three-Pinocchio" rating after she criticized the move.

Ocasio-Cortez claimed the Post columnist relied on a "Walmart-funded" study when he analyzed her statements that the vast majority of the country doesn't earn the minimum wage.

"If the point of fact-checking is to enforce some objective standard, why would @GlennKesslerWP use a Walmart-funded think tank as reference material for wage fairness? That’s like citing the foxes to fact-check the hens. Here’s 4 Geppettos for your contested Pinocchios," she wrote.

In his response, Kessler tweeted a screenshot of an addition to his story that said Jason Furman – the author of the study – previously served as the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under former President Barack Obama, before telling his followers "don't always believe what you see on Twitter."

Frontpage Mag

Published  1 month ago

You have the power to determine how history will judge us.


Published  1 month ago

President Barack Obama's love of secrecy has, by this point, become a favorite rhetorical cudgel for the President's opponents. And perhaps no set of documents is more coveted due to its total unavailability than the President's college records. These documents have sparked all sorts of conspiracy ...

Katrina Pierson

Published  1 month ago

As reported by DailyCaller

Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar suggested that President Donald Trump is not human when a reporter asked her about criticisms she made about Trump and former President Barack Obama on Monday.

Fox News’ Guerin Hays peppered Omar with questions about her negative comments regarding Obama’s stance on immigration during a Politico interview last week.

Ads by Revcontent

Fox News’ Guerin Hays asks Ilhan Omar about last week's Politico article: “Do you think President Obama is the same as President Trump?”

Omar: “Absolutely not. … One is human the other is not”

Omar's dehumanizing remarks come after she was slammed last week for anti-Semitism

— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) March 12, 2019

Hays asked, “Do you think President Obama is the same as President Trump?”

“Absolutely not. That is silly to even equate the two. One is human and one is really not,” Omar answered, after ignoring his first questions.

She then got on an elevator and left.

“We can’t be only upset with Trump. … His policies are bad, but many of the people who came before him also had really bad policies. They just were more polished than he was,” Omar said in the interview. “We don’t want anybody to get away with murder because they are polished. We want to recognize the actual policies that are behind the pretty face and the smile.”

After facing backlash for the comment, Omar claimed the reporter misrepresented what she said.

News Punch

Published  1 month ago

POTUS says Obama's surveillance abuse would be considered "treason."


Published  1 month ago

In another batch of unearthed audio released by Media Matters, Tucker Carlson called Iraqis “semiliterate primitive monkeys,” made disparaging comments about Michelle Obama and credited white men for “creating civilization.”

The audio, released Monday evening, was taken from appearances on the “Bubba the Love Sponge Show,” between 2006 and 2011.

The topics discussed in these clips range from the 2008 presidential election, to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to immigration.

“Iraq is a crappy place filled with a bunch of, you know, semiliterate primitive monkeys — that’s why it wasn’t worth invading,” Carlson told the shock jock in October 2008, according Media Matters.

Tucker Carlson Refuses to Apologize for 'Naughty' Past Comments About Statutory Rape, 'C-ty' Women

In another clip from 2011, Carlson said that the war in Iraq could turn around “if, somehow, the Iraqis decided to behave like human beings.”

In 2006, Carlson told the radio show he had “zero sympathy” for Iraqis because they “don’t use toilet paper or forks,” adding that they should “just shut the f— up and obey” us.

Carlson told the radio host in 2008 that Michelle Obama could pose a problem for her husband because she “turns into a sister.” Carlson also questioned whether Barack Obama was black, saying, “How is he Black, for one thing? He has one white parent, one Black parent.”

During a 2006 discussion on immigration, Carlson argued that immigrants should be “hot” or “really smart” because people picking lettuce aren’t going to build a stronger country.

“I just think it’s, you know, people who come to this country ought to have something to offer,” he said. “Be hot, be really smart, you know what I mean?”

Fox News did not immediately respond to a request for comment from TheWrap.

This the second set of unearthed audio recordings in as many days; On Sunday, Media Matters released several audio clips in which Carlson made disparaging comments about women and prosecution of statutory rape, among other things.

The release of the audio prompted renewed calls on social media for Fox to fire Carlson and advertisers to boycott his nightly show. Pharmaceutical company AstraZenica said it would no longer advertise on Carlson’s show.

On his show Monday evening, Carlson said that “Fox News is behind us.”

“Fox News is behind us, as they have been since the very first day. Toughness is a rare quality at a TV network, and we are grateful for that,” Carlson said. “We will never bow to the mob, ever, no matter what.”

You can listen to the entire audio above.


Published  1 month ago

On Monday, Media Matters dropped a second load of clips of Tucker Carlson making controversial remarks and this time, the clips include Carlson spouting racist remarks.

The clips date from 2006 and 2011 and were from Carlson’s weekly call-in to the Bubba the Love Sponge Show, a popular shock jock show.

At one point, he suggested immigrants allowed into the country should be “hot” or “really smart” because lettuce pickers don’t build the country.

At another point, he insisted white men deserve credit for “creating civilization.”

He also remarked that Iraq was full of “primitive monkeys.”

“Iraq is a crappy place filled with a bunch of, you know, semiliterate primitive monkeys — that’s why it wasn’t worth invading,” he opined, blasting the people he insisted “don’t use toilet paper or forks” and suggested should just “shut the fuck up and obey.”

His wrath was not limited to Iraqis, however.

Carlson also said this about the Congressional Black Caucus: “The Congressional Black Caucus exists to blame the white man for everything, and I’m happy to say that in public because it’s true.”

And this about Barack Obama: “Everybody knows that Barack Obama would still be in the state Senate in Illinois if he were white.”

Finally, in a tweeted out clip, Carlson also told radio host Bubba the Love Sponge: “I like you too … I actually mean it in a completely faggot way.”

Tucker Carlson to Bubba the Love Sponge: “I like you too … I actually mean it in a completely faggot way”

— Media Matters (@mmfa) March 12, 2019

Carlson was on MSNBC until 2009, when he left the network to join Fox News. The unearthed comments were made between 2006 and 2011.

He previously responded to Media Matters’ first dump of clips — which included misogynistic remarks — by saying this:

On Monday night, at about the same time as the second group of clips was published, Carlson also pinned the unearthed clips on the liberal mob that wants to “kill” his show.

Listen above, via Media Matters

Have a tip we should know?

Chicks On The Right — Young Conservatives

Published  1 month ago

Ashley (Kimber)

This woman really isn’t doing herself any favors at this point.

As we mentioned before, Ilhan Omar had some iiiiinteresting thoughts on Obama.

Basically… he’s “just as bad” as Trump.

“We can’t be only upset with Trump,” she said. “His policies are bad, but many of the people who came before him also had really bad policies. They just were more polished than he was.”

“And that’s not what we should be looking for anymore,” she continued. “We don’t want anybody to get away with murder because they are polished. We want to recognize the actual policies that are behind the pretty face and the smile.”

She then tried to walk her comments back by releasing the recording of the interview.

Here’s the thing…

The audio proves that’s EXACTLY what she said.

She has since DELETED her tweet.

And she’s trying a new approach.

She’s now saying she couldn’t have compared the two… because Trump ISN’T HUMAN.

Freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., told Fox News on Monday that it was “silly” to compare President Trump with former President Barack Obama, adding: “One is human. The other is really not.”

Omar’s comments came after she told Politico in an interview published last Friday that the Obama administration was responsible for the “caging of kids” at the U.S.-Mexico border and the “droning of countries around the world.”

No one’s really talking about it.

I wonder, however, how much the left would be talking about it if a Congressman implied that Obama wasn’t “human.” Or that she “isn’t human.”

Yeah. I’m sure that would go over well.

David Harris Jr

Published  1 month ago

When a reporter asked Minnesota Rep Ilhan Omar about her criticisms of President Trump and Barack Obama, Omar tried to walk back all the nasty things she said about Barack Obama and to elevate Obama above Trump by suggesting the president isn’t human. When asked to compare Obama and Trump, Omar said, “Absolutely not. That is silly to even equate the two. One is human and one is really not.”

That statement seems funny coming from someone who has been helping raise money for terrorists. In February, Omar helped fund raise for CAIR that was an unindicted co conspirator in the Holy Land Fund, the largest fund raising group in the United States, raising money to aid terrorism.

Evangelical leader Laurie Cardoza-Moore on Thursday called on the Justice Department to investigate Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) for possible connections to the radical Muslim Brotherhood.

Under 18 US Code § 2385, Advocating overthrow of Government, “whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof-Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned…”

“We can’t be only upset with Trump. … His policies are bad, but many of the people who came before him also had really bad policies. They just were more polished than he was,” Omar said in the interview. “We don’t want anybody to get away with murder because they are polished. We want to recognize the actual policies that are behind the pretty face and the smile.”

After facing backlash for the comment, Omar claimed the reporter misrepresented what she said. (RELATED: Omar Facing More Accusations Of Anti-Semitism)

She tweeted, “Exhibit A of how reporters distort words. I’m an Obama fan! I was saying how Trump is different from Obama, and why we should focus on policy, not politics. This is why I always tape my interviews,” and attached an audio file of the video.

Omar ended up deleting the tweet after people claimed the audio backed up Politico’s original reporting.

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

Published  1 month ago

6 Dartmouth College professors under invetigation, 3 for sexual misconduct. Connections to Clintons, Bill & Melinda Gates, Barack Obama, and several others.

True Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Loretta Lynch’s Justice Department and James Comey’s FBI worked together with the Hillary Clinton campaign to entrap Donald Trump and associates — including his eldest son — prior to the 2016 presidential election, according to records and testimony of federal law enforcement insiders. One high ranking official in the Justice Department called it a sweeping…

Trump Train

Published  1 month ago

Even before her entrance into politics, Judge Jeanine Pirro was fierce district attorney, garnering an impressive 100 percent conviction rate. For most of her time on television she was the subject of “Justice With Judge Jeanine” – a Judge Judyesque show.

Now she’s turned to politics, and it’s politicians feeling her wrath. A common target? President Barack Obama, of course. While we’ve reported on her rants before where she sticks it to him, she made some comments recently that some think way too far.

Here they are, courtesy of Right Alerts:

Fox News Judge Jeanine Calls Obama A “Terrorist” On National Television. In classic a Judge Jeanine rant, she calls out the left and specifically President Obama for “apologizing” for radical Islam even when Americans are killed. She went so far as to call Obama a “terrorist”.

The backlash from the white house and the left was swift and harsh. Since Obama has already shown he will use his government thugs to target US citizens, Judge Jeanine may be in trouble Read More………

What do you all think? The context was after Philadelphia’s mayor denied any terror link after an ISIS-inspired shooter killed a police officer. And of course, Barack Obama is also in the camp that seems to think that Islamic extremism has nothing to do with Islam.

These are the same liberals who are deluded enough to think that the Nazis – that is, the NATIONAL SOCIALISTS, were right-wing.

You’d think in cases like this, the name alone should be enough. What exactly is motivating their abject denial of reality? Read More………

You know for a fact that if there was some kind of Christian equivalent of ISIS, liberals would actually care (and Christians would denounce the group!)

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

The Democrats are in a leftward lurch that could ruin their chances of retaking the White House.

Media Matters for America

Published  1 month ago

In unearthed audio, Tucker Carlson makes numerous misogynistic and perverted comments

Conservative Tribune

Published  1 month ago


Published  1 month ago

The power-drunk House Democrats will not know what hit them.

Washington Examiner

Published  1 month ago

The military adviser to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a 2020 presidential candidate who has been an outspoken supporter of the #MeToo movement and a campaigner against sexual misconduct in the military, kept his job despite allegations he sexually harassed a junior female aide.

Abbas Malik, an Iraq war veteran who served in the 101st Airborne Division, remained as one of Gillibrand's closest advisers even after his accuser resigned in protest at how her allegations against him had been dealt with, according to Politico. The woman is in her mid-20s, junior to and a decade younger than Malik, who is married and at whose wedding Gillibrand officiated.

Malik, 34, was abruptly dismissed last week after media inquiries into his conduct. He was first hired by Gillibrand in 2011 as a special assistant, served as her driver and was promoted to become her military adviser in 2015, according to LegiStorm and LinkedIn data.

The woman has accused Gillibrand of hypocrisy in protecting a powerful male staff member and abandoning a junior female staffer - a sharp contrast with her political rhetoric on sexual misconduct. The female aide had reported a string of unwelcome advances by Malik as well as crude, misogynistic remarks. Another former Gillibrand aide told Politico that Malik had commented that a woman "couldn’t get laid unless she was raped.” Malik was investigated but kept his job.

Malik enlisted in the U.S. Army in 2004, serving for a year in Iraq, and later joined the New York National Guard in 2011 when Gillibrand used Malik's personal story to help bolster support for the Hiring Heroes Act of 2011, a bill that was eventually signed into law by former President Barack Obama. Malik appeared with her wearing his Army uniform.

News of the dismissal left Gillibrand scrambling to limit the political damage. “These are challenges that affect all of our nation’s workplaces, including mine, and the question is whether or not they are taken seriously," she said in a statement to the Washington Examiner.

"As I have long said, when allegations are made in the workplace, we must believe women so that serious investigations can actually take place, we can learn the facts, and there can be appropriate accountability. That’s exactly what happened at every step of this case last year. I told her that we loved her at the time and the same is true today.”

In a letter from the accuser, which neither Gillibrand nor her other staff responded to, she wrote that she was resigned “because of how poorly the investigation and post-investigation was handled.”

She added: “Your office chose to go against your public belief that women shouldn’t accept sexual harassment in any form and portrayed my experience as a misinterpretation instead of what it actually was: harassment and ultimately, intimidation." The letter was obtained and published by Politico.

The U.S. senator for New York has become a key congressional ally for the #MeToo movement. But she angered many Democratic colleagues when in December 2017 she called on former Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., to resign after eight women, including one Capitol Hill staffer, accused him of misconduct, such as groping and forcible kissing. Franken did resign but has denied many of the allegations leveled against him.

Gillibrand, who replaced former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the U.S. Senate in 2009, also rankled the Clinton camp in November 2017 when she suggested former President Bill Clinton should have stepped down as commander-in-chief in the 1990s over his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

Her interest in women’s rights predates #MeToo, spearheading efforts to combat sexual assault in the military since 2013, when she oversaw the first Senate Armed Services hearing on the matter in almost a decade.

Whitney Mitchell Brennan, told the Washington Examiner in a statement: “Unfortunately, no workplace is exempt from employee misconduct, including ours. What’s important is that when an individual reports allegations of sexual harassment or discrimination in our workplace, an immediate and thorough investigation is conducted in consultation with experts, which is precisely what occurred in this case.

“At every step of the process, immediate action was taken by the office. The previous allegations in question were investigated in consultation with Senate Employment Counsel, and included multiple interviews with relevant current employees who could potentially corroborate the claims. A full and thorough investigation into the evidence revealed employee misconduct that, while inappropriate, did not meet the standard for sexual harassment. However, because the office did find unprofessional behavior that violated office policy, including derogatory comments, the office took strong disciplinary action against the employee in question and he was given a final warning.

“Recently, we learned of never-before reported and deeply troubling comments allegedly made by this same individual. The office immediately began another investigation and interviewed relevant witnesses, which has led to the office terminating the employee from staff last week.

“Senator Gillibrand is committed to ensuring allegations are handled seriously, investigated, and followed by appropriate punishment, which is why she helped pass stronger sexual harassment protections in Congress and prioritizes proper harassment training to better prevent these occurrences and encourage future reporting.”

The Atlantic

Published  1 month ago

We need to make hard decisions now about what will truly benefit current and future Americans.

Daily Wire

Published  1 month ago

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) made dehumanizing remarks about President Donald Trump on Monday when asked about an interview she gave last week, saying that the president was not human.

Truthdig: Expert Reporting, Current News, Provocative Columnists

Published  1 month ago

The harder it becomes for Israel to sell its apartheid state, the more pronounced its already massive interference will become.

Big Easy Magazine

Published  1 month ago

Science can help us make sense of President Donald J. Trump’s political invincibility.

Des Moines Register

Published  1 month ago

Bernie Sanders, who announced his 2020 campaign recently, is a close second in Iowa's preferences in poll of likely Democratic caucusgoers conducted March 3-6.

Dan Bongino

Published  1 month ago


In this episode I address the deeply troubling connections between the Democrats’ latest Russiagate target, the Clintons, and Barack Obama. I also discuss the inevitable Democrat implosion as they rush to the far left.

News Picks:

Voting for illegal immigrants is the next step for the radical Democrats.

CNN gets served with a massive lawsuit.

Dark money is funding the anti-Trump conspiracy theory network.

Trump reveals his proposed 2020 federal budget.

Erik Prince acknowledges that he attended the Trump Tower meeting. So what!

Paul Manafort has connections to Ukraine, but he was not a Russian agent.

Joe Biden’s shady family connections are coming back to haunt him.

Security expert is concerned about flying on April 6th because of GPS issues.

The University of Wisconsin sticks it to the social justice warriors.

The Duran

Published  1 month ago

Sources said that the area where Daesh leaders and members have barricaded themselves in, contains around 40 tons of gold and tens of millions of dollars.

Published  1 month ago

Our economy is so strong that more than a million American households are no longer dependent on food stamps, and newly employed workers can proudly say that President Donald Trump is the reason they can feed their families without government assistance.

According to the latest food stamp enrollment data from the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the number of Americans on food stamps consistently decreased every month during the last fiscal year.

Earlier this month, the USDA also revealed that more than 1.4 million households have stopped using food stamps since shortly after Trump took office in 2017—a remarkable milestone that demonstrates the effectiveness of Trump’s economic agenda.

This is a remarkable achievement—not just as a matter of economics, but in human terms. Many food stamp recipients are ashamed to use them in public due to the stigma of dependency, and helping those people become self-sufficient elevates their self-esteem and restores their pride.

Of course, the massive decrease in the number of Americans who depend on food stamps directly contradicts the liberal lie that Trump’s economic agenda helps only the rich.

Almost every prominent Democrat in the United States publicly criticized the president’s middle-class tax cuts, claiming that the initiative was nothing short of a “Ponzi scheme.”

“This is a shell game, a Ponzi scheme that corporate America will perpetrate on the American people,” Rep. Nancy Pelosi said in 2017. “But if you’re the wealthiest 1 percent, Republicans will give you the sun, the moon, and the stars—all of that at the expense of the great middle class.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders also denounced the proposal at the time, attempting to portray it as a tax cut for the wealthy. “Only 12 percent of Americans believe the wealthy should receive a tax cut,” he wrote in a tweet. “So of course, Republicans are trying to give the wealthy a huge tax cut.”

Even the mainstream media was happy to amplify the Democrats’ delusion, flooding the United States with a tsunami of biased analyses attempting to discredit the president’s economic vision.

Contrary to all this criticism, however, Trump’s economic agenda proved to be a winning formula for U.S. prosperity, creating robust GDP growth, a thriving labor market, and higher wages, enabling more people to climb out of poverty.

The same can’t be said of the true food stamp president, President Barack Obama.

According to the USDA, a record 20 percent of U.S. households were on food stamps in 2013—a full year into Obama’s second term in office.

The overall economy wasn’t doing very well, either—at the end of Obama’s first term, the unemployment rate was more than double its current mark, hovering above 8 percent for most of 2012.

Regrettably, the Democrats were far less vocal about the needs of the poor when they were the ones calling all the shots in Washington.

Indeed, liberals were mute when Obama’s policies hamstrung the U.S. economy and prolonged the recession. Where was the outrage over the disastrous unemployment rate or the record number of U.S. households on food stamps back then?

Now that the economy is booming once again, liberals have suddenly rediscovered their concern for the poor. They’re too late, though—Trump’s pro-growth policies are lifting people out of poverty and proving once and for all that the liberal welfare state is just a poverty trap.

Darrell Scott is CEO of the National Diversity Coalition for Trump, and a member of the Donald J. Trump for President Inc. advisory board.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

American Greatness

Published  1 month ago

Post by @theamgreatness.


Published  1 month ago

”I really believe the Republicans are just too crazy right…He doesn’t like the blacks, he doesn’t like the gays. It’s just incredible that anybody could embrace this guy, and maybe he’ll get 4 or 5 percent of the vote and it’ll be a really staunch right wacko vote.”

Is that a quote from a liberal voter, remarking on Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign? No. It’s from Donald Trump, on October 25, 1999 on NBC‘s “Meet The Press,” criticizing Pat Buchanan and renouncing his registration with the Republican Party.

Buchanan, a former CNN anchor, made multiple presidential bids in the 90s, pushing nationalism amid technological and demographic shifts in the United States. Buchanan called for a wall along the Mexican border, called for the decrease of legal immigration claiming immigration was threatening America’s “identity,” opposed “globalist” trade policies, and criticized the “establishment.” His slogan was “Make America First Again.”

In 1992, he primaried President George H.W. Bush, winning 3 million votes but not the nomination. In 1996, Buchanan ran in the GOP primary and yet again didn’t secure the nomination but still had support. During the 2000 election, Buchanan ran in the Reform Party, which is the party Donald Trump announced he would be joining in the above “Meet The Press” interview while he was exploring a run for President (advised by Roger Stone).

Before Trump dropped out of the race, he joined Buchanan’s critics in condemning him as a bigot who was playing to the fringe of the far right. Trump expanded on this in a separate interview with Larry King in 1999 where he even further blasted Buchanan’s tactics as appealing to the “wacko vote,” in remarks that could easily be considered valid criticism of his 2016 campaign in its early days:

I think it is personality. I think he’s a very — you know, it’s almost gotten to a point where I’m not even so sure he’s far right, I think he’s beyond far right, and, then, on other issues he’s just all over the place. I don’t think he’ll get any votes.

In an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times written on October 31, 1999, Trump made more criticisms of Buchanan that echo what we’ve heard leveled at President Trump today:

“On slow days, he attacks gays, immigrants, welfare recipients, even Zulus. When cornered, he says he’s misunderstood.

The fact is, he has a deadly serious purpose. Buchanan is rewriting history and spreading fear for one purpose: To gain political power. That makes him a very dangerous man.”

Donald Trump would go on to run a campaign that was very similar to the one he panned as bigoted, fear-mongering, and appealing to the “staunch right wacko vote.” By the time Trump launched his campaign in 2015, he had already become a star of the anti-establishment Tea Party movement with his conspiracy theory about President Barack Obama’s place of birth. After decades of consuming right-wing content from Fox News, the Republican Party’s base was ready for the style of politics Buchanan had championed. And so, Donald Trump jumped in the race, running a nationalist campaign that called for the building of a wall on the Mexican border, played to the Republican base’s sense of “identity,” criticizing America’s trade deals with other nations, and lambasting the “establishment.” Trump slogans were “Make America Great Again” (used by President Ronald Reagan) and “America First” (used by the KKK).

Just like Buchanan, many saw Trump’s campaign as bigoted and appealing to the far right fringe. This time, however, it wasn’t a fringe. It was now the base of the Republican Party. Donald Trump became President Trump using the very same campaign tactics he condemned 17 years earlier; his timing was just better.

MSNBC‘s Steve Kornacki pointed to these parallels in a segment, and also cited a Politico piece that reported Donald Trump reached out to apologize to Pat Buchanan before his presidential bid.

Also in that Politico piece, was this quote from Buchanan:

“The ideas made it,” Buchanan tells me, letting out a belly laugh. “But I didn’t.”

Although Mr. Buchanan never became President, his legacy is currently sitting in the Oval Office.

Rantt Media’s comprehensive articles source reporting from top news organizations, but they’re also built on brilliant analysis from our team. We are independently-owned and strive for quality, not clicks. But the only way to truly have a media for the people is for media to be funded by the people. We take pride in being reader-funded so that we are beholden to you, not corporate interests. If you like the work we do, please consider supporting us by signing up for a monthly subscription.

True Pundit

Published  1 month ago

The fix was in to protect Justice Department officials as high up as the US Attorney General even before the Awan investigation started, FBI veterans with knowledge of the case now fear.

And so far President Barack Obama, who appointed the US Attorney in the District of Columbia who is slow walking the case, has proven insulated too from an investigation now on the fringes of exposing espionage and blackmail of Democratic members of Congress.

The US Attorney in DC is Channing Phillips, who worked for Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder in key roles during their tenures as US Attorney General. Phillips was appointed by Obama shortly before the Awan grand jury convened. The confirmation of Phillips’ replacement nominated by President Donald Trump has been stalled by Sen. Chuck Schumer for eight months.

The explosive Awan case could also possibly implicate Obama as well as former attorneys general Holder and Lynch. Those tenets have not been lost on veteran federal agents with knowledge of the evidence unfolding in this complicated case against a family of alleged Pakistani IT gurus linked to dozens of Congressional Democrats, including Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

“He (Phillips) could be protecting Holder, Lynch and Obama depending how deep this mess is,” a FBI insider said. “He may have been appointed for the sole purpose of quashing this case.”

FBI agents feel they have amassed crucial evidence to expand the Awan case into a wider investigation of possible espionage and blackmail but the Bureau is getting push back from the US Attorney’s Office in D.C., federal sources confirmed.

President Trump has nominated Jesse Liu as the new US Attorney to replace Phillips, the Obama holdover. However, Schumer and senate Democrats have stalled Liu’s confirmation. This has provided Schumer de facto control of the Awan investigation which otherwise could implicate dozens of his fellow Congressional Democrats. Wasserman hired the Awans as IT specialists and shared the four Awans with other Democrats for classified computer work.

In essence, Schumer can currently dictate whether any charges are brought against members of Congress linked to Awan-related crimes, sources said. Until either Liu is confirmed or Phillips is forced out by President Trump.

Awan and Alvi, husband and wife, were indicted on bank fraud and financial crimes on August 17, but federal agents believe this case is much larger than mortgage-related crimes. There is growing evidence, for instance the Awans could have sold classified information to foreign governments outside the United States. Then there is growing talk that the Awans may have blackmailed Congress with damaging emails and photos. FBI sources also believe someone in Congress tipped the Awans off months before their grand jury indictment.

On Sunday, former Congressman Jason Chaffetz, who retired just weeks ago, predicted the Awan and Alvi bank fraud indictment could explode and expand into something much larger. He said the case could prove the proverbial tip of the iceberg, involving accomplices, according to the former chairman of the Oversight Committee for the House.

True Pundit reported six days before the Chaffetz revelations, the Awan case was much larger than believed and the family was tipped off prior to the indictment by Congress.

Phillips, whose name is a legacy in Democratic circles, could not be reached for comment. Phiilips’ father was once nominated on the Democratic presidential ticket.

The Old School Patriot

Published  1 month ago

Howdy, y’all!

Yes it is once again time for our end of week comic relief known as “Stuck on Stupid Saturday.” Now, for those of us who are serious college basketball fans, this is the time of year we affectionately call “March Madness.” But, there is a clear and present madness playing out in Washington, DC. Yes, there can be no denial, this week’s Old School Patriot Stuck on Stupid recognition goes to the young freshmen Democrat Members of Congress I have dubbed, The Four Horsewomen of the Apocalypse.” Uh huh, these four dubious young ladies, Alexandria “da Boss” Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and Ayanna Pressley — in just two and a half months — have made quite the splash . . . but for the wrong reasons.

“Well, if you thought there would be a day where the far left wing of the House Democratic caucus would quiet down a bit, given their anti-Semitism issues, you’d be wrong. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) sent a fundraising email last night suggesting that AIPAC was coming after her and that the U.S.-Israeli relationship should be severed. No, I’m not kidding. This is insanity. AOC has been one of the few defenders [which includes Louis Farrakhan] of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), who once again was accused of anti-Semitism for suggesting those who support Israel are exhibiting dual loyalty. The latter is a common anti-Semitic smear. Omar has also peddled the talking point about Jewish money and influence with her “all about the Benjamins” tweet.

In 2012, she [Omar] said that Israel had hypnotized the world. She’s run the gauntlet on this front. The recent dual loyalty fiasco has given her party leadership heartburn, exposing its fractured points with this resolution that condemns anti-Semitism, which has been watered down because…apparently, there are a lot of Democrats who don’t think this is an issue. They’re just angry that their side is being pilloried for peddling bigotry when they wanted the entire focus to be on Trump and his phantom prejudices. So, after days of anti-Semitic theater, AOC decided to blast this fundraising email (via NTK Network):

“Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is calling for an end to the United States’ special relationship with Israel while the House debated condemning all forms of hate speech, including anti-Semitism, on Thursday. The House of Representatives was debating condemning anti-Semitism on Thursday because of anti-Semitic comments made by Ocasio-Cortez’s friend and fellow member of Congress, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), which were directed at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). “It’s official — AIPAC is coming after Alexandria, Ilhan, and Rashida,” the email said. “Rashida, Ilhan, and Alexandria have times dated to questions out foreign policy, and the influence of money in our political system. And now, lobbying groups across the board are working to punish them.”

The email then asked for people to contribute to help “keep up the fight against lobbying and special interests of all forms in Washington.” The email then appeared to call for an end to the United States’ special relationship with Israel. “In this administration and all others, there should be no special relationship or status,” the email said. “We should actively check anti-Semitism, anti-blackness, homophobia, racism, and all other forms of bigotry.”

As for this faux resolution that said everybody is bad, what a joke! But, these loud voices have, frankly, made Nancy Pelosi cower to their insidious demands. Yes, these four young Marxist/Islamist Princesses have completely thrown the party of the jackass on its arse.

Rep, Tlaib, who is facing FEC violation allegations, ranted that by the end of this month she will introduce articles of impeachment on President Trump. Well, that cat is outta the bag.

Not to be outdone, Rep. Pressley of Massachusetts, brought to the floor a bill to lower the voting age to 16. Uh huh, sweet 16. Now, I do not know about y’all, but at the tender age of 16, I was focused on my studies, football, track, and well, girls . . . not to mention my part-time job. I was not focused on politics, then again, we did not have social media nor teachers who were endeavoring to indoctrinate us.

These four are completely dominating the information cycle and the direction of what was once the Democrat Party, now it is the Socialist Party. Rep. Omar has now turned her sights on Barack Obama. Bold. However, the excuses for Omar are laughable, one stating that she comes from a different culture. Nancy Pelosi made comments alluding to Omar’s inability to understand the language, words, that she is using. Hey y’all, I call total bovine excrement. Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, Tlaib, and Pressley all know what they are doing. And, it appears that Nancy Pelosi does not mind being on the cover of Rolling Stone with the Four Horsewomen of the Apocalypse. After all, we only have 12 years until the world ends, so we should stop having children.

Do not be deceived, there are those out there cheering these four on, and they are indeed a special kind of stupid. But what is truly perplexing is that these four are not the ones who enabled Nancy Pelosi to once again be the Speaker of the House. But, doggone, they are going to make sure that she is not Speaker after 2020. When was the last time you heard about any of those “moderate” Democrats who won in GOP congressional districts?

I must say, I do admire these four young women for their abject boldness. I truly admire them for that. The progressive socialist left will fight vehemently even in knowing what they are fighting for is dumb. Republicans can have all the right ideals, principles, policies, and perspectives . . . but they lack courage, as a whole.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has come to Washington, DC, and even when displaying utter ignorance at times — a true socialist quality — she is relentless. She gets support, but this is what the progressive socialist left has always wanted. Ilhan Omar is a Somali refugee, saved by the benevolence of these United States of America. Now she is turning her hatred upon this very country, and our ally.

They are telling us who they are, and that they do not play by the established rules. The GOP needs Four Horsemen, or Women, who will take the ideological field of battle and finally, fight back against the “Stuck on Stupid crowd.”

I am very sure that this will not be the last time these four receive this distinction. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley, congratulations, you are the recipients of this week’s “Stuck on Stupid Saturday” award.

During his 22 year career in the United States Army, Lieutenant Colonel West served in several combat zones and received many honors including a Bronze Star, three Meritorious Service Medals, three Army Commendation Medals, one with Valor device, and a Valorous Unit Award.

In November of 2010, Allen was elected to the United States Congress, representing Florida’s 22nd District.

He is a Fox News Contributor, Director of the Booker T. Washington Initiative at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Senior Fellow at the Media Research Center, contributing columnist for, and author of Guardian of the Republic: An American Ronin’s Journey to Family, Faith and Freedom, and, Hold Texas, Hold the Nation: Victory or Death, published October 16, 2018, from Brown Books Publishing Group.

Published  1 month ago


Published  1 month ago

President Donald Trump's "Hire American" policy pushed Americans' wages up by 3.4% in the last 12 months, according to employment data.

Blunt Force Truth

Published  1 month ago

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is now making excuses for anti-Semite and freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar.

“I don’t think our colleague is anti-Semitic, I think she has a different experience in the use of words, doesn’t understand that some of them are fraught with meaning that she didn’t realize,” Pelosi told the Washington, D.C. Economic Club.

Omar went after President Obama in an interview with Politico, the New York Post reports:

Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar ripped former President Barack Obama in an interview published Friday, belittling his “pretty face” and saying his agenda of hope and change was an illusion.

She cited the “caging of kids” at the Mexican border and the “droning of countries around the world” on Obama’s watch — and argued that he wasn’t much different from President Trump

“We can’t be only upset with Trump,” the freshman firebrand told Politico Magazine.

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.

National Review

Published  1 month ago

If anti-Semitism is wrong, it shouldn’t matter how bad Ilhan Omar’s childhood was.

Conservative News Today

Published  1 month ago

Rep. Ilhan Omar, the not ready for prime time Democrat from Minnesota just can’t seem to get out of her own way these days. Already mired in controversy over an anti-Semitic remark about dual loyalty that resulted in a (watered down) rebuke from the Democrat-run House, the freshman lawmaker finds herself knee-deep in another spat […]

Conservative Tribune

Published  1 month ago

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, speaking in the Philippines, made it abundantly clear that Chinese agression in the South China Sea won't be tolerated.

Daily Wire

Published  1 month ago

Far-Left Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) appeared to suggest in an interview with Politico Magazine that former President Barack Obama was a murderer because he used drone strikes to kill terrorists.

The Politico article was about her and Rep. Dean Phillips (D-MN), whose district is next to Omar's in Minnesota.

"The two are framed as symbolizing the colliding forces in the new Democratic House majority, with Omar representing the far-left flank and Phillips the more center-left sensibilities that helped recapture suburban districts from Republicans in 2018," The Washington Free Beacon's David Rutz noted, adding that Omar "wasn't shy about telling Politico her objections to Obama-era policies, like detention centers for illegal immigrant children and the 'droning of countries around the world.'"

Politico Magazine reports:

As she saw it, the party ostensibly committed to progressive values had become complicit in perpetuating the status quo. Omar says the "hope and change" offered by Barack Obama was a mirage. Recalling the "caging of kids" at the U.S.-Mexico border and the "droning of countries around the world" on Obama’s watch, she argues that the Democratic president operated within the same fundamentally broken framework as his Republican successor.

In the very next paragraph, immediately after trashing Obama, Omar stated: "We can’t be only upset with Trump. … His policies are bad, but many of the people who came before him also had really bad policies. They just were more polished than he was. And that’s not what we should be looking for anymore. We don’t want anybody to get away with murder because they are polished. We want to recognize the actual policies that are behind the pretty face and the smile."

For the record, we disagreed with @BarackObama on almost every issue, but @IlhanMN’s comments calling a former President a murderer with a pretty face and a smile is disgusting and should be condemned by all sides.

— The Reagan Battalion (@ReaganBattalion) March 8, 2019

Omar's statements in Politico's report seem to contradict multiple statements that she has made about Obama on social media:

"Happy birthday President Obama! Still can't believe we replaced a winner with loser."

Happy birthday President Obama! Still can't believe we replaced a winner with loser.

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) August 4, 2017

"Thank you Obama for being a source of inspiration, hope and change. I have always been proud to call you my president!"

Thank you Obama for being a source of inspiration, hope and change. I have always been proud to call you my president! #ObamaFarewell

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) January 11, 2017

Omar's statements are just the latest in a long line of comments that have caused a massive headache for the Democratic Party.

Over the last week, Omar's anti-Semitism has captured national headlines and have deepened the fracture in the party, revealing which Democrats still support Israel and which ones do not.

"The comments came after the passage Thursday of a broad anti-bigotry resolution prompted by Omar's prior comments about Israel," Fox News reported. "The resolution and the drama surrounding its passage exposed chasms in the Democratic caucus regarding Israel and marked a coup of sorts for a tight-knit band of House freshmen who — in a matter of hours — were able to shift the spotlight away from Omar’s allegedly anti-Semitic remarks and refocus on issues like Islamophobia and pro-Israel lobby AIPAC."

In a Thursday speech on the House floor, Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY) slammed the Democratic Party for it's inability to condemn anti-Semitism.

"If that member was a Republican, that member's name would be in this resolution, and this resolution would be all about condemning anti-Semitism — and it would be done so forcefully," Zeldin said. "That member in January had to apologize for talking about a 'hypnosis' of Israel that they have over the entire world. That member had to apologize in February by saying if you support Israel, it must be because you're bought off by Jews. That member called it an unequivocal apology, even though she filled it with equivocation. And now we're back again this time by saying that if you support the U.S.-Israel relationship that you must have pledged allegiance to a foreign government. Except this time that member is refusing to apologize."

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Move over Speaker Pelosi — the Radicals are in charge now.

Radical Democrat and anti-Semite Rep. Ilhan Omar went after Barack Obama in her latest interview.

This comes the day after Democrats failed to condemn her for her anti-Semitic attacks in the past few weeks.

You know your party’s in trouble with Nancy Pelosi looks like the sane one of the bunch.

The New York Post reported:

Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar ripped former President Barack Obama in an interview published Friday, belittling his “pretty face” and saying his agenda of hope and change was an illusion.

She cited the “caging of kids” at the Mexican border and the “droning of countries around the world” on Obama’s watch — and argued that he wasn’t much different from President Trump

“We can’t be only upset with Trump,” the freshman firebrand told Politico Magazine.

“His policies are bad, but many of the people who came before him also had really bad policies. They just were more polished than he was,” Omar said.

“And that’s not what we should be looking for anymore. We don’t want anybody to get away with murder because they are polished. We want to recognize the actual policies that are behind the pretty face and the smile.”

The explosive comments about a man lionized by Democrats were only the latest in a series of incendiary statements that have put the national spotlight on Omar, a Somali-American Muslim who spent four years in a refugee camp in Kenya after her family fled the violence in their homeland.

New York Post

Published  1 month ago

Enlarge Image

Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar ripped former President Barack Obama in an interview published Friday, belittling his “pretty face” and saying his agenda of hope and change was an illusion.

She cited the “caging of kids” at the Mexican border and the “droning of countries around the world” on Obama’s watch — and argued that he wasn’t much different from President Trump

“We can’t be only upset with Trump,” the freshman firebrand told Politico Magazine.

“His policies are bad, but many of the people who came before him also had really bad policies. They just were more polished than he was,” Omar said.

“And that’s not what we should be looking for anymore. We don’t want anybody to get away with murder because they are polished. We want to recognize the actual policies that are behind the pretty face and the smile.”

The explosive comments about a man lionized by Democrats were only the latest in a series of incendiary statements that have put the national spotlight on Omar, a Somali-American Muslim who spent four years in a refugee camp in Kenya after her family fled the violence in their homeland.

In February, her second month in office, Omar responded to a tweet about House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy’s threats to punish her and another congresswoman for criticizing Israel.

“It’s all about the Benjamins baby,” she tweeted, a line from a Puff Daddy song about $100 bills.

Critics said Omar was perpetuating a hateful trope about Jewish Americans and money.

She recently got into another hot mess after another tweet was slammed by some as anti-Semitic.

The ensuing firestorm rattled the Democratic House majority and spurred days of recriminations and tense negotiations that led to the compromise package condemning bigotry that sailed through the House on Thursday, with only 23 Republicans voting against it.

The party’s leftist wing, led by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, said Omar was being singled out when others at the highest levels of government had said things that were worse and escaped censure.

More moderate Dems, including Jewish lawmakers such as New York’s Eliot Engle, wanted the resolution to focus only on anti-Semitism as a direct response to Omar’s comment, which questioned the loyalty of politicians who accept donations from pro-Israel PACs and organizations.

Ultimately, after days of chaos and acrimony, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was able to unite her caucus — and box in a big majority of Republicans — to back the compromise.

And Omar — along with Rashida Tlaib of Michigan the first Muslim women in Congress — said she’s willing to keep speaking out and be a Republican punching bag if it helps advance her agenda, a prospect that likely makes many of her fellow Democrats cringe.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Rep. Ilhan Omar has panned President Barack Obama's message of "hope and change", calling it a "mirage" in an explosive interview.

Zero Hedge

Published  1 month ago

"We can’t be only upset with Trump. … His policies are bad, but many of the people who came before him also had really bad policies..."

Sean Hannity

Published  1 month ago

Embattled Rep. Ilhan Omar abruptly unloaded on Barack Obama during an interview published in Politico Friday; slamming the former President for “caging kids” and “droning of countries around the world.”

“We can’t be only upset with Trump. … His policies are bad, but many of the people who came before him also had really bad policies. They just were more polished than he was,” Omar told Politico. “And that’s not what we should be looking for anymore. We don’t want anybody to get away with murder because they are polished. We want to recognize the actual policies that are behind the pretty face and the smile.”

“I don’t believe that tiptoeing is the way to win the hearts and the minds of the people,” she added. “I get saddened by some of my freshman colleagues who can’t understand that within their districts the idea of Medicare for All is extremely popular. The Green New Deal is a very popular idea in their districts.”

Read the full interview at Politico.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Twitter reacted with fury after several victims of the devastating tornado that touched down in Alabama last week asked Trump to sign their Bible, and he agreed. Yet, presidents have a long history of signing Bibles.

Washington Examiner

Published  1 month ago

Rep. Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, called attention to an "important" story published Sunday evening related to the opposition research firm and author behind the infamous Trump dossier.

The Daily Caller reported on what it said was a dark money group based in California that gave $2 billion dollars to The Democracy Integrity Project, an organization that has contracted with Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele to conduct research on President Trump.

In a tweet, Nunes stressed the report bore extra significance due to its timing. "This is actually important as we wait for the March 14 Steele and [Kramer] depositions to made public," the California Republican said.

A federal judge overruled late last month the objections of both Steele and David Kramer, a longtime associate of John McCain and former State Department official, to make their depositions public. The pair gave testimony in a lawsuit brought against BuzzFeed in December 2018 by a Russian Internet entrepreneur. The depositions could be released as soon as March 14.

The organization to which Fund for a Better Future donated $2,065,000 in 2017 was founded on Jan. 31, 2017, by Daniel Jones, a former intelligence committee staffer for Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. Last spring it was revealed that Jones told the FBI he hired Fusion GPS to push a narrative that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in order to influence the outcome of the 2016 election.

Liberal billionaire George Soros has also given The Democracy Integrity Project $1 billion.

The Democracy Integrity Project was created after the 2016 election and is dedicated to investigating election interference.

Published in full by BuzzFeed in January 2017, the Steele's dossier contains a collection of salacious and unverified claims about Trump's potentially compromising ties to Russia, including the claim that Trump hired prostitutes to urinate on bed in a hotel room in Russia where former President Barack Obama once stayed.

Republicans including Nunes have raised concerns about the dossier's originals and how it was used by the FBI to obtain the authority to wiretap onetime Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

As Rep. Ilhan Omar continues to rampage like the proverbial bull in a China shop she has turned her scathing rhetoric on none other than former President Barack Obama who she blindsided with a barrage

National Review

Published  1 month ago

Democrats who have been rightly critical of Trump and his team don’t hold members of their own party as accountable.

Zero Hedge

Published  1 month ago

The US had done the same thing before... when it took over Ukraine by a brutal coup in February 2014: It grabbed the gold.


Published  1 month ago

Eli Valley, artist in residence at the far-left, Obama-supporting Jewish Daily Forward has created one of the most anti-Semitic cartoons ever published. Placed at, the radical website dedicated to anti-Israel rhetoric, the cartoon depicts Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu eating Barack Obama’s limbs, then forcing him to give him oral sex, all in the name of Israeli defense.

But Valley’s “art” is hardly confined to radical websites. It’s been published in New York Magazine, The Daily Beast, and Gawker, among others. After this repetition of the blood libel – Jews eating non-Jewish flesh – and a perverse rape fantasy sequence, will these publications continue to run Valley’s work?

In 2003, the British Independent published a similar cartoon featuring then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon eating Palestinian babies. The cartoon won an award from the UK Political Cartoon Society–proving that antisemitism is neither original nor discouraged in the mainstream media.

Here’s Valley’s full cartoon:

Neon Nettle

Published  1 month ago

Former VP 95% decided to run against president, but fears he will 'play too rough'

Washington Free Beacon

Published  1 month ago

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) trashed former President Barack Obama in a new profile of the freshman lawmaker, saying the "hope and change" he offered was a mirage and he was one of many predecessors to President Donald Trump to have "really bad policies."

Omar was the subject of a Politico story on her and fellow Minnesota Rep. Dean Phillips (D., Minn.), who represents a neighboring district. The two are framed as symbolizing the colliding forces in the new Democratic House majority, with Omar representing the far-left flank and Phillips the more center-left sensibilities that helped recapture suburban districts from Republicans in 2018.

Omar, a Somali-born refugee, was fed up with the Democratic establishment by the time she ran for office in 2016 for a seat in the Minnesota state house. She won and then easily captured a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2018, and she wasn't shy about telling Politico her objections to Obama-era policies, like detention centers for illegal immigrant children and the "droning of countries around the world:"

As she saw it, the party ostensibly committed to progressive values had become complicit in perpetuating the status quo. Omar says the "hope and change" offered by Barack Obama was a mirage. Recalling the "caging of kids" at the U.S.-Mexico border and the "droning of countries around the world" on Obama’s watch, she argues that the Democratic president operated within the same fundamentally broken framework as his Republican successor.

Without naming Obama specifically, Omar said no one should get away with malfeasance in office if they had "the pretty face and the smile."

"We can’t be only upset with Trump … His policies are bad, but many of the people who came before him also had really bad policies. They just were more polished than he was," Omar said. "And that’s not what we should be looking for anymore. We don’t want anybody to get away with murder because they are polished. We want to recognize the actual policies that are behind the pretty face and the smile."

Ilhan Omar on Barack Obama. Wow:

— Blake News (@blakehounshell) March 8, 2019

Omar's specific invocation of the "hope and change" motto of Obama was striking, given she tweeted during his farewell address in 2017: "Thank you Obama for being a source of inspiration, hope and change. I have always been proud to call you my president!"

Thank you Obama for being a source of inspiration, hope and change. I have always been proud to call you my president! #ObamaFarewell

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) January 11, 2017

Omar is at the center of her second anti-Semitic controversy in as many months as a sitting member of Congress. After being forced to apologize last month for saying pro-Israel politicians are paid off by the lobbying group AIPAC and saying it was "all about the Benjamins," she said last week she wanted to "talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK to push for allegiance to a foreign country."

The latter remarks set off an uproar within the Democratic caucus, with some members condemning her anti-Semitic tropes and others saying she was being unfairly singled out. Democrats ultimately voted on a resolution that started off condemning anti-Semitism and was ultimately amended to include opposition to all forms of hate, without mentioning Omar.

One of the prominent liberal critics of Omar's "all about the Benjamins" flap last month was former Obama Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro, who said she had made "outrageous" comments and should be condemned by all Democrats.


Published  1 month ago

Acosta was stung by a judge’s ruling last month that he and other prosecutors violated federal law.


Published  1 month ago

US Liberty Wire

Published  1 month ago

Ihan Omar just committed the cardinal sin in Democratic politics – she trashed Barack Obama with a blistering rebuke.

She, and this is even more devastating for the left, said we should not be angry at Trump because he is more of the same from the DC establishment.

The Democrats, who have been trying to paint Trump as an absolute monster for two years, will be furious that Omar says Trump and Obama are similar and both are tools of the establishment.

She goes on to call him a ‘polished mirage’ – in other words, a fraud – before accusing him of committing atrocities with is drone program and blasts him for caging kids at the border.

From Politico: Having fled the civil war in her native Somalia at age 8, spending the next four years in a Kenyan refugee camp before finding asylum in America, her adolescence was spent questioning why the land of opportunity she had read so much about—her new home, the United States—was falling short of its promise.

Landing briefly in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., and then in Minneapolis, she saw dire poverty. She saw broken schools. She saw people without health care. Naturalized at age 17, she set off for college in North Dakota, studying political science and beginning her journey as a community activist focused on nutrition and education.

She knocked on doors and startled many a rural, white woman with her headscarf, only to form deep bonds over their shared anxieties, such as “having affordable childcare, making it work with school, holding down a job, and making it home in enough time to make dinner.”

As the Somali population in her city continued to swell, so did the young activist’s discontent. By the time she ran for office in 2016, knocking off a 22-term incumbent to win a seat in the Minnesota statehouse, Omar was fed up—not so much with Trumpism, or with politics in general, as with the Democratic Party.

As she saw it, the party ostensibly committed to progressive values had become complicit in perpetuating the status quo.

Omar says the “hope and change” offered by Barack Obama was a mirage. Recalling the “caging of kids” at the U.S.-Mexico border and the “droning of countries around the world” on Obama’s watch, she argues that the Democratic president operated within the same fundamentally broken framework as his Republican successor.

“We can’t be only upset with Trump. … His policies are bad, but many of the people who came before him also had really bad policies.

They just were more polished than he was,” Omar says. “And that’s not what we should be looking for anymore. We don’t want anybody to get away with murder because they are polished. We want to recognize the actual policies that are behind the pretty face and the smile.”

“I don’t believe that tiptoeing is the way to win the hearts and the minds of the people,” she says. “I get saddened by some of my freshman colleagues who can’t understand that within their districts the idea of Medicare for All is extremely popular.

The Green New Deal is a very popular idea in their districts. Making sure that we have a final fix to our broken immigration system is very popular in their districts. What they pay attention to is the rhetoric that says,

‘This is a red-to-blue district, you have to be careful, you can’t talk about these policies.’ Well, in reality, these people are like everyone else: They struggle with the cost of health care, they struggle with our broken infrastructure, they struggle with having an economy that brings them into the 21st century. And we have to be willing to have those conversations.”

Conservative Tribune

Published  1 month ago

And there's more talk from the frontrunner that definitely isn't going to fit into the modern image of the Democratic Party.

The Old School Patriot

Published  1 month ago

If there is one theme that ideologically separates constitutional conservatives from progressive socialists it is — victor vs. victim. The left must have victims and they will go to no ends to create them in reality, or fiction. And what is even worse, they will enact policies that generate victims all for their ideological domination and electoral patronage. Obama’s theme of “Yes We Can” was not about the indomitable individual entrepreneurial spirit, drive, and determination. No, it was about yes, we — government — can rule over your lives, and redefine what is a right, based upon our ideological agenda, and force you into a perpetual state of dependency and economic enslavement instead of economic empowerment. After all, you didn’t build that!

And so, one of the most absurd, insidious, and dangerous policies of the tyrannical left in America has reared its head once again: reparations.

As reported by US News:

“Reparations for slave descendants is emerging as a prominent theme in the Democratic presidential primary as issues surrounding race move to the forefront of the 2020 election, though debate remains over how exactly compensation would be delivered and what even qualifies as a reparation.

The Democratic candidates who have said they support reparations in some form include Sens. Kamala Harris of California and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts as well as former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro. Long-shot candidate Marianne Williamson has unveiled the most thorough plan, proposing $100 billion in financial compensation.

It’s an issue that has garnered opposition from both sides of the aisle, most notably former President Barack Obama, the first African-American to win the White House. And 2016 polling from Marist College found that a majority of Americans oppose direct payments to descendants of slaves, though 68 percent of African-Americans support reparations for all black citizens. But the growing support among 2020 Democrats indicates the changing attitudes on reparations as the candidates vie to win over black voters in a crowded primary field.

Still, implementing some type of reparations – and for whom – remains unsettled. While the dialogue about reparations has entered mainstream political discussion, candidates have at times appeared to muddle the issue, raising it in connection with different approaches that would address race-based income inequality.

“Reparations in some way is a proxy for a larger conversation about inequality and racism on the impact of mobility,” says Adrianne Shropshire, executive director of BlackPAC, a national group working to mobilize black voters.

“Attempting to look at the real impact of centuries of discriminatory policy targeting black people is an important conversation for us to have.”

I have an idea: since slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, poll taxes, Literacy tests, lynchings, and the decimation of the nuclear, traditional black family are all tied to the policies of the Democrat Party . . . the party of the jackass should pick up the tab.

This is yet another of those divisive wealth redistribution schemes courtesy of the “Walking (Brain) Dead” of the Democrat party. As a black man born and raised in the South, I find this utterly condescending and offensive. It is yet another example of the progressive socialist mantra of the soft bigotry of low expectations. All I have, and anyone should ask for, is the equality of opportunity. Instead, these elitists of the left believe in the equality of outcomes and seek to give the real crumbs of their blessings to us po’ lil’ Negroes.

Let me be damn clear: any black person supporting such folly is one who still maintains a slave mentality. It is not a physical bondage, no, it is far worse, it is an economic bondage which demeans one and tells them that they are nothing but a victim.

Gotta ask: for all those who are in an interracial marriage, should the white spouse write them a check, and say, “Baby, I am so sorry for what my ancestors — centuries ago — did?” How stupid, and doggone, we are not even to Saturday but here we have a serious contender for our “Stuck on Stupid Saturday” recognition.

So, how much money should the US taxpayer give to Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Oprah Winfrey? What is the cut line to apply? Will these reparations be given as retribution to those who have since passed, or just to living descendants? If you have an earning power or income of what amount will you get your reparation, or is there a “means test?”

Heck, if you are a black Republican, and a descendant of a former slave do you get anything? Y’all know the answer to that question. Talk about buying votes, and the most disingenuous, disparaging, offer that could ever be made to free people. Heck, should the Egyptians pay the Jews? I mean how far back does this potentially go, why not include white indentured servants of the British crown?

This, of course, should not be any surprise, after all this is the political party that is devoid of any new, fresh, ideas. They just retread socialist blather. Think about it, this is also part of the Green New Deal, remember, give money to people unwilling to work. This time, we are giving money to people for labor — yes, forced — that they never did.

See, I think this is all a big ol’ Democrat guilt trip. Ya know, all those Confederate statues that they want to rip down? Well, they were the ones who erected them in the first place.

Lemme share a little history with y’all: the Texas GOP was birthed by blacks. As a matter of fact, one of the early Texas Republican party Chairmen was a black man, Norris Wright Cuney. He served as Chairman of the Republican Party of Texas for 14 years, 1884-1898. He was also a customs official and was deemed one of the most powerful black men of the 19th century. Men like Cuney and Booker T. Washington did not ask for reparations, they only sought out the equality of opportunity that could be afforded them. Heck, the first Oprah Winfrey was Madame CJ Walker. She earned her wealth, even in the times of Democrat segregation. She didn’t seek any doggone reparations.

I wholeheartedly condemned these progressive socialists who want to maintain their slavery mindset over my black community. I am disgusted with any black person who would embrace this abject disrespect . . . where is your pride?

Simply put, take this idea of reparations and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine. Yes, there is only a one-word response to this leftist victimology folly: FUBAR!

Conservative Daily Post

Published  1 month ago

The former general counsel for Barack Obama made “false and misleading statements” to the Justice Department regarding work he did for the Ukrainian government. This is basically the same thing Paul Manafort was investigated and convicted for doing. So, many people are asking where the indictment is for Greg Craig?

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

Former President Barack Obama may no longer be in the White House, but he refuses to go away.

Mr. Obama will go down as the most radical president in American history as well as one whose eight-year reign of terror contributed to the destruction of the nation’s social fabric as well as setting race relations back fifty years and he isn’t done yet.

URGENT POLL: Does Trump have your vote in 2020?

Now flush with money — deferred payment for services rendered while in office — Obama is doing his damage on the speechifying circuit and through surrogates and front groups.

As a former community organizer, Obama understands the power of bullying.

And in remarks that he made in Canada, his nefarious scheme is to train a “million Baracks and Michelles'” to finish the job that he started.

.@BarackObama thinks that if everyone were more like him (and @MichelleObama) America would be a better place to live.

— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) March 5, 2019

VOTE NOW: Does Trump Deserve The Nobel Peace Prize?

Via The Washington Examiner, “Obama: There’s hope ‘if we can train a million Baracks and Michelles’“:

Former President Barack Obama said Monday these are “challenging times” but he remains hopeful because of the next generation of leaders that he aims to guide.

Touching on his “third act,” the 44th president spoke of programs that have become a central pillar of his Obama Foundation and its $500 million presidential center project in Chicago.

He told a packed arena at Bell MTS Place how he plans to create a “university for social change” that will serve as a hub for young people in the U.S. and around the world who are skeptical of the “old institutions.”

“If we train them — if we give them skills, support, financing, media training, spotlights, then they’re the ones that are going to carry forward the solutions that we so desperately need,” Obama said.

It’s no coincidence that the younger generations, especially the millennials who have embraced socialism/communism, will eagerly line up to assist Obama with finishing the job.

This is a very dangerous man but I’m not telling you anything that you didn’t already know.

The Federalist

Published  1 month ago

The Washington Post's "fact check" of James Clapper's leaks to CNN ignores basic facts, common sense, and even Democrat testimony that he leaked.

The Federalist

Published  1 month ago

The Democrats’ internal fight over the anti-Semitism resolution reveals a stark picture of the competing factions vying for control over the party’s agenda.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

Former Attorney General Eric Holder may not be running for the White House in 2020 as many had speculated but he will continue to be a big-time player for the anti-Trump resistance that has taken

The Daily Beast

Published  1 month ago

Former Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday that the next Democratic president should “seriously” consider adding additional seat to the United States Supreme Court should they be elected alongside a Democratic majority in the Senate.

The comments came during a discussion Holder held with the Yale Law National Security Group. There was no recording of the event and only a snippet of what Holder said was tweeted out publicly. But a spokesman for Holder confirmed to The Daily Beast that he did embrace the idea of court-packing.

“In response to a question, Attorney General Holder said that given the unfairness, unprecedented obstruction, and disregard of historical precedent by Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans, when Democrats retake the majority they should consider expanding the Supreme Court to restore adherence to previously accepted norms for judicial nominations,” said spokesman Patrick Rodenbush.

Holder’s willingness to entertain the idea of court packing makes him one of the most senior Democratic officials to do so. To date, virtually all elected Democrats have either ignored the proposal or dismissed it out of hand. The one 2020 Democratic candidate who has said that court packing should be a consideration is South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

“It’s no more a departure from norms than what the Republicans did to get the judiciary to the place it is today,” Buttigieg has said. “Bold, ambitious ideas need a hearing right now."

Calls for Democrats to embrace court packing—adding additional seats to the Supreme Court and subsequently filling them—have come in response to anger within the party’s base over how Republicans in the Senate handled the Supreme Court nomination process over the past few years. President Barack Obama’s last nominee, Merrick Garland, was held up by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell during the last year of his presidency.

After Donald Trump won election in 2016, McConnell used a measure previously adopted by Harry Reid to change the rules of the Senate to allow for a simple majority vote for confirmation of Supreme Court nominees. Subsequently, Trump was able get his two nominees to the Court—Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh—confirmed with less than 60 votes.

Those confirmations have cemented a conservative-leaning majority for—in all likelihood—years to come, leaving Democrats with few if any prospects for affecting the most important judicial body in the land. Progressives who have championed the idea of court packing as a remedy embraced Holder’s suggestion that this would be an appropriate response to consider.

“More and more Democrats are becoming convinced that we cannot resign ourselves to the third branch of government being captive to partisan Republican forces for the next 30 years,” said Brian Fallon, executive director of the progressive group Demand Justice. “Any progressive reforms that a Democratic president would pursue in 2021 would come under threat from the Supreme Court. Accepting the status quo on this issue is not going to fly and there is becoming a consensus that some type of reform needs to happen.”


Published  1 month ago

Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-MN) went after former President Barack Obama in an interview released on Friday in which she suggested the former commander-in-chief got “away with murder” because of his political savvy.

The freshman representative made her remarks to Politico for an extensive profile on Omar and her congressional neighbor, Rep. Dean Phillips (D-MN).

Speaking about her background and her evolution in politics, Omar bashed Obama while commenting that the Democratic Party has become more interested in the status quo than in progressive values.

From the Politico report:

Omar was fed up—not so much with Trumpism, or with politics in general, as with the Democratic Party.

As she saw it, the party ostensibly committed to progressive values had become complicit in perpetuating the status quo. Omar says the “hope and change” offered by Barack Obama was a mirage. Recalling the “caging of kids” at the U.S.-Mexico border and the “droning of countries around the world” on Obama’s watch, she argues that the Democratic president operated within the same fundamentally broken framework as his Republican successor.

“We can’t be only upset with Trump. … His policies are bad, but many of the people who came before him also had really bad policies. They just were more polished than he was,” Omar says. “And that’s not what we should be looking for anymore. We don’t want anybody to get away with murder because they are polished. We want to recognize the actual policies that are behind the pretty face and the smile.”

Omar’s comments come amid a firestorm over her repeated criticisms of Israel. Democrats have been under pressure lately to condemn Omar for her use of controversial tropes that have been deemed anti-Semitic by critics. This ended up sparking a dispute among Omar’s colleagues over how to approach a congressional resolution against hatred and discrimination without implicitly calling out Omar.

UPDATE –– 5:08 pm ET: Omar posted audio of her remarks this afternoon and said her words were distorted.

Exhibit A of how reporters distort words.

I’m an Obama fan! I was saying how Trump is different from Obama, and why we should focus on policy not politics.

This is why I always tape my interviews. 😜

— Rep. Ilhan Omar (@Ilhan) March 8, 2019

[Photo via Getty Images]

>> Follow Ken Meyer (@KenMeyer91) on Twitter

Have a tip we should know?


Published  1 month ago

Chelsea Manning will face a closed contempt hearing after refusing to testify before a grand jury that is investigating WikiLeaks.

True Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Former Vice President Joe Biden is almost totally prepared to announce his bid for the White House, according to media reports. There’s just one big thing keeping him from pulling the trigger: concerns that President Donald Trump will play too rough during the general campaign.

Biden’s chief strategist, Steve Ricchetti, is signaling that the Delaware Democrat is about 95 percent committed to running, officials connected to the former vice president told The News York Times Thursday. There are several issues tossing a monkey wrench into Biden’s plans, however, chief among them is concern that Trump will exploit his personal life.

“I don’t think he’s likely to stop at anything, whomever he runs against,” Biden told TheNYT on Feb. 26, referring to the president’s street brawling style of campaigning. He is worried about putting his “family through what would be a very, very, very difficult campaign.” Biden believes Trump might try to exploit his tumultuous private life — his son’s checkered romantic history could be the chief reason.

Operatives worry Hunter Biden, the former VP’s 49-year-old son, would inevitably become an ongoing issue if Biden were to join an increasingly crowded presidential race. Hunter’s romantic relationship with his brother’s widow created headlines throughout the past several years, though most of the reports went under the radar during Biden’s tenure in the Obama administration.

Biden’s other son, Beau, died of brain cancer in May 2015. Hunter, who was married at the time, became involved shortly thereafter with his older brother’s widow, Hallie. Hunter’s wife later claimed in divorce papers that her husband wasted money on prostitutes, strip clubs, and drugs, among other vices. Biden also worries jumping into the race would be a fool’s errand.

“What I don’t want to do is take people’s time, effort and commitment without there being a clear shot that I could be the nominee,” he said at a Feb. 28 event in Delaware. Democrats are meanwhile getting impatient waiting for the 76-year-old politician to make his decision.

He extended an end-of-2018 timeline into January and then into March. Biden is enjoying wide support from the Democratic base, perhaps as a result of his connection with former President Barack Obama. “People underestimate the intensity of his support and how broad it is,” John Anzalone, a Democratic pollster, said in an interview with the NYT.

Biden still has the support of black people (70 percent), white people without a college education (71 percent), and white people with a college education (83 percent), according to an NPR poll in January. His numbers are sky-high compared to Democratic Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Kamala Harris of California.

Results from the NPR poll come off the heels of a Morning Consult poll in December 2018 showing Biden leading the pack of prospective Democratic nominees in 2020. Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders followed a close second in the poll, drawing 19 percent among Democrats.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

Former President Barack Obama made some nasty comments this week about the United States and President Donald Trump while delivering remarks in another country.

Obama suggested that America wouldn’t be able to handle a crisis with “common sense,” later adding that the world would be much better off if there were “a million Barack’s” in the world.

While speaking in Winnipeg, Canada, on Monday night, the 44th president told the crowd that he doesn’t believe the U.S. has the leadership to handle troubles like a major recession.

“If we had a crisis today, I’m concerned that we, at least in the United States, may not be in the habit of trying figure things out in a common sense, practical way,” Obama arrogantly claimed, propping himself up.

Exclusive Trump 2020 Coin – YOURS FREE

“I think the danger that we have sometimes now in our politics in the United States, and what I’m seeing internationally, is us being driven by passions, and (we) are disconnected from facts, that in fact deliberately are shielded from facts and reason and logic,” he added.

That’s undoubtedly an insult to Trump and the entire administration given Obama was obviously arguing they are not equipped to handle a major crisis.

After arrogantly trashing the Trump administration and U.S., Obama then claimed that the world’s future would be much brighter if there were a million prototypes of himself and his wife, former First Lady Michelle Obama.

“If we train them — if we give them skills, support, financing, media training, spotlights, then they’re the ones that are going to carry forward the solutions that we so desperately need,” Obama said.

Hope, Obama argued, is attainable “if we can train a million Baracks and Michelles who are running around thinking they can change the world.”

This guy continues to amaze.

POLL: Do You Think Nancy Pelosi Is Mentally Unfit For Office?

He not only attacked the Trump administration as being unable to handle a serious threat, but he also implied that the world needs a million more versions of himself and his wife in order to have a bright future.

During an event on Tuesday night in Calgary, Canada, Obama did actually make one comment that conservatives would applaud.

The former president actually admitted that “we can’t ascribe any particular” weather event to climate change.

“All of us are going to have to recognize that there are trade-offs involved with how we live, how our economy is structured, and the world we’re going to be passing on to our kids and our grandkids. And nobody is exempt from that conversation,” Obama said.

“The fact of the matter is that oil and gas have powered the industrial revolution, have powered Canada’s economy, the U.S. economy, and have powered the world. It has been an extraordinary run and is still the cheapest means for us to power all the things that we do,” he added.

Obama is a very dangerous man, but that isn’t news that will surprise many.

Only Obama would travel to a foreign country and use the opportunity to trash the nation he led for eight years.

RT International

Published  1 month ago

Ilhan Omar’s supposedly anti-Semitic comments on the Israel lobby have thrust the Muslim congresswoman into the spotlight recently, dividing the party and forcing a vote on a resolution that sort-of condemned her statements.

With the did-she, didn’t-she anti-Semitism controversy still playing out, Omar turned on former President Barack Obama, who, to many in her party, is above criticism. The Minnesota lawmaker told Politico that Obama stood for the status quo, and not for any real “hope and change.”

Best line from Ilhan Omar: “We don’t want anybody to get away with murder because they are polished. We want to recognize the actual policies that are behind the pretty face and the smile.”

— Rania Khalek (@RaniaKhalek) March 8, 2019

From the “caging of kids” at the US-Mexico border to the “droning of countries around the world,” Omar argued that the Democratic Party leader’s policies were no better, morally speaking, from the policies of the current administration.

“We can’t be only upset with Trump. … His policies are bad, but many of the people who came before him also had really bad policies. They just were more polished than he was,” Omar said. “And that’s not what we should be looking for anymore. We don’t want anybody to get away with murder because they are polished. We want to recognize the actual policies that are behind the pretty face and the smile.”

Ilhan Omar is the real deal. She saw through the mirage of the Obama years and understands US imperialism.

There's a reason @AOC — who stays silent on Palestine and echoes the status quo on Venezuela — gets fawning media coverage while @IlhanMN is smeared

— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) March 8, 2019

While the left castigated Trump for separating illegal immigrant children from their families at the border last year, the Obama administration also isolated and detained children while their parents’ court cases were being processed. Obama also stepped up the US targeted killing campaign, using drones to strike suspected terrorists in Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and Omar’s native Somalia. Around 2,500 people were killed in theses strikes, up to 800 of them civilians, according to conflicting figures from the US Government and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

Politico described Omar as part of an “insurgent activist wing swallowing up the party’s establishment.” The election of Trump certainly galvanized this wing, driving the party leftwards and propelling self-declared socialists like Rep. Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez (D-New York) to ‘household name’ status.

Seemingly emboldened by the recent controversy, Omar’s agitation has widened the divide between the suit-and-tie Democrat establishment – exemplified by Rep. Juan Vargas’ warning that any criticism of Israel is “unacceptable” – and this rising activist wing.

Omar herself wasn’t always as disruptive, though. As a Minnesota State Representative, Omar bid a fond farewell to Obama before Trump’s inauguration in 2017, calling him a “source of inspiration, hope and change.”

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

Washington Examiner

Published  1 month ago

The number of immigrant deaths under the Trump administration is on par with the number of deaths seen during the Obama administration, according to data obtained by the Washington Examiner.

The data show no appreciable change in the death of immigrants held by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, even as Democrats this week were trying to press administration officials on death tolls.

"Madam Secretary, do you know how many children have died in CBP custody under your tenure as secretary?" asked Rep. Xochitl Torres Small, D-N.M., during a House Homeland Security Committee hearing Wednesday. "Can you give me the numbers and how many children have died?"

Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, similarly warned that "no one should be dying when they are in our custody and under our care."

According to ICE data obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, however, there's been very little change under Trump.

In 2009, when former President Barack Obama took office, 10 people in ICE custody died. Five died in 2012, and 12 died in his last year in office, 2016.

The numbers have been similar under Trump. In 2017, 10 detainees died, and 12 died in 2018, according to data from the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

As of March 5, ICE has not reported deaths of anyone in its custody in the current fiscal year.

Numbers under both Trump and Obama are far lower than the deaths reported by ICE 15 years ago. In calendar year 2004, 32 people died, and 20 died the following year.

The number of people arrested for illegally crossing into the U.S. has also dropped from more than 1 million to half that figure. As that figure dropped, the number of immigrants being held in federal custody also decreased, along with the number of deaths.

Immigrants who are apprehended for illegal entry at the U.S. border are supposed to spend no more than 72 hours in Border Patrol custody while being processed and then transferred to ICE.

Children, including parents traveling with children, cannot be held more than 20 days as part of the 2015 court ruling in the Flores settlement agreement.

[Related: Southern Poverty Law Center sues Trump over detained immigrant children]

Mail Online

Published  1 month ago

Former US President Barack Obama told a crowd in Canada on Tuesday that much of what is trotted out as leadership today is just old-style beating your chest and talking loud.


Published  1 month ago

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe is expected to come to an end soon.

Republicans believe, regardless of the outcome, Democrats will still say he colluded with Russia.

Many more investigations into Trump will come before the 2020 presidential election.

Special counsel Robert Mueller is expected to wrap up the Russia probe into President Donald Trump and his campaign within the coming weeks, but Democrats will still say Trump’s presidency is illegitimate regardless of the findings and will continue to investigate him and anyone close to him before 2020, current and former Trump administration officials told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Republicans close to Trump believe Democrats have already made their minds up about Trump and collusion with Russia, saying the entire investigation was never truly about colluding with Russia but bringing down Trump by any means possible. Republicans also say they expect a number of investigations to stem from the probe, but nothing that will have to do with collusion with Russia.

“This was never about Russian collusion. This was never about Mueller. This was never about truth or justice. This was about taking down President Trump and nullifying the election. They still can’t get over the fact that Trump won the election and that the American people voted for him over Hillary,” a senior administration official told TheDCNF.

“The truth is all this talk about voter integrity and voting rights that we always hear from them, it pales in comparison to their Democrats desire for power in their inability to recognize Republican victories or conservative victories. They did the same thing to Bush. They called him illegitimate. They hounded him for eight years, saying Al Gore was the true president,” the senior administration official continued.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler requested a number of documents Monday from the White House and is sending letters seeking information from people and organizations close to Trump.

Nadler will be sending the requests to 81 groups, people and organizations, searching for constitutional abuses and corruption by Trump. The New York Democrat said Sunday the requests for documents are to “begin investigations, to present the case to the American people about obstruction of justice, about corruption and abuse of power.”

The 81 names, groups and organizations who will receive letters from the committee include former White House communications director Hope Hicks; Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr.; The Trump Organization and former Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Republicans close to Trump, such as American Conservative Union Chairman Matt Schlapp, believe Democrats will continue to call for random investigations into Trump even after Mueller’s probe is finished. Schlapp pointed out that the special counsel was created to protect Republicans at the Department of Justice from getting bad press from the “left wing dominated media, who will attack them for covering up the crimes of a president.”

“So now we’ve had two years of a special counsel. They’ve got not a scintilla of evidence of collusion. Now they’ve used that two years to try to soften President Trump up, to weaken him, to give the appearance that somehow shady dealings have taken place in the Trump companies and now they’re going to just transition as if nothing’s happened away from collusion to just destruction,” Schlapp told TheDCNF.

A former deputy assistant to the president, Sebastian Gorka, slammed Democrats and predicted Mueller will find no wrongdoing by Trump. Democrats like Nadler and California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff will continue to attack and investigate Trump for as long as they possibly can, Gorka said.

“The Mueller farrago is a bust. The most expensive taxpayer-funded oppo research in US history had fizzled out with no proof of collusion. Now the Democrats have already moved to a KGB-like search for anything the President, his family, or his friends may have done wrong. Stalin and Beria would have been proud of the un-American tactics Schiff and Nadler are using against the American President and his team,” Gorka told TheDCNF.

Meanwhile, Nadler has already said Trump has “obstructed justice,” without speaking with Mueller or waiting for his report to be released, showing how Democrats will ignore the results of the Mueller probe unless there is substantial evidence that Trump colluded with Russia.

“Democrats have already decided to impeach Trump. This is not an ‘investigate and see where the evidence leads’ operation. The decision has already been made, and these hearings and investigation are going toward a predetermined conclusion,” a former Hill staffer told TheDCNF. (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: Trump Says He Will Leave Mueller Report Decision To DOJ)

Other Republicans say the Mueller probe helped cover up Hillary Clinton’s questionable actions as secretary of state as well as other officials who worked under former President Barack Obama.

“The special counsel successfully covered up the Clinton machine’s collusion with foreign agents and Obama officials’ crimes, but it failed to substantiate their conspiracy theories about the president. So now Democrats are going to spend even more taxpayer money trying to justify impeachment, because they still can’t accept the results of the 2016 election,” a senior Republican aide told TheDCNF.

Not one of six Democrats in Congress contacted by TheDCNF would respond when asked if they would accept the results of the Mueller probe.

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


Published  1 month ago

MN Rep. Ilhan Omar slammed former President Barack Obama in an interview published on Friday, belittling his “pretty face” and saying that his agenda of hope and change was just an illusion.

Citing the “caging of kids” at the Mexican border coupled with the “droning of countries around the world” on Obama’s watch — she argued that he wasn’t much different from President Trump.

FREE Trump 2020 Hat While Supplies Last – [Claim Yours]

“We can’t be only upset with Trump,” the freshman firebrand told Politico Magazine.

“His policies are bad, but many of the people who came before him also had really bad policies. They just were more polished than he was,” Omar said.

“And that’s not what we should be looking for anymore. We don’t want anybody to get away with murder because they are polished. We want to recognize the actual policies that are behind the pretty face and the smile.”

According to the NY Post, her explosive comments about a man lionized by Democrats were only the latest in a series of incendiary statements that have put the national spotlight on Omar, a Somali-American Muslim who spent four years in a refugee camp in Kenya after her family fled the violence in their homeland.

In February, her second month in office, Omar responded to a tweet about House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy’s threats to punish her and another congresswoman for criticizing Israel.

“It’s all about the Benjamins baby,” she tweeted, a line from a Puff Daddy song about $100 bills.

many said Omar was perpetuating a hateful trope about Jewish Americans and money, and following recent news of her latest antisemitic rant on twitter she is positioning herself for a one and done type of tenure.


Published  1 month ago

After the election and re-election of the country's first black president, who would have thought that, less than two years later, leading Democrats would seriously debate paying blacks reparations for slavery?

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi supports a bill that would set up a commission to consider reparations, which she says is "One of the things that we can do not only just in terms of trying to make up for a horrible, sinful thing that happened in our country in terms of slavery, but for our country to live up to who we think we are." She added: "We have to reduce the disparity in income in our country. We have to reduce the disparity in access to education in an affordable way in our country, reduce the health disparities in our country."

But two years ago, President Barack Obama called reparations a political nonstarter. "It is easy to make that theoretical argument," Obama said in an interview. "But as a practical matter, it is hard to think of any society in human history in which a majority population has said that as a consequence of historic wrongs, we are now going to take a big chunk of the nation's resources over a long period of time to make that right."

President John F. Kennedy took the same positions. Asked in1963 about race-based affirmation action for blacks, Kennedy said: "I don't think we can undo the past. In fact, the past is going to be with us for a good many years in uneducated men and women who lost their chance for a decent education. We have to do the best we can now. That is what we are trying to do. I don't think quotas are a good idea. I think it is a mistake to begin to assign quotas on the basis of religion or race or color, or nationality. ... On the other hand, I do think that we ought to make an effort to give a fair chance to everyone who is qualified, not through a quota, but just look over our employment rolls, look over our areas where we are hiring people, and at least make sure we are giving everyone a fair chance, but not hard-and-fast quotas. We are too mixed, this society of ours, to begin to divide ourselves on the basis of race or color."

Slavery in America ended more than 150 years ago.

Neither former slaves nor slave owners are alive today. Furthermore, columnist and radio host Michael Medved says that only about 5 percent of whites have any sort of "generational" connection to slavery. "The importation of slaves came to an end in 1808 (as provided by the Constitution), a mere 32 years after independence, and slavery had been outlawed in most states decades before the Civil War," wrote Medved in 2007. "Even in the South, more than 80 percent of the white population never owned slaves. Given the fact that the majority of today's non-black Americans descend from immigrants who arrived in this country after the War Between the States, only a tiny percentage of today's white citizens — perhaps as few as 5 percent — bear any authentic sort of generational guilt for the exploitation of slave labor."

Finally, what about the role of the Democratic Party in slavery, Jim Crow and the resistance to ending them? Republican President Abraham Lincoln, elected on an anti-slavery platform, signed the Emancipation Proclamation and led the North in its victory over the South at the cost of at least 620,000 soldiers dead on both sides. Democrats opposed the 13th Amendment, which freed the slaves, the 14th Amendment, which conferred citizenship on them, and the 15th Amendment, which gave them the right to vote.

During the debate over the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Democrats, including Sen. Al Gore Sr., orchestrated a record-breaking 60-day filibuster in an attempt to block the bill from coming to a vote. By percentage, more Republicans in the House and the Senate voted to pass the bill than did Democrats. Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen received an honor, 40 years after his death, from his hometown's local chapter of the NAACP for his work navigating the bill through the Senate. When Republican Rep. Bill McCulloch of Ohio announced his retirement, he received a handwritten letter from former first lady Jackie Kennedy, who thanked him for his role in the bill's passage. Kennedy, who considered the bill a legacy of her husband, wrote: "Your integrity under such pressures is what makes our political system worth fighting for and dying for. Please forgive the emotional tone of this letter — but I want you to know how much your example means to me. It is a light of hope in an often dark world, and one I shall raise my children on as they grow older."

To pay for reparations, does the Democratic Party intend to sue itself for damages?

Larry Elder is a best-selling author and nationally syndicated radio talk show host. To find out more about Larry Elder, or become an "Elderado," visit Follow Larry on Twitter @LarryElder. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at

Photo credit: at Pixabay

True Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) want more information about what the Obama administration knew regarding Russian interference in the 2016 elections.

The coverage of Russian meddling in the 2016 election has been steady since President Donald Trump took office, with much of the focus being on alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin, which prompted an investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller.

However, there is not much public information about the response from former President Barack Obama while this alleged collusion was supposedly happening. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a report showing that Russians had interfered with the 2016 election and even notified states following the 2016 election that they had been targeted by Russians.

Now, the Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee want to know what the Obama administration knew and when it knew it.

In a letter to current DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, Jordan and Meadows pointed to a few meetings held between Congress and several members of the Obama administration. During the meeting, the Obama administration “assured members that it was adequately addressing any attempted interference in the election.”

Obama’s team also was asked to brief members of the campaign staffs for both Trump and Hillary Clinton about the situation. – READ MORE

Talking Points Memo

Published  1 month ago

AFP/Getty Images

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Wednesday revoked an Obama-era requirement for reporting civilian casualties that resulted from U.S. intelligence operations in non-combat areas across the globe.

Trump struck a section of an executive order issued by former President Barack Obama, which required both the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies to report on civilian casualties that occurred during their operations. There are other provisions that still require the Pentagon to report on civilian casualties caused by military operations outside of combat areas.

“I don’t know why they’re being coy,” said Steven Aftergood, a government secrecy expert at the private Federation of American Scientists. “They are not saying ‘We don’t want to report CIA operation casualties,’ but that’s what they’re doing. They are eliminating reporting of casualties arising from CIA operations.”

In a statement, a spokesman for the White House National Security Council said the U.S. government is fully committed to “minimizing — to the greatest extent possible — civilian causalities and acknowledging responsibility when they unfortunately occur during military operations.”

The spokesman, who spoke only on condition of anonymity to elaborate on the president’s written order, said Trump’s action eliminates “superfluous” reporting requirements that don’t “improve government transparency, but rather distract our intelligence professionals from their primary mission.”


Published  1 month ago

President Trump has long accused House Democrats of engaging in a witch hunt against him, but after their massive document demand from more than 80 people who have worked for him, House Republicans say he is right.

“Democrats campaigned promising to be the party of solutions. Now they’re just the party of endless, unfocused investigations,” tweeted House Judiciary Committee member Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) on Tuesday.

Democrats campaigned promising to be the party of solutions.

Now, they’re just the party of endless, unfocused investigations. #TuesdayThoughts

— Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) March 5, 2019

“These Democrats hate President Trump so personally, and so viscerally, that they are willing to turn America into a Soviet-style state where the police apparatus is used extensively to go after one’s political enemies,” Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) wrote in an op-ed on on Tuesday.

Some Democrats are warning that the document request could play right into Trump’s hands.

David Axelrod, who served as a senior adviser to former President Barack Obama, tweeted Monday: “Maybe I’m missing something, but the hazard of an omnibus document demand by House judiciary versus discreet, serial ones is that, however legitimate the areas of inquiry, the wide-ranging nature of it is too easily plays into the ‘witch-hunt’ meme.”

Douglas E. Schoen, who served as an adviser to former President Bill Clinton and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, also warned Democrats against overreach.

“Ultimately, Congressional Democrats must be careful to proceed in a way that does not reinforce the ‘witch hunt’ narrative that the president has perpetuated, and to not buttress his claims that the investigations encircling him are partisan and biased,” he wrote in a piece on on Tuesday.

Republican aides also questioned whether Democrats were using their control of the House to govern, or simply launch attacks against the president.

“This is a fishing expedition. The Democrats want a coordinated attack on the president, but you’re in the majority now — you have to govern. You’re just going to use your majority power to slowly bleed out all this information? You can’t just attack the president with your new found majority,” a House Judiciary Committee GOP spokesperson said on background.

“The Democrats don’t have anything on Trump now, so they want to dig and dig until eventually something turns up — like he cut some corner on a real estate deal, or didn’t pay some tax bill. Viewing these investigations as anything other than political hit jobs, especially after the Democrats pushed the Russia collusion hoax for more than two years, is close to insane,” said the House Intelligence Committee GOP spokesman Jack Langer.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement Monday evening that Democrats do not actually want to talk about their agenda.

“Democrats are harassing the President to distract from their radical agenda of making America a socialist country, killing babies after they’re born, and pushing a ‘green new deal’ that would destroy jobs and bankrupt America,” she said.

“The American people deserve a Congress that works with the President to address serious issues like immigration, healthcare, and infrastructure. The Democrats are more interested in pathetic political games and catering to a radical, leftist base than on producing results for our citizens. The Democrats are not after the truth, they are after the President,” she added.

The Oversight and Government Reform Committee spokesperson pointed to Democrats’ first blockbuster hearing of the year — with former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen.

“In two months, he’s going to jail for lying to Congress,” the spokesperson said. “They brought a convicted felon before the committee.”

“It’s damaging to our credibility as a committee responsible for oversight.”

Published  1 month ago

Eventually, the Jewish population will learn that the Dems don't need them anymore and they are, now, boldly expressing their Anti-Semitism.


Published  1 month ago

Well, this is helpful and not at all scientifically correct. As the controversy over Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitic remarks continues to roil, she’s already moving on to dehumanizing others. That seems to be a favored pastime of hers. You’d think after taking a victory lap over the Democrat’s watered down “anti-hate resolution,” she’d try practicing a little of the “not hating” part, but nah.

Fox News’ Guerin Hays asks Ilhan Omar about last week's Politico article: “Do you think President Obama is the same as President Trump?”

Omar: “Absolutely not. … One is human the other is not”

Omar's dehumanizing remarks come after she was slammed last week for anti-Semitism

— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) March 12, 2019

Donald Trump is a lot things, good and bad. I think we can confirm that being human is among his traits (further testing is needed on his hair though).

For my part, this kind of rhetoric doesn’t cause me to lose any sleep at this point. I know who Ilhan Omar is by now just like I know who Donald Trump is. To be sure, he has had plenty of his own foot-in-mouth episodes over how he addresses people he doesn’t like. Washington is not a nice place and I’m not going to pretend it is or ever was.

I do think it’s worth noting the double standard that exists here. Imagine if Donald Trump were to call Ilhan Omar “not human.” It’d be national news for days, the House would vote to censure him, and Don Lemon’s head would literally explode from saying the word “racist” so many times. But because it’s Trump, anything goes and this will only get a passing mention on Twitter. Perhaps he’s brought that on himself, but that’s not an excuse for a Congressional member to say the President is not human to a news network. At least be discrete enough to leak it from a private meeting or something.

While Democrats are constantly railing against Trump’s rhetoric, they seem equally determined to one-up him and Rep. Omar is helping lead that charge. She’s formed a habit of adding more gasoline to the fire. Since being elected, she’s become one of the Democratic party’s most volatile voices, whether it be her repeated anti-Semitic remarks, calling Barack Obama(!) a murderer, or supporting socialist dictator Nicolas Maduro over the pleas of dying Venezuelans. As a Somali refugee, Omar was welcomed and shown the charity and freedom America has to offer, not because she was entitled to it, but because that’s simply the kind of country the United States is. Unfortunately, her response has not been gratitude but denigration at every turn and she shows no signs of slowing down.

I’ll end this with a prudent suggestion from Mollie Hemingway.

This is a bipartisan problem, I've observed, but a recommendation that we refrain from dehumanizing our political opponents.

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) March 12, 2019

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my other articles.


Published  1 month ago

Behind a fiery public response, the administration has refused or delayed turning over documents in 30 investigations by 12 House committees, Democrats tell POLITICO.

Daily Wire

Published  1 month ago

A prominent Democratic PAC, Priorities USA, says it's removing Ohio — a key swing state — from its list of priorities in 2020, signaling that they do not believe Democrats can return the swing state to the "blue" column. revealed Wednesday that Priorities, which raised and spent a whopping $190 million for Hillary Clinton in 2016, and around $75 million for Barack Obama in 2012, is scaling back operations in the state, after determining that Ohio "targetability" eroded in the 2016 election.

Priorities USA now lists Ohio, which was once key to Democratic presidential victories, as a “GOP Watch” state akin to Texas. "That’s below other more traditional swing states like Florida, Pennsylvania and North Carolina, but also historically red states like Arizona and Georgia," local media reports.

They are instead targeting Florida, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Nevada, all of which we on the fence in the 2016 elections. President Donald Trump won Ohio by a comfortable 8-point margin in 2016 taking all but eight counties, and winning the largest GOP victory in the state since 1932 (according, at least, to Wikipedia).

Democrats within the state insist that the state is still competitive, but contends that the numbers show they have an ever-decreasing market-share, particularly as the party trends leftward.

"Since 2010, Democrats have only won statewide election three times in Ohio. One was Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign, when he won by 3-percentage points. The other two were U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown during his 2012 and 2018 re-election campaigns," the outlet reports. "Democrats got trounced in 2018."

“That doesn’t mean we don’t think Ohio is winnable for a Democrat,” Priorities USA's spokesperson told, trying to mend local fences. “What we think that means is if Ohio is in play, we’ll have already won the easier states and have 270 electoral votes. Our investment strategy is how to get to 270 electoral votes.”

No matter how you slice it, losing Ohio seems to be bad news for Democrats going into the 2020 presidential election. The state epitomizes the most likely swing demographic for Democrats in the next contest: middle-class and working-class white voters who left the party in droves for Donald Trump in 2016 and who make up a vast majority of likely voters across the Rust Belt.

Democrats are contending now with whether to adopt a more traditional approach to 2020 — running someone like former Vice President Joe Biden, who represents the "moderate" wing of the party, and who will likely attract working-class white voters back to the party's ranks — or to move further left to accommodate more vocal, emerging aspects of their base.

If the demographics play out the same way they did in 2016, the move further left makes no sense. In fact, it might serve to further alienate voters in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, where Trump's economic agenda resonates fully.

With Priorities USA, the single largest Democratic super PAC operating in the United States, already admitting that Ohio is probably lost in 2020, the signs are there that Democrats are facing a real problem in the midwest.

The New Yorker

Published  1 month ago

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Former President Barack Obama ignited a firestorm of controversy on Wednesday by demanding to see President Donald Trump’s elementary-school diploma.

Speaking to reporters in Washington, Obama called on Trump to prove “once and for all” that he had completed a K-through-five program.

“While the U.S. Constitution does not require the President to have graduated from fifth grade, it would still be nice to know that he had done so,” Obama said.

By insisting on the release of Trump’s diploma, Obama joined a growing movement of so-called schoolers, who contend that Trump never attended school.

Schoolers’ demands to see documentation of Trump’s elementary-school attendance have yet to sway the White House, which has released only a short version of Trump’s second-grade report card, with the grades completely redacted.

Obama revealed that he had hired forensic detectives to study Trump’s utterances and tweets to determine the extent of his verifiable schooling, but, so far, they had found “no proof” of a fifth-grade education.

“Donald Trump claims that he attended elementary school,” Obama said. “All I’m asking is, where’s the evidence?”

Sign up for our daily newsletter and get the best of The New Yorker in your in-box.

Will be used in accordance with our Privacy Policy


Published  1 month ago

MSNBC was noticeably missing from the list of television networks that will host 2016 GOP presidential primary debates released Friday by Republicans.

Fox will host the bulk of the debates, which will run from August through February, and its affiliate, Fox Business, will also sponsor a forum, the Republican National Committee said.

Republicans want more conservative media outlets to help shape the televised debates after many party members complained that during the 2011-12 debates, some networks’ moderators were too aggressive or hostile toward candidates. Also, the RNC is cutting the number of debates to nine, down from about two dozen in the last election, in an effort to avoid the circus-like atmosphere that many felt hurt the party’s nominating process.

CNN will host three debates, even as conservatives in the last election criticized moderator Candy Crowley’s line of questioning for Mitt Romney. Some operatives also assailed ABC’s George Stephanopoulos for his questions related to contraception. ABC and CBS will host one debate each. Affiliated networks NBC/Telemundo (broadcast) and CNBC (cable) will each host their own debates. Unlike 2012, MSNBC will not host a debate.

Republicans have had notable clashes with the left-leaning MSNBC over the past couple of years. The network had to apologize to RNC Chairman Reince Priebus for an MSNBC staffer’s tweet saying “the right wing will hate” a Cheerios commercial featuring a biracial family, suggesting conservatives are prejudiced. Before he received the apology, Priebus, who has frequently appeared on the network, said he would boycott it.

In August 2013, the RNC voted to ban NBC and CNN from hosting debates over the networks’ plans to air a Hillary Clinton miniseries and documentary, respectively. NBC eventually canceled the projects and the CNN documentary’s director backed out. In an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Priebus said he wouldn’t want someone like host Mika Brzezinski to moderate a GOP debate “because you’re not actually interested in the future of the Republican Party and our nominees … I have to choose moderators that are actually interested in the Republican Party and our nominees.”

MSNBC hasn’t yet complained about being left out. A source at the cable network told RCP that the debate it held last election cycle was branded as an NBC news debate, moderated by Brian Williams, and aired on MSNBC. Williams moderated another prime time debate that was carried on NBC, as did David Gregory, then-moderator of “Meet the Press.” CNBC also sponsored a debate last cycle. It is not yet clear if MSNBC will air this cycle’s NBC and CNBC debates.

The MSNBC source also noted that Fox News didn’t host a debate during the 2008 Democratic primaries. That’s true, but that wasn’t the original plan. Candidates boycotted that debate over a joke the network’s chairman made about Barack Obama. The Nevada Democratic Party, a cosponsor, canceled the debate.

Caitlin Huey-Burns is a national political reporter for RealClearPolitics. She can be reached at Follow her on Twitter @CHueyBurnsRCP.


Published  1 month ago

The president of the NEA joined a man who identifies as a woman in teaching transgender ideology to a Virginia kindergarten class.


Published  1 month ago

By Nathan Layne and Mark Hosenball

(Reuters) – The U.S. House of Representatives Intelligence Committee said on Tuesday it had hired a former federal prosecutor in Manhattan with experience investigating Russian mobsters and white-collar crime to lead its probe into the Trump administration.

The hiring of Daniel Goldman is the latest move by the House’s new Democratic majority to add legal firepower to an expanding list of investigations into the affairs of Republican President Donald Trump and his associates.

The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Representative Jerrold Nadler, recently announced that he had retained Barry Berke, a prominent criminal trial lawyer, and Norman Eisen, a former adviser to President Barack Obama, to work on his expansive probe into Trump and other issues.

Representative Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, announced that Goldman joined the panel in February as senior adviser and director of investigations. Schiff also named a new budget director and three other people for various roles.

Goldman, who until recently was a frequent TV commentator on the special counsel’s Russia investigation, said he was “excited” to join the committee’s probe.

“Under Chairman Schiff’s leadership, we intend to run a professional investigation designed to uncover the facts and the truth,” Goldman said in an emailed statement.

The committee’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion with the Trump campaign has taken on new life since the Democrats took control of the House in November elections. The panel is set to hear testimony from Michael Cohen, the president’s onetime “fixer,” for a second time on Wednesday since he turned on his former boss.

Goldman was an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York for a decade through 2017, serving as the lead prosecutor in the conviction of Las Vegas sports gambler William “Billy” Walters for insider trading.

But likely more relevant to the committee’s probe is Goldman’s tenure as deputy of the Southern District’s Organized Crime Unit, where he oversaw a major Russian mob case against more than 30 individuals for money laundering and racketeering.

Goldman had been working as a legal analyst for NBC News and MSNBC, commenting on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s 22-month-old investigation into links between the Trump campaign and Russia. A spokeswoman for MSNBC confirmed Goldman was no longer an analyst for either network.

Goldman attended last summer’s trial of former Trump campaign Chairman Paul Manafort and was at the December sentencing of Cohen, who is due to start a three-year sentence in May for violating campaign finance laws and other crimes.

In other recent hires by the Democrats, the House Financial Services Committee enlisted the help of Bob Roach, a longtime investigator of complex financial and money laundering issues for the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

Russia has denied meddling in the 2016 election. Trump has said there was no collusion between his campaign and Moscow, and has called the Mueller probe a “witch hunt.”

(Reporting by Nathan Layne and Mark Hosenball in Washington; editing by Jonathan Oatis and Tom Brown)

The Federalist

Published  1 month ago

James Clapper faced no charges from Obama's FBI for lying under oath, and as a private citizen, he gets paid to spin his own crimes on television.

Published  1 month ago

Last week's news that special counsel Robert Mueller had the goods on 12 high-level Russian spies whose job was to hack computers and muck up America's 2016 presidential election was a political bombshell — but also a resounding vindication for a 26-year-old Georgia woman with the wonderfully poetic name of Reality Winner.

In the spring of 2017, with public concern mounting about the extent of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, federal officials still sought to assure people that there'd been no major success in penetrating electronic voting systems. But Winner, a commended Air Force veteran with a top-secret security clearance, then working for a government contractor, had seen evidence that federal officials weren't telling the whole truth.

And so Winner did what Daniel Ellsberg, Mark Felt, and others whose difficult decisions made in real time have long since been vindicated by history had done: She blew the whistle. In sending her evidence to the news media, Winner took down a cover-up of information that the Russians had, in fact, been far more aggressive — and successful — in targeting voting systems. Indeed, one major electronic voting-records vendor, later identified as VR Systems, had been hacked into, and Russians then used that information to target voting officials in the critical swing state of Florida with "spear-phishing" emails aimed at compromising their computer networks.

But to say that the vindication of Reality Winner was bittersweet would be a gross understatement.

When the indictments came down, the young Air Force vet still sat in a Lincoln County, Ga., jail cell, awaiting formal sentencing after she decided in June to plead guilty to one count of felony transmission of national defense information, an inevitable outcome in a federal prosecution that was ridiculously stacked against Winner from Day One. Under her plea agreement, Winner will spend 5 years and three months in prison — until late 2022, if time served is included.

Winner's arrest and the aggressive prosecution of her under a federal law — the Espionage Act — intended for spies, not whistle-blowers, came just four months after President Trump and then-FBI director Jim Comey sat in the Oval Office and spoke about jailing journalists and the need to put a leaker's (in Comey's acknowledged words) "head on a pike." They both laughed about that.

Winner, who won an Air Force Commendation Medal for her work in identifying "high-value targets" for American drone strikes, is clearly a woman with a strong notion of right and wrong, who wanted America to do better. For that, she was punished under a law aimed at traitors and forced to surrender 63 months of her freedom, the longest sentence, if it's not commuted, that will ever be served by an American whistle-blower. Her unconscionable punishment shows how a national-security state can devolve into a police state when the issue becomes who owns the truth: the government or the governed.

"Far from a criminal, she should be considered a hero," Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, which supported Winner during her prosecution, told me. Timm is also a little dumbfounded (and so am I) that Winner's case didn't get more attention, in a time when the Trump-Russia story is often the lead item on cable TV news. Or why she didn't get more support from mainstream news orgs in a time when the White House has all but declared war on journalism.

After all, Trump's expressed passion for jailing journalists and his Justice Department's zeal in prosecuting Winner to the fullest extent of the law may be appalling, but it's also the culmination of a long-standing war on whistle-blowers that's accelerated with the security-state obsessions of post-9/11 America, under presidencies and Congresses run by both parties.

America's obsession with valuing its secrecy over doing the right thing led to utter absurdities. Not a single high-ranking government official spent one day behind bars for the unlawful torture of terrorism suspects, arguably the greatest moral stain on our nation during the George W. Bush years, but a CIA analyst who blew the whistle on torture named John Kiriakou was locked up for two years in a federal prison here in Pennsylvania.

So far, history is repeating itself. The nightmare of a foreign power like Russia trying to tip the scales of a weakened American democracy and install Donald Trump in the White House is the political scandal of the century, and yet two years into it, the only person convicted of a felony and sitting in a jail cell is the woman seeking to expose part of the cover-up.

Yet, as Timm noted, the perversions of the American justice system when it comes to government secrecy made it essentially impossible for Winner to defend herself. Under the Espionage Act, defendants aren't able to present evidence about their motive, that a leak of documents was in the public interest and didn't actually harm national security, as seemed true here. A motion by Winner's lawyers to allow testimony from the state election officials who were grateful to learn about the security flaws exposed by the leak was shot down by the federal judge who also refused to grant bail to the Air Force veteran.

If America wants to emerge from the current quagmire, we need a system that will encourage responsible truth-tellers, not deprive them of their liberty. Let's be honest: Those things aren't going to happen with a president who's at war with the First Amendment or a Congress brainwashed to do his bidding. But if citizens do succeed in flipping the government over the next couple of cycles, how can a new generation of leaders keep the promise that Barack Obama broke a decade ago, and make America safe for the next Reality Winner?

Timm said any solution would start with rewriting the Espionage Act, to make it clear that the law is targeting treasonous spies, not patriotic whistle-blowers. Likewise, he said federal law could also be reformed to allow whistle-blowers like Winner or Kiriakou to present evidence on whether their leak was motivated by the public interest or whether national security was, in fact, harmed.

What's more, we need more big shots in Big Media with the biggest megaphones to help remind people that it was leaked information that let the public know about the depths of Watergate, the crimes committed at Abu Ghraib, and the Vietnam War lying that was laid bare in the Pentagon Papers. In fact, it's a little crazy — and maybe revealing — that while the journalism world was going ga-ga over the Pentagon Papers-era defiance in the movie The Post, very little ink was spilled in defense of Reality Winner.

All of us, true political leaders, the media, everyday citizens, need to fight for courage and for truth-telling and to speak out in its defense, or else we will continue to stumble through our current nightmare, where reality is a loser.

Published  1 month ago

Rep. Ilhan Omar tried to walk back her statements on Barack Obama because they were just that bad. Democratic leaders defended Omar and her anti-Semitic

Published  1 month ago

Commentary “Before immigration debates took place in Washington, I spoke with Eliseo Medina and SEIU members,” said then-Sen. ...


Published  1 month ago

The Democrats’ Dilemma

03/05 10:55 am

What Ilhan Omar and Dean Phillips tell us about the future of the Democratic Party.

The Federalist

Published  1 month ago

People spoke openly of Obama's 'Jewish problem' in 2008. He went on to normalize Israel critics with dubious motivations and terror connections.

Published  1 month ago

She and her buddies at Harvard say that the minority status does do anything for you but they were really proud of indicating she was a minority in her bio.

Sara A. Carter

Published  1 month ago

A new tell all book reveals Bill and Hillary Clinton allegedly used their name to try and get Chelsea Clinton’s former boyfriend a scholarship and then allegedly sought revenge on the scholarship organization when its founder supported Barack Obama in the 2008 campaign.

“Shenanigans: the U.S.-Ireland Relationship in Uncertain Times” by Trina Vargo suggests the Clinton’s used their position and power to grant favors to those they were close to, or seek revenge against those who didn’t back them.

Vargo, a former advisor to the Clintons, didn’t hold back in her book. She accused the political duo of making life uncomfortable for the foundation if they didn’t act on behalf of the Clintons.

According to a review of the book in the New York Post, Vargo says that in November, 2000 she was warned by then then-senator George Mitchell that Bill Clinton had phoned to say he was “very unhappy” that Chelsea’s boyfriend had not been shortlisted for the scholarship. The short list named roughly 200 candidates and Chelsea’s boyfriend didn’t make the cut.

Good Friday Agreement of 1998

Vargo is a longtime Democratic foreign policy adviser and founder of the US-Ireland Alliance. According to the Guardian report, Vargo was also the founder of the George J. Mitchell Scholarship, named after the former U.S. Senator.

Further, the report also reveals that the Clintons worked with Mitchell to broker the 1998 Good Friday agreement. The purpose of the agreement was to strengthen ties between Ireland and Britain.

According to the Independent, Bill Clinton sent then-senator George Mitchell to Ireland to promote U.S. interests in Northern Ireland. Additionally, the talks came on the heels of civil unrest in the region.

“What Happened” with Chelsea’s Boyfriend

The Mitchell Scholarship’s sends 12 ‘future American leaders’ to Ireland each year. In 2000, Chelsea Clinton’s boyfriend was not part of that scholarship pool. Vargo’s book explains that then-President Bill Clinton called Mitchell to express his unhappiness with the decision. Moreover, Bill Clinton had written a letter of recommendation that appeared to have zero influence.

“It would be hard to believe that the timing of the president’s call wasn’t aimed at influencing us to make him a finalist,” writes Vargo.

Cloaked Revenge

Mitchell did not fulfill Bill Clinton’s request to grant the scholarship to Chelsea’s boyfriend. Bill Clinton responded by cutting funding for the scholarship. Vargo backed then-candidate Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination race, which she believes motivated the funding cut.

“Vargo became part of the Clintons’ ‘enemies list’ as a result of her work on Barack Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008,” according to her new book.

In 2012, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton cut State Department funding for the Mitchell Scholarship.

Vargo has sent several FOIA requests to determine the motivation behind the Clinton’s actions to pull funding. Vargo has yet to receive anything sufficient to explain, she states.

Now this is a great bounce-back message I got from a @mitchellscholar "I'm currently off the grid chasing peacock bass in Colombia."

— Trina Vargo (@trinavargo) March 4, 2019

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

President Trump and Eric Trump fulfilled a terminally ill Connecticut man's dying wish with a phone call on Tuesday evening -- and all it took was a little help from the man's sister, a lifelong Democrat.

The Business Standard News

Published  1 month ago

Televangelist Franklin Graham, son of famed preacher Billy Graham, has predicted President Donald Trump will win reelection in a landslide.

In an interview on the Jim Bakker show, Graham said he had received a vision that portrayed Trump and first lady Melania Trump striding back into the White House.

“Trump has God on his side, so nothing can stop him,” said Graham. “Plus, he has surrounded himself with a godly administration and promised to put the Lord back into public life again.”

Graham also said President Barack Obama had angered the Lord by legalizing homosexual marriage and painting the White House in the rainbow colors.

Fervor for Trump was also evident at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC.)

During the conference, Mike Lindell, CEO of My Pillow proclaimed Trump “the greatest president in history” who was “chosen by God.”

“God answered our millions of prayers and gave us grace and a miracle happened on November 8, 2016,” he said. “We were given a second chance and time granted to get our country back on track with our conservative values and getting people saved in Jesus’ name. As I stand before you today, I see the greatest president in history. Of course he is, he was chosen by God.”

However, some Republicans are beginning to tire of the lunacy being spouted by some of their fellow party members. According to a VICE News report, some young Republicans are also fed up with Trump antics and Twitter habit.

Molly Jong-Fast, writing in conservative magazine The Bulwark, said CPAC had descended into a strange collection of oddballs on stage including contract coon Candace Owens, who claimed racism was over, Neo-Nazi Sebastian Gorka and fellow white supremacist Laura Ingraham.

“CPAC is a magical place where college dropouts lecture college students, where millionaires beg for prayers for their success, where soda-bans are likened to the Red Purges,” said Jong-Fast. “Even the laws of space-time are warped at CPAC so that the hours sometimes feel like weeks, or months. By the end of the first day I felt as though I’d been there all my life.”


Published  1 month ago

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Tuesday said she sees hypocrisy in Democratic leaders' planned rebuke of Rep. Ilhan Omar over her controversial remarks about Israel, adding that Omar shouldn't have been "called out" publicly before the issue was addressed privately.

Omar is being accused of of anti-Semitism for referring to pro-Israel advocates’ “allegiance to a foreign country" — marking just the latest remarks from the freshman lawmaker to draw scrutiny.

"One of the things that is hurtful about the extent to which reprimand is sought of Ilhan is that no one seeks this level of reprimand when members make statements about Latinx + other communities (during the shutdown, a GOP member yelled 'Go back to Puerto Rico!' on the floor)," the congresswoman tweeted.

Rep. Jason Smith of Missouri in January apologized to Rep. Tony Cárdenas for yelling “Go back to Puerto Rico!” during a tense situation on the House floor while the government shutdown was still underway. Smith, however, claimed the remark was not racially motivated and instead was referring to 30-member event in Puerto Rico that occurred during the shutdown, which was heavily covered by conservative media and even drew ire from President Donald Trump.

Omar also received backlash last month after she questioned the political influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee by tweeting the phrase "It's all about the Benjamins baby." The congresswoman has since apologized for that statement.

Following the remark, House Republicans last month pushed a resolution condemning anti-Semitism, although it did not specifically mention Omar. The measure was approved on the floor, and it won over Omar's vote as well.

Omar is now facing another public rebuke, with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats planning to take floor action Wednesday in response to Omar's latest comments.

Ocasio-Cortez, who has defended Omar in the past, said on Tuesday that she is not trying to tell people how to feel "or that their hurt is invalid," but questioned why there has not been "resolutions against homophobic statements? For anti-blackness? For xenophobia? For a member saying he’ll 'send Obama home to Kenya?'"

A video from seven years ago of Rep. Mark Meadows resurfaced last week in which he said at a rally that "2012 is the time we're going to send Mr. Obama home to Kenya or wherever it is." He said in an interview with Roll Call at the time that it was a probably a "poor choice of words" and that he believes former President Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen.

Ocasio-Cortez also called on addressing inappropriate remarks with someone privately before they are called out publicly.

"In this administration + all others, we should actively check antisemitism, anti-blackness, homophobia, racism, and all other forms of bigotry," she tweeted. "And the most productive end goal when we see it is to educate and heal. It’s the difference btwn 'calling in' before 'calling out.'"

Ocasio-Cortez claimed that the resolution falls under "calling out" and should be "one of the measure of last resort," and should only be done after "repeated attempts to 'call in' are disrespected or ignored."

"I believe that Ilhan, in her statement a few weeks ago, has demonstrated a willingness to listen+work w/impacted communities," the New York congresswoman tweeted.

She added that she has in the past called out white or male allies when they have said something insensitive by pulling them aside and explaining why their comments were hurtful and where they could learn more about it.

Ocasio-Cortez also tweeted that "a good chunk of Congress would be gone" if there were resolution on sexist statements made by her colleagues.

"To jump to the nuclear option every time leaves no room for corrective action," she tweeted. "So I ask *everyone* that we practice calling in before calling out."

The Intercept

Published  1 month ago

The reporter Carol Rosenberg has been covering Guantanamo Bay since before it became a "war on terror" prison camp — and she's still at it.

Published  1 month ago

PACs backing the campaign of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez fed nearly $900,000 to an LLC that functioned as a de facto slush fund, per FEC complaint.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Democrat Senator Ron Wydon (D-OR) ripped CNN contributor and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper on Wednesday for continuing to lie about his famous lie to the American public. In March 2013 Director of National Intelligence James Clapper went before the US Senate and lied about government spying. Senator Ron Wydon asked Clapper if […]

Sara A. Carter

Published  1 month ago

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders shot back Wednesday at Republican senators that may vote against President Donald Trump on his national emergency declaration. She didn’t let them off the hook, saying the failure of Republicans and Democrats to address border security is forcing the president to “fix this problem on his own.”

"It is absolutely abhorrent that Democrats are still refusing to acknowledge the crisis on the border—particularly when Barack Obama himself even called it a crisis in 2014."

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) March 6, 2019

Sanders is referring to a vote next week on a measure that would nullify Trump’s emergency declaration if passed on the roughly 2,000 mile U.S. Mexico border. The administration’s battle over the $5.7 billion has led to partial government shutdowns and battles on Capitol Hill.

However, Border Patrol agents, senior Department of Homeland Security officials and experts in human trafficking all testified Wednesday that there is a national security crisis at the border. They sided with Trump on the extreme nature of the crisis for both the United States and the humanitarian issues regarding human trafficking.

.@BennieGThompson dismissed the emergency at our border as “non-existent.” He should tell that to the communities devastated by the drug crisis, the families who have lost loved ones to illegal alien crime, and the migrants who have suffered at the hands of ruthless traffickers.

— Sarah Sanders (@PressSec) March 6, 2019

The Presidential Veto

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, said last week that the measure is likely to pass. However, it will not survive the threatened presidential veto on the measure.

“My message to that group is to do your job…If you had done what you were elected to do on the front end, the president wouldn’t have to fix this problem on his own through a national emergency,” said Sanders, during an appearance on Fox News’s Fox & Friends.

In the afternoon, as hearings on the border were taking place on Capitol Hill, Sanders Tweeted that “the crisis at our border is no secret.”

Sanders attached links to various statistics recently released by the Department of Homeland Security that reveal a massive increase in illegal alien migration to the United States and the surging humanitarian crisis.

If anything, Sanders is doing a remarkable job of navigating the rhetoric and keeping both the Republicans and Democrats honest about what has been a crisis for decades.

The crisis at our border is no secret. @HomelandDems are just choosing to ignore it. @DHSgov has publicly laid out the numbers that show this crisis has reached a breaking point.

— Sarah Sanders (@PressSec) March 6, 2019

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

The Berkeley thug who slugged a conservative activist was recently identified and arrested. Now, he has been charged. Claim Your Free Trump 2020 Hat - Just Cover Shipping Effectively, this man just got the worst news

Conservative Tribune

Published  1 month ago

Sen. David Perdue said he was 'not prepared' for the explosion in drug trafficking he learned about during a recent visit to the US border with Mexico.

Conservative News Today

Published  1 month ago

A future world seen through the eyes of former President Barack Obama may leave some dreading his vision. The former president spoke with a Canadian crowd Monday about his goal to create a “university for social change” while touting his Obama Foundation and its mission to “train a million Baracks and Michelles” to transform the world, […]

IJR - Independent Journal Review

Published  1 month ago

After announcing his plans to vote to block President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration over the weekend, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is now explaining his decision.

In an op-ed for Fox News, the senator declared his support for the president but lamented that he would “lose [his] political soul” if he were to vote to uphold the emergency declaration at the border due to his past criticism of former President Barack Obama’s immigration executive orders.

“In September of 2014, I had these words to say: The president acts like he’s a king. He ignores the Constitution. He arrogantly says, ‘If Congress will not act, then I must,'” Paul wrote before pointing out that President Trump agreed with him at the time. “I would literally lose my political soul if I decided to treat President Trump different than President Obama.”

He then put his decision bluntly, outlining his Constitutional concerns:

“I support President Trump. I supported his fight to get funding for the wall from Republicans and Democrats alike, and I share his view that we need more and better border security. However, I cannot support the use of emergency powers to get more funding, so I will be voting to disapprove of his declaration when it comes before the Senate. Every single Republican I know decried President Obama’s use of executive power to legislate. We were right then. But the only way to be an honest officeholder is to stand up for the same principles no matter who is in power.”

Paul even went so far as to predict that the Supreme Court — including “the president’s own picks” — would eventually strike down the national emergency declaration before saying, “I look forward to working for a constitutional way to deal with our border security issue.”

The senator’s op-ed comes just after he announced his intention to vote in favor of a resolution to block the emergency, as IJR Red reported. Paul joins Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Thom Tillis (R-Tenn.), making it likely that the bill will pass in the Senate after already having passed in the House.

The passage would force President Trump to issue his first veto — something he’s already promised he’s prepared to do.

Watch below:

President Trump on resolution blocking his national emergency: "Will I veto it? 100%. 100%. And I don't think it survives a veto. We have too many smart people that want border security so I can't imagine it could survive a veto. But I will veto it. Yes."

— The Hill (@thehill) February 23, 2019

“On the wall? Will I veto it? One-hundred percent,” he told reporters last week. “One-hundred percent, and I don’t think it survives a veto. We have too many smart people that want border security, so I can’t imagine that it could survive a veto.”

Daily Wire

Published  1 month ago

In their rush to paint President Donald Trump as a racist or compare him to Adolf Hitler, the Left often forgets what members of their own party have said previously.

On Saturday, a CNN national security analyst and senior adviser at the Biden Institute said that part of Trump’s speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) made her feel “sick,” as though she were listening to something Hitler had said.

Trump, according to a short excerpt on Mediaite, talked about “reclaiming our nation’s priceless heritage,” during his CPAC speech. It ordinarily wouldn’t be questioned or even noticed in a speech like Trump’s:

“The men and women here today are on the front lines of protecting America’s interests, defending America’s values, and reclaiming our nation’s priceless heritage. With your help, we are reversing decades of blunders and betrayals. These are serious, serious betrayals to our nation and to everything we stand for. It’s been done by the failed ruling class that enriched foreign countries at our expense. It wasn’t America first, in many cases it was America last. Those days are over, long over.”

But these are not ordinary times. Samantha Vinograd, who is listed as a senior adviser at the Biden Institute at the University of Delaware (named after former Vice President Joe Biden), took to CNN to claim that Trump’s “heritage” line was insulting.

“His statement makes me sick, on a personal level, preserving your heritage, reclaiming our heritage, that sounds a lot like a certain leader that killed members of my family and about six million other Jews in the 1940s,” Vinograd said.

Vinograd’s father is a Holocaust survivor.

But if “reclaiming our … heritage” is problematic and reminiscent of Hitler, then Vinograd should also be upset with someone else: Joe Biden.

In 2011, while speaking at the Florida Democratic Party Convention, Biden said, “It’s time to fight back. It’s time to reclaim our heritage!” The former vice president made these remarks while stumping for then-President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign.

Matt Wolking, communications director for Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), posted a short clip of Biden’s speech on Twitter in response to Vinograd’s claims.

Biden may be running for president against Trump in 2020, and has been reportedly making job offers in several states, including New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Biden already got into a little hot water last week when he dared to call current Vice President Mike Pence a “decent guy.” Biden promptly apologized after leftists took issue with referring to Pence as a “decent guy,” when the Left believes he hates LGBT people.

Biden is going to have a tough time running based on some of his past statements and speeches during the Obama administration if things he said previously, now said by Trump, are considered hateful.

Washington Examiner

Published  1 month ago

Fox News host Tucker Carlson said Monday his network has his back after a liberal media watchdog group published years-old audio of him on the radio making disparaging and perverse comments about young girls and women.

At the end of an eight-minute-long monologue about the controversy, which began Sunday evening when Media Matters published excerpts from between 2006 and 2011 of Carlson calling in to to the shock jock radio program of Bubba the Love Sponge, Carlson said he would not bow to a liberal "mob" of critics.

"First, Fox News is behind us as they have been since the very first day," he said. "Toughness is a rare quality in a TV network, and we are grateful for that. Second, we've always apologize when we're wrong and will continue to do that. that's what decent people do: They apologize. But we will never bow to the mob, ever, no matter what."

Carlson suggested his words were mischaracterized saw no reason in trying to make a case.

"There’s really not that much you can do to respond. It’s pointless to try to explain how the words were spoken in jest, or taken out of context, or in any case bear no resemblance to what you actually think, or would want for the country," he said.

"None of that matters. Nobody cares," Carlson added. "You know the role you’re required to play: You are a sinner, begging the forgiveness of Twitter. So you issue a statement of deep contrition. You apologize profusely for your transgressions. You promise to be a better person going forward. With the guidance of your contrition consultants, you send money to whatever organization claims to represent the people you supposedly offended. Then you sit back and brace for a wave of stories about your apology, all of which are simply pretexts for attacking you again. In the end, you get fired, you lose your job. Nobody defends you. Your neighbors avert their gaze as you pull into the driveway. You are ruined."

Around the time Carlson spoke, Media Matters published a second and third wave of audio of Carlson using a term that is insulting to gay people and making comments about race, including questioning the blackness of former President Barack Obama and calling Iraq "a crappy place filled with a bunch of, you know, semiliterate primitive monkeys."

In reacting to the first wave Sunday evening, Carlson refused to apologize and stressed that his "naughty" comments were years old.

"Media Matters caught me saying something naughty on a radio show more than a decade ago," Carlson, 49, said. "Rather than express the usual ritual contrition, how about this: I'm on television every weeknight live for an hour. If you want to know what I think, you can watch. Anyone who disagrees with my views is welcome to come on and explain why."

Carlson worked for MSNBC from 2005 to 2008 and moved over to Fox News in 2009. He also co-founded the conservative website the Daily Caller in 2010.

Fox News did condemn another one of its hosts, Judge Jeanine Pirro, for suggesting Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., is against the U.S. Constitution because she wears a hijab.


Published  1 month ago

WEST HAVEN, Conn. (AP) - A terminally ill Connecticut man who's a big supporter of President Donald Trump is getting a bucket list wish fulfilled, with help from his Democratic sister.

Jay Barrett, of West Haven, who has cystic fibrosis, left the hospital to begin palliative care at his sister's home last weekend and asked for some sort of contact with the president before he dies.

His sister, West Haven City Councilwoman Bridgette Hoskie, who describes herself as "100 percent Democrat," went on social media to help make it happen. Friends and other supporters sent emails to the White House.

The efforts paid off Tuesday night when Barrett, 44, received a call from Trump.


"Mr. President, through thick and thin, you know there's been a lot of thicks, and there's been a lot of thins, I support you," Barrett said.

Trump told Barrett he's a "champ," and that a personal letter is coming his way.

"You're my kind of man, Jay. ... I'm very proud of you," Trump said. "I'll talk to you again, Jay, OK? You keep that fight going. We both fight."

Barrett told the New Haven Register that he also received calls from the president's son Eric Trump and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development regional chief Lynne Patton on Monday.

Eric Trump "told me they're pulling for me and praying," Barrett said.

Patton, who is from New Haven, said she's coming to Connecticut on Saturday to give Barrett a signed gift from the president. She also reached out to the Trump family after a New Haven Register story about Barrett's wish was posted online.

Barrett, who for most of his life considered himself an independent, voted for President Barack Obama in 2008, but didn't like many of his policies, including the Affordable Care Act.

Barrett said he came to realize he was a Republican and fell in love with Trump's style at the launch of his campaign, and later, because of his policies.

His original goal was to get to Washington to meet the president in person and shake his hand, but he said he's grateful for anything.

Even though he's supposed to have only six months to live, Barrett said he intends to be around to vote in 2020.

Conservative Tribune

Published  1 month ago

Behind the scenes, Ocasio-Cortez and her staff seem to have no problem running around in gas-guzzling vehicles while lecturing the nation about its energy usage.


Published  1 month ago

President Donald Trump's "Hire American" economic policy is forcing companies to pay higher wages to workers and buy labor-saving machinery.

Published  1 month ago

Rep. Ilhan Omar is back at it again. She can't stay off the topic of Israel and how our country is friends and allies with that country. To her credit,

Conservative Tribune

Published  1 month ago

OK, I know we said goodbye to Hillary this morning. She’s not running, and couldn’t win if she did, so she’s now largely irrelevant. You may be asking yourself, “why are we still talking about her?” It’s a fair point, and I get it. However, she’s promising not to go away. For the foreseeable future,…


Published  1 month ago

David Axelrod, who served as senior adviser to former President Barack Obama, criticized House Democrats on Monday for their blanket demand for documents from more than 80 people associated with President Trump, warning it could play into the characterization of a witch hunt.

“Maybe I’m missing something, but the hazard of an omnibus document demand by House judiciary versus discreet, serial ones is that, however legitimate the areas of inquiry, the wide-ranging nature of it is too easily plays into the ‘witch-hunt’ meme,” he tweeted.

Maybe I’m missing something, but the hazard of an omnibus document demand by House judiciary versus discreet, serial ones is that, however legitimate the areas of inquiry, the wide-ranging nature of it is too easily plays into the “witch-hunt” meme.

— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) March 4, 2019

Axelrod’s warning came after House Democrats sent letters to more than 80 people who have worked for President Trump, his administration, and his campaign.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) said in a statement that Democrats would “gather this information, assess the evidence, and follow the facts where they lead with full transparency with the American people.”

The Democrats’ investigation is launching as Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s is winding down, so far without any revelations of collusion with Russia.

The document demand is related to everything from Trump’s business dealings with Russia, whether he obstructed justice by firing former FBI Director Jim Comey, and payments his former lawyer made to women who alleged affairs with Trump.

It is not clear whether Democrats can hold Trump accountable for any actions taken before he became president.

Trump was asked Monday afternoon whether he would cooperate with the Democrats’ demands.

“I cooperate all the time with everybody,” he said, adding that the collusion claims are a “hoax.”

Later he tweeted that Democrats were trying to switch from collusion to some other reason to impeach him.

“Now that the Dems are going to try & switch from Collusion to some other reason, it makes them continue to look like sore losers who didn’t accept the WILL OF THE PEOPLE in the last election – they will do anything to get rid of the President.” @AriFleischer It will never work!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2019

“There is no Collusion. All of these investigations are in search of a crime. Democrats have no evidence to impeach President Trump. Ridiculous!” @DevinNunes @FoxNews

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2019

Trump mocked the Democrats’ determination to find something on him during his speech at Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Sunday.

“They fight so hard on this witch hunt, this phony deal that they put together; this phony thing that now looks like it’s dying,” he said.

“So they don’t have anything with Russia. There’s no collusion. So now they go and morph into, ‘Let’s inspect every deal he’s ever done. We’re going to go into his finances. We’re going to check his deals. We’re going to check…’ These people are sick. They’re sick.”

The Real News Network

Published  1 month ago

Chelsea Manning said her testimony before her court martial is all she has to say, standing by her resistance to secret grand juries as her activist ancestors did before her. Kevin Gosztola, Managing Editor of Shadowproof, discusses the case


Published  1 month ago

The deaths of more than 20 Navy SEALs from the unit that took out Osama bin Laden is connected to a loose-lipped vice president who likes to sometimes pose as a presidential action figure.�����������

The Federalist

Published  1 month ago

The Obama administration did everything it could to transform abortion, a procedure that ends a life, into something to celebrate.

Hill Reporter

Published  1 month ago

Former television superstar Roseanne Barr, whose bigoted comments got her booted from her eponymous series in the spring of last year, went after the #MeToo movement during a recent interview.

While speaking with conservative commentator Candace Owens, who herself at many times agreed with Barr’s statements belittling the movement. Barr accused women who didn’t speak up initially when a man assaulted them or otherwise treated them in an inappropriate way as opportunists.

“If you don’t run out the room…but you stayed around because you’re like, ‘I thought maybe he was going to give me a writing job,’ well, you ain’t nothing but a ho,” Barr said, per reporting from USA Today.

She also suggested she could spot someone behaving that way. “I know a ho when I see one,” Barr added. “They need to be called out.”

Barr leveled criticisms toward specific individuals as well, calling Sen. Kamala Harris (D-California) “Kama Sutra Harris,” explaining that an affair she had previously in her career was done in order to “sleep her way to the bottom,” the TV star said.

She also levied heavy criticisms against Christine Blasey Ford, who testified last year against the appointment of now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh, whom she said had assaulted her in high school. Ford ought to “be in prison” for her testimony, Barr said.

“Women are encouraged to be conniving,” Barr said of the #MeToo movement overall.

Barr’s opinionated statements have landed her in trouble in the past. In May 2018, after tweeting out a racist viewpoint on former President Barack Obama’s White House adviser Valerie Jarrett, the uproar against her commentary resulted in her show being canceled and her being fired by ABC.

A spin-off series surrounding her TV family, “The Connors,” replaced her old show “Roseanne,” writing her character off as dead due to a prescription opioid overdose.

The Weekly Standard

Published  1 month ago

Rand Paul is a grandstanding obstructionist whose chief joy seems to be blocking the few bills on which there is wide agreement.

Kentucky senator Rand Paul is a grandstanding obstructionist whose chief joy seems to be blocking the few bills on which there is wide agreement. That includes at least two bills intended to benefit the state of Israel. One, introduced by Florida’s Marco Rubio and Delaware’s Chris Coons, would authorize $38 billion in security aid to Israel over the next decade. The bill is the outcome of a deal negotiated under President Barack Obama and epitomizes bipartisanship in a divided Congress with 72 co-sponsors. Israel advocates have flooded Paul’s office with calls and emails since he placed the hold in October.

He has since placed a separate hold on another bill meant to punish the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. The legislation merely condones state and local measures that prohibit contracts with individuals and companies that boycott Israel—similar to an executive order that Kentucky governor Matt Bevin signed a few weeks ago. Paul and other opponents of the bill say they’re worried it runs afoul of the First Amendment’s right to free speech. But the right to free speech does not entail a right to government contracts.

Paul says he’s just being consistent. “I’m not for foreign aid in general,” he told the Jewish Insider of his hold on the Israel security assistance bill. “If we are going to send aid to Israel, it should be limited in time and scope so we aren’t doing it forever.” By “limited in time and scope,” we fear he means “as little as possible.” Consider an amendment he offered to the security assistance bill earlier this summer, which would have decreased U.S. aid to Israel 10 percent every year for the next decade until it was nil. The Foreign Relations Committee rejected it because America’s closest ally in the Middle East does, in fact, need U.S. aid. The threat to Israel from organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah has substantially increased. With Iran’s help, Hezbollah has stockpiled more than 100,000 rockets and missiles. All the while, the Lebanese terror group has continued its efforts to construct tunnels that breach Israeli territory. Iran is also pumping Hamas and other Palestinian terror groups full of cash, fueling their attacks against Israeli civilians.

As usual, Paul is holding up critical legislation in order to make a confused political statement. His explanation for opposing the security assistance bill was in effect a diatribe against foreign aid. He pointed repeatedly to the assistance given to “enemies of the U.S. and Israel” and named Pakistan and the Palestinian Authority. “Why are we giving twice as much money to nations that surround Israel, which forces Israel to spend more on defense?” Aid to Israel, he said, “should be paid for by cutting aid to people who hate Israel and America.”

But the United States does not give aid to Israel’s chief enemies: Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. These entities are classified as foreign terrorist organizations or, in Iran’s case, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. We also routinely veto aid to the Palestine Liberation Organization. As for the Palestinian Authority, the United States can both cut aid to the PA—which it has in any case done under the Trump administration—and increase assistance to Israel. There’s no reason not to do both.

The trouble isn’t simply that one senator has convoluted ideas on foreign policy. Paul has outsized influence with the Trump administration, thanks to his emphatic belief in cozying up to Vladimir Putin. The Kentucky senator is so set on improving relations with Putin that he traveled to Moscow in August and met with sanctioned Russian lawmakers. When Paul tried to reverse the sanctions earlier this year, the Foreign Relations Committee—rightly— said No.

In Rand Paul’s quasi-isolationist worldview, robust American defense efforts only antagonize the world’s malign states and organizations, from Russia to Hamas. The unhappy truth, of course, is that they hate prosperous democracies like the United States and Israel because of what we are, not what we do, and Rand Paul’s naive obstructionism only emboldens them.

The Federalist

Published  1 month ago

The Obama administration did everything it could to transform abortion, a procedure that ends a life, into something to celebrate.


Published  1 month ago

'I spent last summer going through the black sections of my town'

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

I support President Trump. However, I cannot support the use of emergency powers to get more funding for the wall, so I will be voting to disapprove of his declaration when it comes before the Senate.

Tablet Magazine

Published  1 month ago

To date the investigation into the Fusion GPS-manufactured collusion scandal has focused largely on the firm itself, its allies in the press, as well as contacts in the Department of Justice and FBI. However, if a sitting president used the instruments of state, including the intelligence community,...


Published  1 month ago

Former President Barack Obama said Monday that hope is possible for the future if the next generation of leaders is modeled after himself and former first lady Michelle Obama.

Speaking at the Bell MTS Place in Winnipeg, Canada, Obama detailed plans for creating a “university for social change” aimed at developing the skills of young people from around the world who harbor cynicism towards “old institutions.”

What an incredible sold out show with @BarackObama tonight. 📷 :

Photo credit: @tinepublic Inc.

Photographer: @DwayneLarson

— Bell MTS Place (@bellmtsplace) March 5, 2019

“If we train them — if we give them skills, support, financing, media training, spotlights, then they’re the ones that are going to carry forward the solutions that we so desperately need,” the former president said, according to the Washington Examiner.

“If we could form a network of those young leaders, not just in the United States, but around the world, then we got something,” he continued before adding, “if we can train a million Baracks and Michelles who are running around thinking they can change the world,” hope is attainable.

The call to action reportedly garnered loud applause from the audience.

Obama knocked Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) during his remarks about the importance of political participation to usher in societal change.

“If citizens participate, then that’s how change happens,” the 44th president began. “If they do not, then this isn’t going to be solved because suddenly — to take a U.S. example, Mitch McConnell suddenly comes to his senses and says, ‘You know what, I feel bad about not cooperating with Barack because, actually, he was pretty reasonable.”

“The Affordable Care Act wasn’t a particularly radical proposition. It was just providing people healthcare using the existing market-based system,'” he added.

Obama is presently making several stops in Canada, and is speaking at the Scotiabank Saddledome in Calgary, Alberta, on Tuesday afternoon. He is scheduled to visit Vancouver Tuesday evening.


Published  1 month ago

Former Attorney General Eric Holder announced in a Washington Post opinion-editorial Monday that he will not run for president in 2020.

“Though I will not run for president in 2020, I will continue to fight for the future of our country through the National Democratic Redistricting Committee and its affiliates,” Holder wrote. While the Obama-era official did not endorse any of the several Democrat presidential candidates, he did state there are many “good options.” He urged candidates to focus on addressing a litany of progressive issues, including climate change and immigration. Holder also called on Democrats to join together after the primary to ensure a Democrat beats President Trump in 2020.

“Inspired by our history as the party of Franklin D. Roosevelt, we must restructure our economy in a way that promises economic security for the middle class, creates genuine opportunities for upward mobility and attacks the income inequality of this new Gilded Age. And we can’t have a better economy for working people without a health-care system that guarantees universal coverage,” Holder continued. “We are running out of time to deal with the existential threat of climate change. It is a moral imperative that we mitigate the damage that is already happening, take wide-ranging steps to reduce carbon emissions, and commit to being a net-zero carbon emitter within 10 years. This is our generation’s moonshot.”

The announcement comes after Holder told reporters earlier February that he would soon make a decision on a White House bid. “I’m going to decide if I’m going to try to find that space within the next month or so,” he said after addressing a voting rights event at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa. “I’m going to sit down with my family very soon and decide whether or not this is something we’re going to seek.” Holder has teased a potential bid in the past, telling CBS’s The Late Show host Stephen Colbert in July 2018 that he would decide on running “sometime early next year.” Holder had met with former President Barack Obama to discuss a potential White House bid.

Had Holder entered the increasingly crowded Democrat presidential field, which now includes Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Kamala Harris (D-CA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Cory Booker (D-NJ), the Obama-era official would have likely had to answer for several controversies which plagued his tenure as head of the Justice Department. Namely, in 2012, the House held Holder in criminal and civil contempt of Congress after failing to turn over subpoenaed documents to lawmakers as part of an investigation into Operation Fast and Furious, which allowed illegal gun sales in order to track the sellers and purchasers believed to be connected with Mexican drug cartels.

Holder, who was the third longest-serving attorney general, serves as chairman of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, and has sued states over voting rights issues and legislative redistricting.


Published  1 month ago

Christopher Steele, the British spook who authored a largely unverified dossier about President Donald Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, has backed out of plans to speak by video at a pro-democracy gathering in Baltimore next week, according to conference organizers.

The planned speaking engagement, which had not previously been reported, would have marked his first public appearance since the publication of the explosive dossier aside from brief statements he made to the media in March 2017.

Steele, a former MI6 officer, had been scheduled to speak about disinformation next Thursday at the Reawakening the Spirit of Democracy Conference at the George Peabody Library in Baltimore.

Steele was scheduled to speak on a panel moderated by Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum. The panel also features Evelyn Farkas, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia under Barack Obama, and Ed Lucas of the Center for European Policy Analysis, Epshtein said.

Though Steele is listed as a speaker in promotional materials, Applebaum said that he had gotten “cold feet” last week and cancelled. An email sent to Steele’s private intelligence firm, Orbis, was not immediately returned.

Steele’s reports, commissioned by Hillary Clinton’s campaign via the private Washington research firm Fusion GPS, consisted of anonymously sourced reporting that alleged a “well-developed conspiracy of co-operation” between Trump, his lieutenants and the Kremlin.

The reports, which circulated among U.S. intelligence officials beginning in the summer of 2016 and were later published by BuzzFeed, helped set off a chain of events that led to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller. In the years since Steele authored his reports, evidence has emerged of extensive contacts between Trump’s aides and various Russian state-aligned actors, while many of the most salacious allegations in Steele’s reports remain unconfirmed or at least partially debunked.

In October, Steele made rare on-the-record comments to an editor for Vanity Fair, writing in an email, "In these strange and troubling times, it is hard to speak unpalatable truths to power, but I believe we all still have a duty to do so."

Steele’s abortive reemergence in the spotlight comes at a time when Mueller is reportedly close to wrapping up his investigation of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Next week’s conference, which will continue without Steele, “will examine and wrestle with the underlying threats to liberal democracy and propose strategies to reinvigorate it,” according to promotional materials.

The conference features several establishment mainstays from both political parties, including Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), former Republican House majority leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and former undersecretary of defense for George W. Bush Paul Wolfowitz. The conference is being organized by the Renew Democracy Initiative, which is chaired by chess grandmaster turned Russian opposition leader Garry Kasparov.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

In a new off-the-rails interview, Roseanne Barr calls originators of the #MeToo movement “hos” and attacks Sen. Kamala Harris, Christine Blasey Ford and many other women.

Washington Free Beacon

Published  1 month ago

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is facing rebuke from a fellow New York Democrat and longtime political ally, for distorting—for electoral gain—the record and policies of the Trump administration.

Assemblyman Dov Hikind, who represents Schumer's home borough of Brooklyn in the New York legislature, penned an open letter to the senator after receiving a campaign mailer soliciting financial contributions. Hikind said the mailer attacked the "hard right" while omitting "vital information."

In his letter, which was posted on the assemblyman's Facebook page, Hikind castigated Schumer for promising to fight "for Democratic values" while providing little in means of substance.

"Senator Schumer, in your letter you promise to fight for Democratic values and go on at great length to fully villainize the current administration, but you left out certain facts that my fellow Democrats, to say nothing of all Americans, should also be aware of," Hikind wrote.

The assemblyman lambasted Schumer and national Democrats for downplaying the impact the Trump administration has had in fostering economic growth

"You forgot to tell us about the economy. As good as it’s been, economists expect even more growth through the end of the year. That’s very good news," Hikind wrote. "You forgot to tell us about unemployment, which is lower than it has been in decades, while economic confidence is at a 17-year high."

Hikind also expressed support for the tax cuts proposed by the president and enacted by congressional Republicans.

"You forgot to tell us about tax cuts. I’m part of the middle class and now I’m getting a little extra in my paycheck," he wrote. "I’m happy about that and so are tens of millions of Americans, Senator."

Schumer, who voted against the final tax reform package, has echoed House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) in denouncing the savings, wages hikes, and bonuses made possible by its passage as "crumbs."

Hikind represents one of the largest Orthodox Jewish communities outside of Israel and extensively praised the Trump administration's foreign policy initiatives, a number of which were supported by Schumer himself.

"You forgot to tell us about the most remarkable relationship between the United States and our ally Israel ever. Or about moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, which you yourself applauded," Hikind wrote. "You forgot to tell us about the successful dismantling of the Iran Deal … [that] threatened the rest of the world by making it easier for Iran, the leading supporter of world terrorism, to develop nuclear weapons."

The assemblyman bemoaned the Democratic Party's leftward lurch, which Hikind argues Schumer has helped advance by supporting individuals like Rep. Keith Ellison (D., Minn.) for leadership positions in the party.

"You ask for a contribution, but the Democratic Party—which I am a lifelong member of—is currently betraying the ideals that our party once stood for: American values," Hikind wrote. "You yourself proposed that Representative Ellison head the party, but you must surely know that Ellison has stood with our nation’s leading hatemonger Louis Farrakhan."

This is not the first time Hikind has been vocal in his repudiations of the Democratic Party and its national leaders. The assemblyman said while President Barack Obama was in the White House that he had surpassed former President Jimmy Carter in being the president who was the worst friend to Israel.

During the 2016 presidential election, Hikind asserted the Democrats had abandoned communities like his by moving too far to the left on social issues.

Hikind ended his letter by calling on Schumer to stand up and "restore sanity and honesty" to the ranks of the Democratic Party. The assemblyman pledged that until the party moderated itself to re-enter the political mainstream, he would lend his support to Republicans.

"Senator Schumer, as a fellow Democrat, I ask you to work to restore sanity and honesty to our party so I can feel good about supporting it fully," the assemblyman wrote. "Until then, I’m afraid the Republicans have my support."

The full letter can be read below:

Published  1 month ago

Sanctions now form a key part of what is a strategic plan by the US to ruin the Venezuelan economy, says Tim Young.

Published  1 month ago

I tend to fall into the Alan Dershowitz camp of reasoning when it comes to Rep. Ilhan Omar.

Madam Omar’s loyalty is not to America; it is to the group of Muslims that elected her which is the dual-loyalty she keeps ranting about. Her loyalty is to Mohammed as her religion wouldn’t have it any other way and, we all know or should know what Mohammed said about we non-believers.

Intolerance of nonbelievers of Islam is doctrinal to the Islamic Faith. She is just practicing her religion. It is the reason why Islam is incompatible with this republic or any freedom seeking country.

Dershowitz delivered one of the most comprehensive analyses of Omar I’ve seen in a while.

“For her to accuse Jewish members of Congress and non-Jewish members of Congress of dual loyalty because they support America’s allies … would you accuse somebody of dual loyalty if they supported England, if they supported France and other American allies?” Dershowitz asked.

Dershowitz said Omar’s status as a lawmaker in the House is a “bait and switch,” because she didn’t run on an anti-Israel platform, but is now focusing on that issue.

Related: Believe It Or Not — Rep. Omar Actions Are What She Was Sent To Congress To Do

“She told her constituents when she ran that she would support America, and she is not,” he said. “She is supporting America’s enemies and undercutting American values.”

Dershowitz added that Omar is the one who should examine her own loyalties. He said she needs to ask herself, “My god, I’m accusing people of dual loyalties. Where are my loyalties? Are my loyalties to America, or are my loyalties to the Palestinian Authority, to Hamas, to Hezbolla?” [via Washington Examiner]

I fear this will spread and so will anti-Semitic rhetoric from the because the radical progressive left and the Israeli hating western Jews will do nothing to stop this.

What a disgrace to have the enemy inside the gates like this. It’s bad enough that she gets to live in America but thanks to Barack Obama she’s actually on our government payroll.

We’re being censored by social media and need your help to continue to fight against the opposition media lies.

She’s a Somali Muslim, of course, she’s an anti-Semite and probably much worse. How can we look at the utter wasteland of Somalia and most of the Muslim world and say, “Yes we got to have some of that right here in the good ole USA.”

Meanwhile, American Jews are so focused on hating conservatives that they get in bed with their biggest enemy. Jewish leaders talked with her, what did they say, stop being a typical Muslim, pretty please?

I will proudly stand with Israel as well as the United States. The history of my faith springs from one, the foundation of my liberty in the other. God bless the USA, and God bless our friend Israel!

Please consider making a donation to

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 Visit, bookmark and share this resource and then tell your friends and family.

The Daily Dot

Published  1 month ago

Some of the posts from QAnon over the North Korea summit revealed that their might be a new person helming the anonymous account.

Daily Intelligencer

Published  1 month ago

I was in the lobby of the Gaylord National Resort and Casino in National Harbor, Maryland, just outside of Washington, and Donald Trump was still upstairs in the ballroom talking. It’s the third day of the Conservative Political Action Conference and the president, as the marquee closer, seemed intent not to disappoint the crowd of activists and reporters here for his act. When he first walked out onstage, he bear-hugged a large pole dangling the American flag.

At this point, he’d been talking for over an hour and twenty minutes, a cyclone sucking up every popular topic of political debate — the Green New Deal, tariffs, socialism, the federal investigations which threatens his presidency—and gossip—the engagement of Candace Owens, a far-right activist and his fervent supporter — and spitting it out in his free associative style. In total, the speech would last for two hours and two minutes, which gives it the meaningless but nevertheless widely-noted distinction of being his longest since entering office.

The older women seated near me were gabbing about the Secret Service, how they wouldn’t allow them to carry their purses into the ballroom. They left the speech early and were waiting to exit the conference, their luggage piled around them. “What did he say?” one of them asked. Another replied, “Nothing much.” I’d failed to arrive early enough to get my press credential before the Secret Service sweep, and so I set up shop in a big leather chair and watched the speech as the women grew increasingly wary of my presence — and my laptop.

There are many women like them here, with warm smiles and quilted carryalls and a midwestern twang. And then there are the young white men in blazers and pressed white shirts and red or blue ties. And the young white women in their uniforms of heavy foundation and sheath dresses and tan patent leather heels or high leather boots. There are also the seedier looking types, like the man outside wearing a shirt that said, COMMIE KILLER. A reporter later identified him as one of the “Proud Boys,” which the Southern Poverty Law Center designates as a hate group. CPAC claims that more than 9,000 people attended this year’s confab, resulting in “3,370 media articles and posts” and “3,500 mentions of CPAC 2019 on television.”

This is the third consecutive CPAC attended by Trump, though his history at this event dates back to 2011, when he publicly dangled the possibility of running for president during a media tour to promote birtherism, the racist conspiracy theory that Barack Obama wasn’t a legitimate president because he wasn’t actually born in the United States. It would be another five years before he would run for the Republican nomination, and now here we are, with the sitting president doing a mocking impersonation of the Southern accent belonging to the Attorney General that he fired and calling the Russia investigation “bullshit” in that same sprawling ballroom.

There’s almost no point in going over everything he said. He said a lot. And then he said some more.

He said many of the things he ordinarily says regarding his brief career in politics, starting with the Republican primary (he beat lots of candidates, didn’t you know) and the general election (the crowd is still chanting, “lock her up,” if you can believe it) and the media’s inability to grasp his sarcastic manner of speaking (he is a performance artist, and so he can’t be taken seriously when he does something like beg Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails in front of a large admiring crowd) and ending with the current day, where he is looking forward to another election. He regrets, he said, going so hard with the “Pocahontas” jab at Elizabeth Warren, because he should’ve really saved that for when he’s running against her next year.

My theory about these public spectacles, which mimic not at all the ways in which human beings typically communicate, is that they are an exercise Trump must perform when he needs to process the stresses and disappointment of a particularly bruising period, like this last week, when he left Hanoi empty handed after failing to come to an agreement with Kim Jong-un as, back home in America, his former lawyer and fixer delivered damning testimony against him before Congress. In that sense, today’s marathon monologue was like his press conference after the midterm elections, or his speech following the end of the government shutdown.

“You know, I’m totally off-script right now,” he said, at one point. “This is how I got elected: by being off-script. If we don’t go off-script, our country is in big trouble, folks.” At least in terms of his own behavior and its ability to create trouble for the rest of us, I think he might be right.

Leave a Comment


Published  1 month ago

Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch waits in the wings to replace Eric Holder following a ceremony in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, November 8, 2014. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch waits in the wings to replace Eric Holder following a ceremony in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, November 8, 2014. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

The United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, and perhaps other districts of the Department of Justice as well, have been running a secret docket for years. As the President submitted the nomination of Loretta Lynch to serve as the Attorney General of the United States—the country’s chief law enforcement officer—courageous lawyers are asking the Supreme Court to review a case that reveals how Ms. Lynch, her predecessors, and her prosecutors in the Eastern District of New York put cases on a secret docket that has allowed admitted criminals to walk free, deprived their victims of millions of dollars of restitution required under the law, and enabled the criminals to commit more crimes against the unsuspecting public.

The case is Palmer v. John Doe, #14-676, and the Supreme Court is scheduled to confer on the petition today—Friday, January 9. The Department of Justice has registered no response to the Petition. This isn’t the first time the Department has tried to kill something by silence.

At stake is far more than the issue of restitution of hundreds of millions of stolen dollars. There is a fundamental failure of the Department of Justice to protect innocent citizens from known criminals in a massive secret star-chamber for which there is no review or means of accountability. It is more government lawlessness and making its own rules as it goes— an unsupervised “cooperator game” at immeasurable cost to justice, faith and trust in the fairness of our system.

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will take the case and review this unholy practice, but regardless, the public needs to take a close look at the allegations in the petition, which the government has completely declined to address other than,as we saw with similar tactics that we recently reported on in the Moonlight Fire case, by wielding threats of reprisals against the lawyers who are trying to disclose the truth.

The petition reveals that prosecutors have a terrifying set of double standards and secret deals—one for “cooperators” and one for those who decline to cooperate. The cooperators in the cases on the secret docket are allowed to plead guilty and to go about their lives with virtual immunity for any crimes they continue to commit—and commit them they do. It’s one thing for a prosecutor to make a deal with a cooperator. It’s another thing for the deal to be a complete secret for years that enables the cooperator to resume his criminal conduct—not only licensed but protected by the government.

Another ramification of such unlawful secrecy is the unjust convictions that result when the truth of the deal and history of the cooperator are not disclosed to other defendants. Just ask the California man ordered released from nine years in prison after the Department of Justice admitted today that “thousands of pages of documents that should have been turned over to the defense had secretly remained locked in a Sacramento FBI office for years.” According to the Sacramento Bee, the defense attorney had demanded this evidence of the cooperator repeatedly and was told there was none—all the while, the FBI was hiding it. This is the same United States Attorney’s Office that brought the now notorious Moonlight Fire case about which the Observer broke news and others have written.

According to the Washington Times, Felix Sater’s lawyer asserts that Mr. Sater has been a model citizen during the 10 years between his secret guilty plea and his sentencing. That is a subject of serious dispute in the petition.

But the bigger concerns now are the knowledge, ethics, and policies of the proposed new Attorney General and the fact that high ranking members of the Department of Justice have played on role on both sides of Mr. Sater’s secret case in the Eastern District of New York. Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell, head of the criminal division of the Department of Justice, was an Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York during the year Mr. Sater was charged. Then, after joining Morgan Lewis, she represented Mr. Sater at his sentencing on the secret docket in her old district. That raises a plethora of ethical issues, but she’s not alone. The petition also discloses that Marshall Miller, principal deputy assistant attorney general in the criminal division was, ironically, the victim rights’ coordinator for the Eastern District of New York.

The Economist has recently written extensively about the world of cooperators and over-criminalization. The Wall Street Journal this week has joined our chorus on prosecutorial secrecy and misconduct, today’s being “Sunshine For Prosecutors.” Seems that the Journal’s editorial earlier this week helped the government to decide to produce some additional information to which Hank Greenberg has long been entitled. Sunlight is indeed a powerful and natural disinfectant, but we sense that we are merely scraping the surface of a deeply infected wound to Lady Justice.

The petition, filed in the Supreme Court by lawyers who have contempt charges hanging over their heads for revealing what they know, explains that the pretext for continued secrecy rested on nothing more than the prosecutors’ bald assertions of risk of harm to cooperator Felix Sater. The Russian mob is implicated, and any number of federal judges seem to have rubber-stamped the government’s assertions.

President Barack Obama introduces Loretta Lynch as his nominee for Attorney General. She would be the first African American woman to hold the position if confirmed. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

President Barack Obama introduces Loretta Lynch as his nominee for Attorney General. She would be the first African American woman to hold the position if confirmed. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

However, there have been repeated public disclosures that Mr. Sater was cooperating, and he was not placed in the witness protection program. Instead, the petition claims, the United States Attorneys allowed him to continue to bilk banks and individuals of millions of dollars. He was never ordered to pay restitution to any of his original victims, and worse, he was protected by the government in his crimes against new victims. Ms. Lynch has vehemently opposed release of the information that the Petition seeks to have unsealed.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, the Government Oversight Committee, and the Senate all have their work cut out for them. This evidence raises more troubling questions about our now ironically named Department of Justice and those who run it. Ms. Lynch must be held to account for this secret docket in hearings on her nomination. How widespread is the practice, and how many additional victims of fraud and other crimes has the Department of Justice caused by this practice? Surely Ms. Lynch’s district is not the only one to run a secret docket. Presumably, our Attorney General knows. Why are federal judges allowing this? How many criminals have committed additional crimes because of this perversion of the system?

We have written extensively about Eric Holder protecting corrupt prosecutors. This country can’t afford a new boss same as the old boss.

UPDATE: Representatives for Felix Sater dispute this story’s characterization of the value of their client’s information and his behavior since cooperating. Mr Sater’s attorney, Robert Wolf, told the Observer: “Mr. Sater provided extraordinary cooperation with the government, which spanned two decades and involved the most serious matters of National Security, battling our greatest enemies at tremendous risk to his own life and for the benefit of all citizens of our country. This cooperation extended to the highest levels of our government and involved some of our biggest enemies whose terrorism threatened our safety.”

Sidney Powell worked in the Department of Justice for 10 years and was lead counsel in more than 500 federal appeals. She is the author of Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice.


Published  1 month ago

The facts always triumph over the noise.

Recently Lynne Patton, a long time Trump advisor and supporter, appeared on the Laura Ingraham Show to silence her critics who had called her a prop for the Republicans. Patton, who is black, was being accused by two other black women for appearing at the House Oversight Hearing at the request of Rep. Mark Meadows during the testimony of convicted felon Michael Cohen.

Patton noted President Trump had done more for blacks than his predecessors ever had including the first black president, Barack Obama.

Published  1 month ago

It's way too early to be thinking this, much less saying it, but what the hell: If Donald Trump is able to deliver the sort of performance he gave today at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the annual meeting of right-wingers held near Washington, D.C., his reelection is a foregone conclusion.

There is simply no potential candidate in the Democratic Party who wouldn't be absolutely blown off the stage by him. I say this as someone who is neither a Trump fanboy nor a Never Trumper. But he was not simply good, he was Prince-at-the-Super-Bowl great, deftly flinging juvenile taunts at everyone who has ever crossed him, tossing red meat to the Republican faithful, and going sotto voce serious to talk about justice being done for working-class Americans screwed over by global corporations.

In a heavily improvised speech that lasted over two hours, the 72-year-old former (future?) reality TV star hit every greatest hit in his repertoire ("Crooked Hillary," "build the wall," "America is winning again," and more all made appearances) while riffing on everything from the Green New Deal to his own advanced age and weird hair to the wisdom of soldiers over generals. At times, it was like listening to Robin Williams' genie in the Disney movie Aladdin, Howard Stern in his peak years as a radio shock jock, or Don Rickles as an insult comic. When he started making asides, Trump observed, "This is how I got elected, by going off script." Two years into his presidency and he's just getting warmed up.

First and foremost, Trump was frequently funny and outre in the casually mean way that New Yorkers exude like nobody else in America. "You put the wrong people in a couple of positions," he said, lamenting the appointment of Robert Mueller as a special prosecutor, "and all of a sudden they're trying to take you out with bullshit." He voiced Jeff Sessions in a mock-Southern accent, recusing "muhself" and asked the adoring crowd why the former attorney generally hadn't told him he was going to do that before he was appointed.

Democrats backing the Green New Deal (GND) "are talking about trains to Hawaii," he said. "They haven't figured out how to get to Europe yet." He begged the Democrats not to abandon the GND because he recognizes that the more its details and costs are discussed, the more absurd it will become. "When the wind stops blowing, that's the end of your energy," he said at one point. "Did the wind stop blowing, I'd like to watch television today, guys?" "We'll go back to boats," he said, drawing huge laughs when he added, "I don't want to talk [the Democrats] out of [the GND], I just want to be the Republican who runs against it."

He railed against Never-Trump Republicans: "They're on mouth-to-mouth resuscitation," he said, adding "they're basically dishonest people" that no one cares about. He joked about being in the White House all alone on New Year's because of the government shutdown. "I was in the White House and I was lonely, so I went to Iraq," he said, recounting that when his plane was approaching the U.S. airstrip in Iraq, all lights had to be extinguished for landing. "We spend trillions of dollars in the Middle East and we can't land planes [in Iraq] with the lights on," he said, shaking his head in disbelief. "We gotta get out." He then riffed on the generals he met there who, contrary to the Pentagon brass he dealt with, said they could vanquish ISIS in a week. He claimed to have talked with a general named "Raising Cane," which might be Brigadier Gen. J. Daniel Caine, but Trump is the farthest thing from a details guy, right? "Sometimes I learn more from soldiers than I do generals," he said, deftly moving from jokes to more-substantive discussions of policies or issues.

In all seriousness, this is quite a performance from Trump: he is just about two hours into this speech and shows no signs of flagging. And far as I can tell, the CPAC crowd is still with him.

— Alexander Nazaryan (@alexnazaryan) March 2, 2019

You can cover a huge amount of material in two-hours-plus, and Trump certainly did that. After speaking sympathetically of immigrants who want to come to the United States and saying that we need more people because the economy (well, his economy, as he takes credit for it) is doing so well, he immediately dismissed the Guatemalans, Salvadorans, and Hondurans traveling north in caravans across Mexico. In a bizarre display of simultaneous empathy and contempt, he talked at length about how female migrants are being systematically "raped" but also how the caravans were filled with criminals and drug dealers. It was "sad to see how stupid we've become" to think that the caravans are filled with good people. As he has been doing since his State of the Union address, he has been laying out a partial, inchoate case for a skills-based immigration program. He explained walking away from the table with North Korea even as he noted yet again that he has a great relationship with the dictator Kim Jong Un. In a long riff on trade policy, he invoked the "Great Tariff Debate of 1888" and how China "and everyone else" had been taking advantage of us until he started pushing back. He took time to talk about how no, really, the crowd at his inauguration was in fact historically large despite all publicly available evidence.

All in all, it was, in the words of Daniel Dale, the Washington correspondent for the Toronto Star, "one of the least-hinged speeches Trump has given in a long time." It was indeed all over the place but like the weirdly wide-ranging and digressive speech in which he declared a national emergency, it was also an absolute tour de force, laying out every major point of disagreement between Republicans and Democrats (abortion, the Second Amendment, and taxes, among other things) while tagging the latter aggressively as socialists who will not only end the private provision of health care but take over the energy sector too. Those charges take on new life in the wake of the announcement of the GND and comments, however short-lived, by Democrats such as Kamala Harris, who at one point recently called for an end to private health care. And over 100 House Democrats have signed on to a plan that would end private health insurance in two years. For all the biting criticism and dark humor in today's speech, Trump has mostly ditched the "American Carnage" rhetoric that marked his first Inaugural Address, pushing onto liberals and Democrats all the negativity and anger that used to surround him like the dust cloud surrounds Pigpen in the old Peanuts cartoons. "We have people in Congress right now who hate our country," he said. "We can name every one of them. Sad, very, very sad."

At moments, he seemed to be workshopping his themes and slogans for 2020. "We believe in the American Dream, not the socialist nightmare," he averred at one point. "Now you have a president who finally standing up for America." The future, he said "does not belong to those who believe in socialism. The future belongs to those who believe in freedom. I've said it before and will say it again: America will never be a socialist country." That's a line that may not work forever, but it will almost certainly get the job done in 2020.

None of this is to suggest that this speech wasn't as fact-challenged as almost every utterance Trump has given since announcing his candidacy for the Republican nomination (go to Daniel Dale's Twitter thread for a running count of misstatements of fact). He hammered trade deficits in a way that will remind anyone with an undergrad economics course under their belt that he fundamentally doesn't know what he's talking about. He misrepresented both NAFTA and the new trade bill he crafted with Mexico and Canada, and at the exact moment that hundreds of wearied listeners started leaving the ballroom at The Gaylord Resort and Convention Center, he claimed that not a single person had left their seat.

But the 2020 presidential race is not going to be decided based on which candidate is more tightly moored to reality. It's going to be decided, like these things always are, by the relative health of the economy and the large vision of the future the different candidates put forward. As the economy continues to expand (however anemically compared to historical averages) and he continues to avoid credible charges of impeachable offenses, Trump is becoming sunnier and sunnier while the Democrats are painting contemporary America as a late-capitalist hellhole riven by growing racial, ethnic, and other tensions.

Trump isn't the creator of post-factual politics in America, he is merely currently its most-gifted practitioner (oddly, his ideological and demographic counterpart and fellow New Yorker Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may become a challenger to him on precisely this score). Trump may have next to no credibility in profoundly disturbing ways, but American politics has been drifting away from reality for the entire 21st century, when the 2000 election was essentially decided by a coin flip, the United States entered the Iraq War under false premises, and Barack Obama took home Politifact's 2013 "Lie of the Year" award and dissembled unconvincingly in the wake of Edward Snowden's revelations.

That Trump didn't invent the current situation doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about it, but if he can continue to perform the way he did today at CPAC, it remains to be seen what Democratic rival can rise to that challenge.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Revenge of the Fascists– President Trump won the election so now he must be destroyed. The Democrats have made it clear their only goal is to harass and obstruct President Trump. Last month, House Democrats launched an investigation into President Trump’s tax returns. Democrats hope that if they are able to scour through the billionaire’s […]


Published  1 month ago

The city of Arcata, California, removed a statue of President William McKinley before dawn on Thursday, bowing to the wishes of Native American political activists, and breaking a promise by the city council to notify the public.

McKinley, a Republican, is considered one of the better presidents the U.S. has had. At the time of his assassination by an anarchist in 1901, he was “he was one of the most beloved presidents in American history,” an article in Politico recalled recently. Born in Ohio, he fought for the Union in the Civil War. His presidency is associated with the expansion of American power across the globe and the growth of American industry — including through tariffs.

In 2015, over Ohio’s objections, President Barack Obama renamed Mount McKinley in Alaska — the highest peak in North America at 20,310 feet — to Denali, its Athabascan name (which is what locals had called it anyway).

But radicals in Arcata wanted more. As Breitbart News reported in 2018, they agitated for the removal of the local McKinley statue, arguing that McKinley represented “settler colonialism” and damaged Native American tribes. The Eureka Times-Standard noted that activists said he represented “imperialism, white supremacy and genocide.”

The city council finally relented and voted in February to send the statue to a monument in Ohio. But as the Times-Standard reported Thursday, the city removed the statue without notice. Activists complained that the city’s move meant it still was insensitive to the feelings of Native Americans.

That did not stop activists’ celebrations:

History was made today on Wiyot land! For the first time ever, a presidential monument was removed on the Arcata Plaza

The statue depicted former U.S president William McKinley who left a genocidal legacy as many presidents before him, & after him have.#ItsAGoodDayToBeIndigenous

There has been a nationwide push for the removal of Confederate statues since a mass shooting by a neo-Nazi who murdered nine worshippers at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, a historic black congregation in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015. However, McKinley fought on the Union side, not for the Confederacy.

In his much-maligned — and mischaracterized — press conference after the Charlottesville, Virginia, riots in 2017, which were triggered by a controversy over a statue of Confederate general Robert E. Lee, President Donald Trump warned that other statues of non-Confederate presidents would be the next to follow: “Are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson?” he said.

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  1 month ago


Hindsight is 20/20, but when you are the commander-in-chief, you can’t afford to be wrong. When it comes to Iran, George W. Bush was very wrong, and Barack Obama was very complicit. And now it’s left to President Trump to clean up the mess.

I refer in particular to the way Tehran used both Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama, albeit in different ways, to promote its own interests in the Middle East and put its troops on Israel’s doorstep, all to fulfill a long-held dream of eradicating the Jewish state from the map. Although it can seem like ancient history, we’re living with the consequences to this day.

Mr. Bush was told that Iran was the major threat in the region, not Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. He was told that if he invaded Iran, the mullahs would make life hell for American troops. He was told that Iran wanted to take control of Iraq. I know, I’ve talked to the people who told him.

You see, over the prior decade, a massive rebel army had been building on Iran’s northwestern border with Iraq, safely housed inside Iraqi territory. These weren’t Iraqis, they were patriotic Iranian exiles who called themselves the People’s Mujahadeen of Iran, also known as the MEK. The MEK’s National Liberation Army of Iran at its height before the Iraq war boasted 10,000 battle-hardened and 300 armored vehicles. On a previous excursion into Iranian territory, it had traveled over 60 miles into the Islamic Republic, captured thousands of Iranian soldiers, scores of armored vehicles, and inflicted 55,000 casualties.

For two decades, the MEK had been an existential threat to the mullahs’ murderous regime, so much so that Iran’s government executed over 120,000 of its members and demonized as a terrorist organization in the Western media.

And the Iranian regime’s campaign to eliminate what it saw as a mortal threat was not over, as tensions between Washington and Baghdad soared.

Enter Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi politician who was in bed with Iranian intelligence services and fed Mr. Bush false information about Saddam having weapons of mass destruction. Don’t believe me? Just Google it. Scott Ritter, the American weapons inspector said Mr. Chalabi boasted openly of his intelligence sources in Iran and even offered to set up a meeting with the head of Iran’s intelligence service.

When the U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq in 2003, officials publicly stated that the MEK compounds in eastern Iraq were bombed “as a favor to the mullahs.” The MEK never fired a shot in anger at American forces, even as the 500-lb. bombs rained down on their bases. When U.S. commander Gen. Ray Odierno approached their main camp to force a surrender, MEK leaders served his staff dinner and they parted as friends.

But Mr. Bush, in a catastrophic misjudgment, disarmed the MEK, apparently in the misguided hope that “moderates” in Tehran might make a deal and stop exporting terror. The last best chance to challenge the tyrants in Tehran was thrown away.

The upshot: With the MEK out of the way, Iran proceeded to produce endless mischief in Iraq, aiding anti-U.S. insurgent groups and directly and indirectly harassing and bombing U.S. forces. When President Obama in 2009 pulled U.S. combat troops out of Iraq, Iranian troops and Iran-backed militias flooded into the resulting power vacuum in Iraq and Syria, reaching all the way to Israeli border along the Golan Heights.

After American troops left, the now-defenseless MEK supporters were left to the mercy of Iraqi special forces and missile attacks, pushed on by Iran.

President Trump, in so many ways, is right — the Iraq war was one of the greatest foreign policy disasters in American history. The Bush administration knew better, but was blinded by arrogance. The Obama administration’s approach was marked by equal parts naivete and duplicity.

The results are on full display today, with Mr. Trump left to clean up the mess. Iran now has its coveted Shia “land bridge” to supply allies and proxies from Tehran to Damascus. We finally have a president who correctly diagnosed the problem. Let’s hope he has he fortitude to supply the remedy.

• L. Todd Wood is a former special operations helicopter pilot and Wall Street debt trader, and has contributed to Fox Business, The Moscow Times, National Review, the New York Post and many other publications. He can be reached through his website,

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff announced on Friday Democrats will call in Felix Sater to testify before Congress about a Trump hotel that was never built in Russia. The Trump Russia Hotel did not even make it to contract. There is no such place. Schiff said there was Trump-Russia collusion. He lied. So now he’s investigating […]


Published  1 month ago

When I was a boy, my parents would sometimes take my sister and me camping in the desert. A lot of people think deserts are empty, but my parents taught us to see the wildlife all around us, including hawks, eagles, and tortoises. After college, I moved to California to work on environmental campaigns. I helped save the state’s last ancient redwood forest and blocked a proposed radioactive waste repository set for the desert. In 2002, shortly after I turned 30, I decided I wanted to dedicate myself to addressing climate change. I was worried that global warming would end up destroying many of the natural environments that people had worked so hard to protect. I thought the solutions were pretty straightforward: solar panels on every roof, electric cars in every driveway, etc. The main obstacles, I believed, were political. And so I helped organize a coalition of America’s largest labor unions and environmental groups. Our proposal was for a $300 billion dollar investment in renewables.

CNS News

Published  1 month ago

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has reportedly hired a twice-arrested illegal alien as his deputy national secretary.

Belen Sisa enters the job with one year left of DACA-protection from deportation, The Washington Examiner reported Thursday:

The hiring of Belen Sisa, an Arizona leftist activist, was announced Wednesday evening. Sisa, who says she was brought to this country illegally from Argentina by her parents at age six, is currently protected from deportation under President Barack Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program.

According the Examiner article, Sisa has a criminal record and claims to have organized a prison strike:

She has been arrested at least twice for protests throughout her activist career. As a college senior in 2017, she was jailed for her role in a sit-in outside of Sen. Chuck Schumer's, D-N.Y., office. While in jail, Sisa told reporters that she organized a "prison strike."

Just weeks before that, she was arrested for a protest outside the Senate Hart Office Building.

The Examiner report comes the same day that Sen. Sanders’ fellow Democrat, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) declared on Twitter that “Tokenism *is* racism” – in reference to Republican Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) allowing an African-American colleague attest to President Donald Trump’s character, as reported:

Thursday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) applauded the “bravery” of Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), who accused Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) of a racist act Wednesday for daring to allow an African-American colleague testify that President Donald Trump is not a racist.

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez tweeted her praise of Tlaib, including a link to commentary and video of the incident: "Total bravery from @RashidaTlaib as she reminds the nation that TOKENISM *IS* RACISM"

"Rashida Tlaib told GOP Rep. Meadows that using a Black Trump employee as a ‘prop’ to show Trump isn’t racist was a racist act in itself — he responded by demanding her words be struck from the record, nearly in tears"

Please support CNSNews today! [a 501(c)(3) non-profit production of the Media Research Center]

Or, book travel through MRC’s Travel Discounts Program! MRC receives a rebate for each booking when you use our special codes.



Published  1 month ago

A spokeswoman for Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign apologized Tuesday after questioning whether the “American Jewish community has a dual allegiance to the state of Israel” — a comment condemned by Jewish leaders across the political spectrum as having anti-Semitic overtones.

"In a conversation on Facebook, I used some language that I see now was insensitive. Issues of allegiance and loyalty to one's country come with painful history,” Belén Sisa, Sanders’ national deputy press secretary, told POLITICO. "At a time when so many communities in our country feel under attack by the president and his allies, I absolutely recognize that we need to address these issues with greater care and sensitivity to their historical resonance, and I'm committed to doing that in the future.”

Sisa posed the question Sunday during a discussion in a Facebook thread in which she said that, like Sanders, she stood with Rep. Ilhan Omar. She deleted the post after POLITICO began asking about it.

Omar's repeated comments about Israel led to a messy fight in the House as many of her fellow Democrats accused the first-term congresswoman’s of using anti-Semitic language, while her defenders have said Omar was making valid criticisms of the nation’s government and allies that were being stifled.

The Sanders aide’s remarks defending Omar reflect a fraught conversation within the Democratic Party over what constitutes legitimate criticism of Israel as opposed to stoking anti-Semitism. A vocal contingent of progressive activists concerned about Palestinian rights say the country has been overly deferential to Israel — but Omar and some of her supporters have triggered a fierce backlash when they've ascribed or hinted at motivations for that support.

Sisa's comments were flagged to POLITICO by a critic of the post. Jewish political leaders roundly criticized her remarks before Sisa deleted them.

“I would totally disagree with that. It’s ridiculous. ... She’s wrong,” said Rep. Lois Frankel, a Jewish Democrat from Florida. “That’s just a terrible statement to make...”

The comment is an example of why “Bernie Sanders is not my candidate," Frankel added.

Sisa’s comments stood out both because of her communications role in the Sanders campaign as as a result of their timing. Omar came under fire last week over her saying Israel’s allies "push for allegiance to a foreign country” and the House, in response, overwhelmingly passed a resolution condemning hateful language.

A Jewish person from Sisa's home state of Arizona pointed out the history of the "dual allegiance" slur in the Facebook thread — from the hangings of Jews in ancient Persia, to the 1492 purge of Jews in Spain, to Nazi Germany.

Sisa’s response: “This is a serious question: do you not think that the American government and American Jewish community has a dual allegiance to the state of Israel? I’m asking not to rule out the history of this issue, but in the context in which this was said by Ilhan.”

Another person on her Facebook then asked: “do you think Bernie Sanders has dual loyalty?” Sisa replied: “I think I would probably have to ask him? But his comments make me believe other wise as he has been very blunt on where he stands,” and then linked to articles on Sanders’ recent reaction to Omar’s comments.

Of the 2020 candidates, Sanders, who is Jewish, has been the most vocal supporter of Omar. After a House resolution was proposed to denounce Omar by name, the Vermont senator said, “What I fear is going on in the House now is an effort to target Congresswoman Omar as a way of stifling that debate."

On Tuesday, after others weighed in, Sisa deleted the offending post and tried to pivot to the topic of immigration. Sisa is an undocumented immigrant from Argentina who is protected from deportation through the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA program, established by former President Barack Obama.

“I deleted my previous question, because I don't think it truly represents the question I was asking or what I was meaning to say,” Sisa wrote. “I think the injustice of questioning someone's loyalty because of their culture or where they come from is something that is happening through comments being made about Mexican immigrants and a lot of the immigrant community now."

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

Roughly 65 million people voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. Every one of them will be heartbroken to learn that former First Lady Michelle Obama has decided to not run for president in

The Federalist

Published  1 month ago

Donald Trump gave a wild press conference, saying outlandish things to highlight Hillary Clinton's inability to protect national security. It worked.


Published  1 month ago

In an excellent article by Jeff Lukens here on American Thinker, he asks the question, “Is a second civil war coming?” In reply, I say that America’s second civil war has already begun. Its opening shots were fired by Barack Obama when he stated, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

Most of this country is center-right and never considered America a place that needed transformation. Most people can think of things they would change but few believe the nation needs to be torn down and rebuilt. Obama failed but the left soldiers on in its quest for a new America remade in their own image.

When Obama went on his world apology tour, he wasn’t apologizing for America, he was apologizing for Americans. This is the essence of this second civil war. Leftists are demi-gods who believe they are America and that anyone who does not believe in them cannot lay legitimate claim to this country as their own.

Yes, this war has begun. The opening skirmish was the Obama presidency itself, which history will see as a failure, despite what the media want us to believe in the here and now. Sure, he passed ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank, overregulated, and ruled by executive diktat to great media acclaim. Yet, ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank have been whittled away by legislation and judicial rulings, while Trump has prioritized deregulation and reversed many of Obama’s illegal executive orders.

The war’s second battle was the 2016 presidential election when Hillary Clinton, Obama’s chosen successor, lost to a television personality whom very few took seriously as a candidate. Trump won despite the Obama administration conspiring with the Clinton campaign to steal the election and has remained as president even as that conspiracy fundamentally transformed into a failed coup attempt to depose him.

Trump’s presidency has been the third battle and with his string of successes, the battle is being won. This, despite near-universal acrimony and condemnation among the media, the Democrats, and the left.

But, “what difference, at this point, does it make?” because these victories are pyrrhic. As the eminent Michael Walsh said of the left, “they never stop, they never sleep, they never quit.” Democrats are chipping away at this nation with their policies. This is a war of attrition and we Americans are being attrited.

For example, their “open borders” policy is effectively importing a new electorate -- one guaranteed to vote for them. The left agrees with Obama, there is nothing wrong with America, it’s those damn Americans, so they are going to drown the conservative vote with new Democrats. It’s the same with their policy of “everything should be free.” Why vote for someone who promises equal opportunity when someone else promises a better outcome?

Nuclear winter became global warming became climate change became “we want total control over everything.” The reason why Democrat candidates for the presidency so quickly signed on to my congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal is its promise of comprehensive control over every aspect of our lives. Eliminating planes, trains, and automobiles will keep us close to our homes and jobs or for those “unwilling to work” in their basement enjoying their “universal basic income.” Dependent people without mobility are easier to control.

The 2020 election looms as the next battle and it will be hard fought because Democrats have myriad policies that may sound great but are really about control. They have always been masters of micturating down our leg and telling us it is raining.

Yet, they don’t need to trick us into acquiescence, because even should Trump win, without a complete reversal by the Democratic Party, a renewed free and fair media, and a return to the principles upon which this nation was founded, this war will continue, and it is only a matter of time before the left again wins the Presidency, or the House, or the Senate -- or all three.

When that happens, this civil war will become hot because the Democrats are going to come for our guns. An armed citizenry is a free citizenry, and they can’t have that.

The third most populated nation with 330,000,000 people, America has an estimated 350 million guns in circulation; any effort to seize them will call for the total mobilization of our armed forces, city and state police, and the National Guard.

People are not going to turn in their guns and politicians who think they will do so are being naïve. Fighting will surely ensue as the forces of the regime go door to door to try to take them.

Many of those empowered to confiscate weapons won’t obey orders. Defections will be common and there will be fighting in the streets, limited at first, but it will soon break out into open rebellion. The regime will become increasingly strident and many states will refuse to comply. Using Democratic-run “sanctuary cities” as an example of state nullification of federal law, talk of secession will become rife.

The ruling leftists will, of course, be surprised, and orders will be given to the remaining loyalist forces to put down the rebellion. In the end, the death toll will far exceed the 620,000 people who died in our first civil war.

To people who say it can’t happen here, I say history is replete with examples of places that no longer exist where people believed “it can’t happen here.”

It can’t happen here? Open your eyes, it has already begun.

Please follow William L. Gensert on Twitter at @williamlgensert.

Talking Points Memo

Published  1 month ago

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images North America

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) was very indignant Thursday when Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) accused him of using HUD official Lynne Patton, a black woman, as a prop to counter Michael Cohen’s accusations of racism.

He retorted loudly, saying that her implication was racist and citing black people in his life.

Unfortunately for the self-righteous congressman, videos have surfaced since the fracas that show him espousing the thoroughly debunked “birther” theory about President Barack Obama.

Here’s Mark Meadows, who just sidetracked the entire House Oversight Committee to assure him he’s not racist, saying that “2012 is the time we are going to send Mr. Obama home to Kenya or wherever it is”

— Steve Morris (@stevemorris__) February 27, 2019

NEW Video: “We’ll send him back to Kenya, or wherever it is,” GOP Rep Mark Meadows said about President Obama. He was laughing hard while talking. This is the second video to surface today where Meadows promotes the racist birther conspiracy theory. Uncovered by @TheDemCoalition.

— Scott Dworkin (@funder) February 28, 2019

Meadows’ office did not immediately return a request for comment.


Published  1 month ago

"2012 is the time we're going to send Mr. Obama home to Kenya or wherever it is," Meadows said at a June 9, 2012 rally. "We're going to do it!"

True Pundit

Published  1 month ago

President Donald Trump claimed Feb. 15 that former President Barack Obama “put on more debt on this country than every president in the history of our country combined.” Verdict: True Public debt more than doubled in the eight years of Obama’s presidency, rising from $6.3 trillion to $14.4 trillion. Gross federal debt – which includes the amount owed…

Conservative Tribune

Published  1 month ago

If you were concerned Trump would cave just to say he got a deal, you can relax:

U.S. President Donald Trump said on Thursday he had walked away from a nuclear deal at his summit with Kim Jong Un because of unacceptable demands from the North Korean leader to lift punishing U.S.-led sanctions.

Trump said two days of talks in the Vietnamese capital Hanoi had made good progress in building relations and on the key issue of denuclearization, but it was important not to rush into a bad deal.

“It was all about the sanctions,” Trump said at a news conference after the talks were cut short. “Basically, they wanted the sanctions lifted in their entirety, and we couldn’t do that.”

The United Nations and the United States ratcheted up sanctions on North Korea when the reclusive state undertook a series of nuclear and ballistic missile tests in 2017, cutting off its main sources hard cash.

TRENDING: Wisconsin liberals say judicial candidate is unqualified . . . because he’s a Christian

Both Trump and Kim left the venue of their talks, the French-colonial-era Metropole hotel, without attending a planned lunch together.

“Sometimes you have to walk, and this was just one of those times,” Trump said, adding “it was a friendly walk”.

Predictably, Reuters labels this turn of events “a setback for Trump,” and references his reputation as a “self-styled deal maker” – the obvious implication being that Mr. Deal Maker blew it.

Reuters should go back and read Art of the Deal. One of the core principles – not just of Trump’s negotiating style but of anyone who understands smart negotiating – is that you have to be prepared to walk if the other party just isn’t willing to go where you need them to be.

A complete lifting of the sanctions would have left the U.S. and the West with basically no leverage at all in pressuring North Korea on nuclear issues or on human rights questions. Easing them some in exchange for a verifiable commitment to get rid of nukes would have been a start, but there are many more problems with North Korea besides the nukes.

Once the other side gets everything it wants, why should they give you anything further. Trump seems to have understood that Kim was trying to go big right at the start without ponying up, and the only thing a smart deal maker can do in a situation like that is to walk away.

This reminds me of the Reagan-Gorbachev summit in Reykjavik, Iceland in 1985. There were high hopes for a broad-ranging anti-nuclear treaty, but Gorbachev insisted Reagan completely give up the missile defense system known back then as the Strategic Defense Initiative. The American left wanted Reagan to give it up too, but he wisely refused, and the result was that both sides walked away from the table. No deal.

The American media freaked out that the world was ending. Ironically, missile defenses are something we need very badly today, in large part because of North Korea. It’s a good thing Reagan didn’t abandon them (although Obama tried to), and it’s a good thing Trump didn’t just take away the only real stick we have in dealing with the Norks.

The media spin is already shaping up to be that Trump “failed” to get a deal. No. The offer on the table was a bad one, and Trump wisely refused to take it. Barack Obama should have done that in his dealing with Iran, but he was determined to sign anything he could regardless of how good or bad it was, and the Iranians knew that so they played him.

RELATED: Those crushing U.S. sanctions on anyone trading with North Korea? Here’s how the Norks cheat and get around them

That was a failure. This is looking out for the interests of the United States and of the free world. It’s nice to once again have a president who’s willing to do that.

The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Asked by Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., how he sees himself, President Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen responded Wednesday that he sees himself as “a fool.” At least we know he told the truth in answering that question.

In a pointless hearing in which Cohen testified before the House Oversight and Reform Committee making multiple unproven accusations against President Trump, the public got to see what Special Counsel Robert Mueller apparently saw: no evidence of Trump campaign collusion with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election.

What we all saw instead was a fool.


We witnessed exactly what Mueller and his team ultimately concluded after spending about $25 million and almost two years on this investigation: Cohen is a liar, untrustworthy, crooked and in violation of the law. The Justice Department was right to prosecute him. He deservedly lost his law license and he will deserve his time in the federal penitentiary.

Yet after all the time and money spent, all the lies and all the deception, Cohen is not being prosecuted for helping the Trump campaign collude with Russia. If Mueller had evidence to support such a charge, no doubt the Mueller team would have pursued it.

Furthermore, if Michael Cohen had provided valid evidence of collusion, certainly Mueller would have saved Cohen to bolster his case against the president or someone close to the president.

Wednesday's hearing simply confirmed what we already knew: there was no such evidence, because there was no collusion. Mueller and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York see no value using Cohen as a witness in other cases. Instead, Cohen is headed to prison.

Cohen is a liar, untrustworthy, crooked and in violation of the law. The Justice Department was right to prosecute him.

So far the only person who seems to think he has seen any actual evidence of collusion is House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif. Schiff claimed as early as March 2017 to have seen more than "circumstantial evidence of collusion." A year later, he reported seeing "ample evidence."

Yet almost two years into the investigation, the first major oversight hearing led by the new House Democratic majority turned up no evidence of collusion. The more than five-hour Cohen hearing was void of any allegation or evidence of the core issue the special counsel was authorized to spend millions of dollars investigating.

The hearing did show us a lot of name calling and airing of frustration by a disgraced Cohen. While President Trump should be credited for not bringing Cohen into the administration, it is disheartening and bewildering why Trump would surround himself with a person of such low standards as Cohen.

Ultimately, the hearing was likely a disappointment to Democrats. Nevertheless, it served its intended purpose – an opportunity to flog the president and distract from the historic summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Vietnam.

The Never-Trumpers may have found the testimony illuminating and accurate, but Cohen is going to prison for being the opposite.

Trump supporters saw in Cohen a liar and convicted felon testifying before Congress. A serious investigation would have demanded probing questions for the man who instigated the whole investigation – Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

Ironically, House members also saw the mirror image of Cohen in Hillary Clinton’s long-time friend Lanny Davis, who was orchestrating a made-for-television event with the personal benefit of trying to delegitimize the man who cost Hillary Clinton the presidency.

The one thing we can all agree on is that in watching the hearing Wednesday we saw what Michael Cohen sees when he looks in the mirror: a fool.

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."


Published  1 month ago

Michael Cohen’s testimony before the House Oversight Committee hearing on Wednesday yielded very little in terms of new information about alleged misconduct by President Donald Trump or his 2016 presidential campaign.

If anything, Cohen’s testimony hurt the case against the president. Cohen said that he had no direct evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. He also appeared to lie several times (again).

The media, too, lost. They billed Cohen’s appearance as a climactic moment — then struggled to salvage bits and pieces of their shattered narratives from the wreckage of his testimony. Cohen told the committee that Trump had not actually told him directly to lie to Congress. He also admitted there was no evidence, other than the word of a convicted liar (himself), that Trump had ever directed that “hush money” be paid to Stormy Daniels and others.

There were plenty of entertaining moments. There was nothing so absurd as watching Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), who was forced to resign as Democratic National Committee chair after rigging the 2016 primary so that only Hillary Clinton could win, asking Cohen whether Trump had worked with Russia to rig the general election. And there was nothing so outrageous as watching first-year Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MN) call Lynne Hutton, a black woman with senior roles in both the Trump campaign and the Trump administration, a “prop.”

Overall, however, the hearing yielded nothing but Cohen’s own speculations, fueled by Hillary Clinton’s own — admittedly, more capable — “fixer,” Lanny Davis. Cohen testified that prosecutors from the Southern District of New York were looking into potential crimes by Trump. That much has been known since Cohen’s own indictment.

Yet there was something significant that happened on Wednesday. At some point in the hearing, the questions moved beyond Stormy Daniels and Russian collusion and moved to Trump’s business dealings, and even his personal life.

Had he abused “controlled substances”? Had he paid for women to have abortions? Had he struck the First Lady? What about the value of his real estate — did he overvalue it for insurance, and undervalue it for taxes?

These questions had nothing to do with “oversight” of government. The equivalent would have been Republicans using — or abusing — the investigative powers of the committee to call convicted Chicago fraudster Tony Rezko to testify about his dealings with Barack Obama, and Obama’s character.

The GOP took a lot of criticism for lengthy hearings on the Benghazi terror attack, but at least that had to do with government. We are far beyond that now.

And now it becomes crystal clear why Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), the chair of the committee, renamed it last month. What was once the “Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (OGR)” is now the “Committee on Oversight and Reform (COR)” — i.e. no “government.” Cummings said the new name reflected the committee’s “true jurisdiction, which covers both government and the private sector.” By “private sector,” he meant “Trump.”

What the country saw in the Michael Cohen hearings was a committee no longer concerned with clean and effective government, but one that has become a giant Democratic opposition research operation.

At the end of the hearing, Cummings suggested that future witnesses would include employees of the Trump business empire, as well as members of the Trump family.

The abuse of power has now been institutionalized. And innocence is no obstacle.

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.

Flag And Cross

Published  1 month ago

A Political Cartoon By A.F. Branco for Flag and Cross ©2019.


Published  1 month ago

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) grew irate on Wednesday after a House colleague accused him of racism, demanding her remark be stricken from the record. But in 2012, he repeatedly made racist comments about sending President Barack Obama “home to Kenya.”

During Wednesday’s scuffle with Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) in the middle of Michael Cohen’s testimony before the House oversight committee, Meadows lashed out at Tlaib for saying it was racist to hold up a black Trump administration official as a prop to show that the president isn’t racist.

Earlier during the testimony of President Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer, Meadows had introduced Lynne Patton, whom Trump appointed as the New York–New Jersey regional administrator for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, to make his case against Cohen’s assertions that Trump is racist.

“I asked Lynne to come today in her personal capacity to actually shed some light,” Meadows said as Patton stood behind him. “You made some very demeaning comments about the president that Ms. Patton doesn’t agree with. In fact, it has to do with your claim of racism. She says as a daughter of a man born in Birmingham, Alabama, that there is no way that she would work for an individual who was a racist.”

Tlaib wasn’t having it.

“That someone would actually use a prop ― a black woman, in this chamber, in this committee, is alone racist in itself,” Tlaib said before being interrupted by Meadows’ demand that her comment be redacted from the hearing’s record.

It was clearly a sore spot for Meadows, who is still known for repeatedly pushing the racist “birther” conspiracy that Obama wasn’t born in the U.S.

In the lead-up to the Obama’s re-election, Meadows said at a tea party rally that “2012 is the time we’re going to send Mr. Obama home to Kenya or wherever it is.”

He made a nearly identical remark at another rally days later.

He also said that year he would push for an investigation into where Obama was born, even though documents proved he was born in Hawaii.

In 2015, he stated that he doesn’t remember those remarks and fell short of actually walking them back.

“Obviously I distance myself from that .... That doesn’t apply to anything I’m doing now,” he told The Washington Post, though his actions today don’t make that claim very convincing.

The Hive

Published  1 month ago

Don’t take Michael Cohen’s word for it—Fordham University, one of the president’s alma maters, has confirmed that it did, in fact, receive a threatening letter warning it not to release Donald Trump’s grades in the lead-up to the 2016 election, supporting the embarrassing allegation his former fixer made in his explosive testimony on Wednesday. Bob Howe, a spokesperson for the university, said in a statement to the Associated Press that the school received a call from someone on Trump’s team, as well as a follow-up letter from a Trump attorney threatening to “take action against the university if we did, in fact, release Mr. Trump’s records.”

“We told the caller that Fordham is bound by federal law, and that we could not/would not reveal/share any records (as we would not reveal any student records) with anyone except Mr. Trump himself, or any recipient he designated, in writing,” Howe said, according to the Fordham Ram, Fordham’s student journal. (The superintendent’s secretary from the New York Military Academy told the A.P. that officials “have no record of communication with Trump’s legal team”; the University of Pennsylvania and the College Board declined to comment.)

It’s an especially ironic demand coming from Trump, who frequently brags about his intelligence. Not only has he proclaimed himself a “stable genius” with “the best words,” those he dislikes are deemed “not smart,” “stupid,” or “wacky.” He took special pains to question the intelligence of Barack Obama, calling on the then-president to “[open] up and [give] his college records and applications”—part of his campaign to cast Obama as a “terrible student.”

As Cohen testified Wednesday, Trump fought to keep his own grades secret, directing his former fixer to threaten his alma maters not to release his transcripts—something they said they couldn’t legally do anyway. “I’m talking about a man who declares himself brilliant, but directed me to threaten his high school, his colleges, and the College Board to never release his grades or SAT scores,” Cohen told the House Oversight Committee.

Cohen’s claims that Trump has been involved in several criminal schemes obviously garnered the most attention. The information the ex-attorney provided on the president’s participation in his campaign-finance violations, his possible knowledge of Roger Stone’s shady dealings with WikiLeaks, and his potential encouragement of Donald Trump Jr.’s foolhardy efforts to score dirt on Hillary Clinton from a Kremlin-linked source could all add to his already significant legal and political problems. But Cohen’s testimony also hit Trump where it hurts most: his ego. Trump’s alleged genius is a cornerstone of his vanity. And though Cohen’s tamer revelations aren’t likely to change hearts and minds when it comes to the president, they at least seemed to rattle Trump, who blasted his former fixer as “shameful” in remarks to the press on Thursday. “He lied about so many different things,” he said.

More Great Stories from Vanity Fair

— Ivanka Trump: Americans want to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, just like me

— Reading between Mueller’s lines: is the story of Russian collusion hiding in plain sight?

— Look at these Oscar party photos!

Looking for more? Sign up for our daily Hive newsletter and never miss a story.


Published  1 month ago

President Barack Obama is speeding up the “refugee” resettlement process before he turns over the White House keys to his successor, President-elect Donald Trump – in an effort to boost the numbers so high that it is now projected that they will exceed his target of 110,000 for this fiscal year by nearly 600.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

As we counted down to the November 8th 2016 election, we listed 30 reasons in 30 days to vote for Donald Trump for President of the US. One of our top reasons was because of Obama’s Abysmal GDP Growth Rate. Today President Trump showed us why we listed this as a top reason to vote for Donald Trump for President.

The fourth quarter GDP number was released on Thursday and beat expectations at 2.6%. Economists expected a 2.2% GDP rate.

The rate of real economic growth is the single greatest determinate of both America’s strength as a nation and the well-being of the American people.

From 1790 to 2000, U.S. GDP growth averaged 3.79% . America needs at least 3.0% economic growth-the nation cannot defend itself and pay its bills without it. However, America’s elites have largely given up on growth, and are now distracting themselves with academic musings about “secular stagnation.”

Ronald Reagan brought forth an annual real GDP growth of 3.5% . Barack Obama, with his abysmal policies, was lucky to average a GDP growth rate of slightly greater than 1%.

Obama ranked as the fourth worst presidency on record in GDP growth at 1.457% . Only Herbert Hoover (-5.65% ), Andrew Johnson (-0.70% ) and Theodore Roosevelt (1.41% ) had lower average annual GDP growth than Barack Obama.

The Commerce Department announced in the first quarter of 2016 that the US economy expanded at the slowest pace in two years with a GDP growth rate of an anemic 0.5% . The second quarter GDP growth rate was not much better at 1.2% . (The 3rd quarter GDP rate was not yet announced by the time we drafted our post before the 2016 election.)

With tanking GDP rates Obama was not much better than Teddy Roosevelt and Obama had the lowest annual GDP growth rate of any President since World War II.

Barack Obama was the first President ever to never surpass an annual rate of 3% GDP growth! This resulted in Obama being rated the worst economic President ever!

Obama’s Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast in 2016 that America would never see 3.0% economic growth again. They had given up and Hillary was their candidate.

President Trump did win the election in 2016 and his Director of the White House National Economic Council Larry Kudlow said in early December that the U.S. economy is growing at a rate greater than 3% –

Today the 2018 annual GDP growth rate and the 4th quarter GDP growth rate were announced and the results are miraculous! The BEA announced that their initial results for the 2018 annual US GDP growth rate are at 2.9%!

(Note that we question if the BEA is run by deep state hacks like most all government agencies after Obama’s Presidency and are reporting the rate below 3% to prevent President Trump a major win.)


Published  1 month ago

Former top national security officials detail a climate of fear, incompetence and hostility to facts in a White House that wasn't ready to run the world.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

President Donald Trump is always working even when he’s working.

According to ABC News, Trump and Vietnamese President Nguyen Phu Trong presided over the signing of several trade deals in Hanoi on Wednesday, including a major deal involving the Vietnamese purchasing 110 Boeing planes worth $12.7 billion.

The huge deal not only brings billions of dollars back to the United States, it also came just before the president’s high-stakes meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in the Vietnamese capital.

VOTE NOW: Does Trump Deserve The Nobel Peace Prize For Denuclearizing North Korea?

“Hopefully great things will happen later on with our meeting but a lot of good things are happening before, and that’s the signing of trade deals with the United States, and we appreciate it very much,” Trump told Nguyen.

Here’s more from ABC News on the deal:

In the biggest of the deals, Chicago-based aircraft manufacturer Boeing Co. said it is selling 100 of its 737 MAX planes to Vietnamese low-cost carrier Vietjet. The privately owned carrier operates domestic and regional flights using Airbus planes.

Boeing and Vietjet said their deal was worth $12.7 billion at list prices. Airlines typically negotiate discounts for bulk orders.

Vietjet is doubling down on its bet for the 737 MAX, which is an updated version of the workhorse single-aisle 737 model. It already had 100 of the planes on order following a 2016 deal, though none have been delivered so far.

The deal marks a major confidence boost for Boeing, which has faced questions about the plane’s safety since a 737 MAX 8 operated by Indonesia’s Lion Air plunged into the Java Sea just minutes after taking off from Jakarta on Oct. 29, killing everyone on board.

Boeing sealed a second sale to Bamboo Airways of 10 787 Dreamliner, which they valued at $3 billion. The startup airline was founded in 2017 and began operating domestic flights in January. It is owned by Hanoi-based conglomerate FLC Group and already had 20 Dreamliners on offer.

U.S.-based aviation technology company Sabre also inked a deal with Vietnam Airlines during Trump’s visit. It said the memorandum of understanding has a “potential value” of $300 million.

The deals follow a determination by the Federal Aviation Administration earlier this month that Vietnam now meets international standards for aviation safety. That decision, which follows an assessment by the agency in August, would allow Vietnamese airlines to fly to the United States and to cooperate with U.S. carriers.

JUST IN: In a deal witnessed by U.S. President Donald Trump and Vietnamese President Nguyen Phu Trong, VietJet signs firm order to buy 100 new Boeing 737 Max planes worth $12.7 billion at list price. Live #TrumpKimSummit updates:

— Reuters Top News (@Reuters) February 27, 2019

The summit this week follows one held by Trump and Kim last year to begin early talks on denuclearization.

At the first summit, Trump and Kim signed a document asserting that the U.S. would provide “security guarantees” to Kim in exchange for the North Korean leader’s “unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.”

The same media who fawned over former President Barack Obama agreeing to the worthless Iran nuclear deal attacked Trump at the time, but now a second summit shows real progress.

Since the summit last year, North Korea has not fired a single rocket or missile, another sign of Trump’s policies working to bring peace to the Korean Peninsula.

Published  1 month ago

Rep. Ilhan Omar has been the subject of recurrent controversies, including ones regarding her marriages and family immigration history.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

House Democrats on Wednesday unveiled their latest “Medicare-for-all” bill -- a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s health care system that would largely outlaw private insurance as part of what critics call a one-size-fits-all government takeover. 

The Independent

Published  1 month ago

Donald Trump threatened his high school and college with legal action in order to prevent them releasing his exam scores, according to explosive testimony Michael Cohen is due to deliver before

The New Republic

Published  1 month ago

The U.S. government wanted someone to blame for foreign interference in the 2016 election. Maria Butina was the perfect scapegoat.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

How will the Bernie campaign handle the employment status of their “illegal immigrant” press secretary, Belen Sisa? Also, does she plan on talking to the media with this mouth? .@realDonaldTrump FUCK ICE! #NoDreamNoDeal #SOTU — Belén Sisa (@belensisaw) January 31, 2018 “F*CK ICE” NEW: @BernieSanders hires illegal immigrant to be press secretary — Washington […]

Rolling Stone

Published  1 month ago

The Speaker of the House on outsmarting Republicans, skepticism of the Green New Deal and not having any regrets


Published  1 month ago

Thirteen Republicans joined a Democratic effort to stop President Donald Trump from declaring a national emergency to fund a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Conservative Tribune

Published  1 month ago

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

  And the Oscar for best performance goes to…. The Trump Russia canard is crumbling so the media has drummed up another fake scandal to harass President Trump. Enter Alva Johnson. Alva Johnson, 43, a former staffer to Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign claims he kissed her without consent at a small gathering just before a […]

David Harris Jr

Published  1 month ago

Under the radical Barack Obama, many in the administration were equally radical. None of them was more so than John Holdren, who with the Ehrlichs of Stanford University, wrote a book on population control in which they advocated for forced abortions and sterilization of poor black women. If that weren’t bad enough, they also claim that babies don’t become human until they become socially aware. They peg that at age two. So, you could legally abort a 20-month-old child. This is the path down which the Democrats want to take America. They have already decided that a baby that is born alive can be allowed to die.

President Obama’s top science advisor and I have something in common: We both have a long-term association with Paul Ehrlich, my former colleague at Stanford University. There any similarity ends, however. Holdren, who has co-authored hooks on population control with Ehrlich and his wife, is the Stanford professors ideological clone. For my part, I have long opposed the prescriptions of the infamous population bombster, and now find myself compelled to reject the almost identical views of the lesser-known but now more powerful Holdren as well.

But their big push was for population control. The publication of the book predated the Roe v. Wade decision, and the authors strongly argued for legalizing abortion as a population control measure. They suggest that abortion cannot really be considered the taking of a human life, on the grounds that neither the fetus, nor the newborn, nor the toddler, is truly human anyway: “The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being,”1 write the authors. Move over, Peter Singer.

Holdren apparently agrees with the Princeton University “ethicist” that infants up to the age of two or so are not really human beings, and so can be eliminated without qualms.

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


Published  1 month ago

Thirteen Republicans joined Pelosi to pass a resolution that would terminate Trump's national emergency to build a wall.

Official Website World Tribune: Window on the Real World

Published  1 month ago

by WorldTribune Staff, September 15, 2017

Government travel expenses for President Barack Obama and his family totaled $105,662,975, according to records obtained from the Secret Service by a government watchdog group.

One trip to Martha’s Vineyard, in August 2016, racked up $2,512,380.88 in hotel bills, said Judicial Watch, which obtained the records via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit.

“It is troubling to see such massive amounts of money paid out for trips that appear to have minimal value to the public interest,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And it is frustrating to have file multiple FOIA lawsuits and engage in long-running court battles to get basic information about the costs of presidential travel.”

The records show President Donald Trump’s travel expenses total slightly over $4 million.

Expenses for Obama family travels include:

Michelle Obama’s trip to Morocco cost $128,108.47 in hotels; $88,725.60 in car rentals; $1,476.07 in gas/oil and $972.22 in cell phone charges for a total of $244,218.01.

Michelle Obama’s trip to Liberia cost $55,220 in hotels; $44,000 in car rentals; $2,500 in gas/oil and $1,000 in cell phone charges for a total of $107,890.

Michelle Obama’s trip to Spain cost $79,764.49 in hotels; $81,750.99 in car rentals and $4,547 in staff overtime pay for a total of $166,062.48.

Obama’s November 2016 appearance at a Clinton campaign rally in Orlando cost $150,530.99 in hotels; $103,526.96 in air/rail; $11,588.76 in car rentals and $5,829 in equipment for a total of $271,467.71.

Obama’s trip to Los Angeles in October 2016, which included two fundraisers and an appearance on “Jimmy Kimmel Live” cost $127,822 in hotels; $38,715 in air/rail; $24,326 in equipment and $4,992.30 in car rentals for a total of $195,855.

Michelle Obama’s October 2016 appearance at a Clinton campaign rally in North Carolina cost $13,206 in hotels; $11,965 in air/rail and $1,331 in car rentals for a total of $26,502.

The Obama family trip to Martha’s Vineyard in August 2016 cost $2,512,380.88 in hotels; $89,586.82 in rental cars; $53,234.69 in air/rail and $29,068.97 in miscellaneous expenditures for a total of $2,684,271.36.

The Secret Service spent $1,862,230.74 on the Obamas’ final Christmas to Honolulu on the taxpayers’ dime: $1,765,583.12 on hotels and $96,647.62 on car rentals.

Judicial Watch also noted that Secret Service protection for Hillary Clinton between April 11 and May 6, 2015 cost $23,323.14 in car rentals; $294.057.65 in air/rail and $32,856.80 in travel vouchers for a total of $350,237.59.

President Trump’s “Thank You Tour” between November 9 and December 12, 2016 cost $330,260.86 in hotels; $112,314 in air/rail; $14,340 in equipment and $18,563.44 in car rentals for a total of $475,478.30.

Trump visits to Mar-a-Lago between Feb. 3 and March 27, 2017 cost $1,474,726.03 in hotels (including $19,760 at Mar-a-Lago), $284,581.63 on car rentals; $1,791,768.33 on air/rail and $55,873.42 on supplies and services for a total of $3,606,949.41.

Judicial Watch previously released Air Force records showing Trump administration travel costs. The grand total for President Trump’s and Vice President Pence’s travel to date is $7,560,425.01.

Login To Your FaceBook to Make Comments

NBC News

Published  1 month ago

When asked during a radio interview if she thinks the president "has a grasp of economic policy," Yellen flatly responded, "No, I do not."

Federal Reserve Chair Janet YellenChip Somodevilla | Getty Images

Former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen has taken plenty of hits from President Donald Trump. Now she's delivering a few of her own.

In a radio interview Monday, the ex-central bank chief questioned Trump's comprehension of monetary policy as well as his understanding of basic economics.

Asked if she thinks the president "has a grasp of economic policy," Yellen flatly responded, "No, I do not."

"Well, I doubt that he would even be able to say that the Fed's goals are maximum employment and price stability, which is the goals that Congress have assigned to the Fed," she added in the interview with American Public Media's "Marketplace." "He's made comments about the Fed having an exchange-rate objective in order to support his trade plans, or possibly targeting the U.S. balance of trade. And, you know, I think comments like that shows a lack of understanding of the impact of the Fed on the economy, and appropriate policy goals."

The comments mark a departure for Yellen, who has mostly handled her issues with Trump by not saying much of anything.

When he campaigned for president in 2016, Trump said Yellen should be "ashamed" of her handling of monetary policy, accusing her of keeping interest rates artificially low to boost the fortunes of former president Barack Obama, who appointed Yellen as chair.

Though Trump softened his tone somewhat after he took office, he decided against reappointing her, making her the first Fed chair not to get a second four-year term since the Jimmy Carter administration.

Yellen had little to say, though, about not getting the reappointment, and went on to join her predecessor, Ben Bernanke, as a fellow at the Brookings Institution. She also is incoming president of the American Economic Association.

When it comes to economics, she said Monday that Trump misunderstands some fairly elementary concepts, citing his stance on reducing trade deficits with China and other global partners.

"And when I continually hear focus by the president and some of his advisers on remedying bilateral trade deficits with other trade partners, I think almost any economist would tell you that there's no real meaning to bilateral trade deficits, and it's not an appropriate objective of policy," she said.

Yellen is not alone in getting skewered by Trump.

Her successor, Jerome Powell, has come under intense criticism for raising interest rates, and there was even speculation that Trump might try to find someone to replace him.

Yellen said Trump's pressure on what is supposed to be an independent Fed isn't healthy.

"President Trump's comments about Chair Powell and about the Fed do concern me, because if that becomes concerted, I think it does have the impact, especially if conditions in the U.S. for any reason were to deteriorate, it could undermine confidence in the Fed," she said. "And I think that that would be a bad thing."


Published  1 month ago

Just one more Senate Republican is needed to block Trump’s emergency declaration, though even critics are reluctant to buck the president.

Freedom Outpost

Published  1 month ago

Kaitlin Bennett posed as Jenna Talia to ask students if they would sign her fake petition to throw conservatives in involuntary re-education camps, also known as concentration camps.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

Higher education is meant for learning and broadening one's horizons. That much should be obvious. Some college students at UCLA clearly believe it's more of a time to highlight one's liberal ways than anything else.


Published  1 month ago

Former president Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama hired two new executives for their company Higher Ground Productions, according to a report Tuesday.

Variety reports that President Obama praised the two new hires in a statement.

According to a statement, the Higher Grounds team is putting together the company’s slate of projects, after signing a multi-year agreement with Netflix last year, and we can expect to hear more information soon about the initial project line-up.

Swaminathan and Davis will be joined by Qadriyyah “Q” Shamsid-Deen who serves as a creative executive for the company.

“With Higher Ground Productions, we hope to bring people together around common values and uncommon stories—and Priya, Tonia and Q are precisely the people to bring that vision to life,” President Barack Obama said. “They’re masterful storytellers. They’re veterans in the industry. And they not only bring their unique perspectives and life experiences to every project, but they’re committed to finding new voices who have their own stories to tell. Michelle and I couldn’t be more excited about the team we’re assembling.”

The Obamas announced a foray into the entertainment industry in 2018 after they signed a contract with Netflix.

“One of the simple joys of our time in public service was getting to meet so many fascinating people from all walks of life, and to help them share their experiences with a wider audience,” Obama said at the time.

“That’s why Michelle and I are so excited to partner with Netflix–we hope to cultivate and curate the talented, inspiring, creative voices who are able to promote greater empathy and understanding between peoples, and help them share their stories with the entire world.”

The former president later explained that he wanted to use his Netflix shows to “train the next generation of leaders.”

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

It's looking like the 2020 Democratic party presidential field is about to grow again with the impending entry of Barack Obama's ruthless hatchetman Eric Holder into the fray. SPECIAL OFFER: Free "Build The Wall" Coin -


Published  1 month ago

Even as Donald Trump finally acknowledges that President Obama was born in the U.S., he shifts the blame for the claim that he has long championed, and which has been consistently debunked, to Hillary Clinton


Published  1 month ago

Michael Cohen is represented by Lanny Davis, a close associate of Bill and Hillary Clinton who wrote a book on removing Trump from office.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Alva Johnson Here we go — the Trump Russia canard is crumbling so the media has drummed up another fake scandal to harass President Trump. Alva Johnson, 43, a former staffer to Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign claims he kissed her without consent at a small gathering just before a Florida rally, an encounter she says […]

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

Former President Barack Obama has suffered a humiliating defeat in court regarding his presidential library in his hometown.

A federal judge has ruled in favor a group of concerned citizens suing the Obama library for carrying out what they have called a “power grab.”

URGENT POLL: Does Trump have your vote in 2020?

The Obama Presidential Center in Chicago, the former president’s hometown, is being challenged as nothing more than a giant land grab attempt.

The multi-million dollar project is scheduled to be completed in 2021 and aims to take a major chunk of downtown Chicago to give the Obama family a massive center.

As reported by The Chicago Tribune, the judge’s ruling is a major setback on plans to build the Obama Presidential Center on Chicago’s South Side lakefront.

In a written decision, U.S. Judge John Robert Blakey said the environmental group Protect Our Parks has enough legal ground to bring some of their objections before him. Blakey did toss out parts of the lawsuit filed against the city of Chicago and the park district.

The ruling to allow the suit to proceed is significant because it could delay construction for months, if not years, and potentially raise the question of whether the $500 million sprawling presidential campus can be built at all on lakefront property in Jackson Park.

The key issue of the lawsuit is over whether Chicago has legal standing to issue construction permits so that Obama’s team can build the presidential center on public park property.

If the presidential center is created, it would tear down a major chunk of a historic park in downtown Chicago that has been there for decades.

The matter has been closely watched because it is reminiscent of the court case that killed the $400 million museum proposed by “Star Wars” creator George Lucas. In that case, Lucas and his team didn’t wait for a judgment, and decided to move his Museum of Narrative Art to Los Angeles.

The lawsuit challenging the presidential center was filed in May by the leaders of Protect Our Parks and three other plaintiffs. In their suit, the environmentalists called the presidential center an “institutional bait-and-switch.” The Obama Foundation isn’t named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

Instead, the lawsuit targets the city of Chicago and the Chicago Park District, arguing that the presidential center is not the same as a presidential library and should not be granted access to public land.

The foundation has said it wants to break ground this year, but with the lingering issues, there is no concrete date set. The foundation has not revealed if it has a design prepared for another location.

The ruling is a big win for those who are sick and tired of the courts giving Obama a huge pass and allowing him to get away with everything he wants to do.

[RELATED: Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal Funding Gets Exposed, Secret Wealthy Donor REVEALED]

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Democrats on Tuesday pushed unprecedented legislation through the House to block President Trump's national emergency declaration to steer billions of extra dollars to his southern border wall, raising the prospect that Trump might issue his first-ever veto to defeat the effort.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

Team Obama is hatching a new scheme to block President Donald Trump’s declaration of a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border.

A group of Democrats and a small handful of Republicans in the national security field issued a report on Monday calling for Congress to pass a resolution condemning the president over the declaration.

A vast majority of the members who signed the letter served under former President Barack Obama.

Get Your FREE ‘Build The Wall’ Coin While Supplies Last

In a report from The Washington Post, the letter calls on support for a Democrat lawsuit to block Trump’s emergency declaration.

A bipartisan group of 58 former senior national security officials will issue a statement Monday saying that “there is no factual basis” for President Trump’s proclamation of a national emergency to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

The joint statement, whose signatories include former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and former defense secretary Chuck Hagel, will come a day before the House is expected to vote on a resolution to block Trump’s Feb. 15 declaration.

The former officials’ statement, which will be entered into the Congressional Record, is intended to support lawsuits and other actions challenging the national emergency proclamation and to force the administration to set forth the legal and factual basis for it.

“Under no plausible assessment of the evidence is there a national emergency today that entitles the president to tap into funds appropriated for other purposes to build a wall at the southern border,” the group said.

Albright served under President Bill Clinton, and Hagel, a former Republican senator from Nebraska, served under President Barack Obama.

Also signing were Eliot A. Cohen, State Department counselor under President George W. Bush; Thomas R. Pickering, President George H.W. Bush’s ambassador to the United Nations; John F. Kerry, Obama’s second secretary of state; Susan E. Rice, Obama’s national security adviser; as well as former intelligence and security officials who served under Republican and Democratic administrations.

Trump’s national emergency declaration has sent Democrats Pelosi into panic mode because they don’t want to see the president fully secure the U.S.-Mexico border with a wall.

Trump has called the migrant caravans traveling from Central America toward the United States a “national emergency” and raged against Democrats for refusing to take action to secure the border.

To say that Trump is livid would be an understatement, and many Americans support his recent threats to send American troops and completely close the U.S. southern border if Mexico allows the caravan of migrants to reach the boundary between the two nations.

The president has also threatened to pull U.S. aid to Central America if the governments do not do more to prevent the group of migrants from traveling north to the U.S. border with Mexico.

“They’re not coming into this country,” Trump said recently, which will be a key issue in the 2020 presidential election.

[RELATED: Trump Unveils New Rule That Just Saved American Taxpayers $150 Billion]

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Tuesday is one of the first big hearings for the new Democratic-led House Oversight and Reform Committee. The sole witness, former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, is headed to jail for pleading guilty to lying to Congress.

Aside from the obvious question of why Democrats are wasting time on someone with a history of lying to them, there is a bigger question. How can they justify a hearing that is clearly outside the scope of the committee's broad jurisdiction?

No doubt the committee is authorized to investigate a full range of issues, but this hearing seems to be pure theater.


A Congressional oversight hearing must serve a legislative purpose. What legislation is Congress working on that Michael Cohen can shed light on?

Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., justifies the hearing this way: “Congress has an obligation under the Constitution to conduct independent and robust oversight of the executive branch, and this hearing is one step in that process.”

Nobody would disagree with the committee’s jurisdiction to oversee the executive branch. The problem with this hearing, however, is that the witness was never part of the executive branch. Any testimony he provides is only relevant to events that took place prior to the election of the president.

Chairman Cummings’ press release says the hearing is to “address the president’s payoffs, financial disclosures, compliance with campaign finance laws, business practices, and other matters.” The Oversight Committee has agreed not to inquire about the Russia investigation, but only because that topic is reserved for the Intelligence Committee in a hearing the following day.

None of the stated reasons for the hearing have any relevance to Donald Trump as president, legislation, the executive branch, or any other government function. Michael Cohen was never a government employee.

The Oversight Committee has the broadest investigative scope of any Congressional committee. It can investigate “anything, anywhere.” But the Supreme Court has imposed clear boundaries on the committee and Congress.

In Watkins v. United States the Supreme Court ruled, “There is no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification in terms of the functions of the Congress...[n]or is the Congress a law enforcement or trial agency. ... [An] inquiry...must be related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress.”

The hearing is an obvious attempt to embarrass the president and preemptively undercut any goodwill his peacemaking with North Korea might generate.

The title of the hearing is simply, “Hearing with Michael Cohen.” This hardly meets the standards written by Chief Justice Earl Warren in Watkins v. United States.

Furthermore, Michael Cohen still has a duty and obligation to maintain the attorney-client privilege with Mr. Trump. The privilege can only be waived by the client and is not transferable between the executive branch and the legislative branch. What exactly is Michael Cohen going to answer questions about? Is he going to explain to Congress how he lied to Congress?

It should be further noted that this hearing was scheduled after the White House had previously announced President Trump would be meeting in Vietnam with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un that same day.

The fiasco that is sure to ensue as Congress hears from this witness seems to serve only one purpose: a public flogging of the president as he meets with Kim Jong Un about one of the most promising foreign policy initiatives of his presidency – ending a serious nuclear threat to the United States.

The hearing is an obvious attempt to embarrass the president and preemptively undercut any goodwill his peacemaking with North Korea might generate. One has to wonder why, of all the days available on the calendar, the Democrats selected this particular day, undermining the long-standing tradition of avoiding such proceedings while a president is overseas.

With all the problems and challenges facing our government, the choice of Michael Cohen as the first major hearing of the new majority on the House Oversight Committee does not instill confidence.

Questioning a disgraced witness on his way to jail – one who has already admitted lying to Congress – is not only inappropriate, it is a nakedly political overreach by a committee preoccupied with relitigating the 2016 election rather than improving public policy.

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."


Published  1 month ago

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released a little-noticed report last week that confirms what Obamacare critics said from Day One: the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates for the cost and impact of the Affordable Care Act were off by enormous margins.

American voters should carefully consider this object lesson when evaluating all socialist promises. If socialists couldn’t predict the effect of Obamacare accurately, how can anyone trust their predictions for vastly larger and more complex government takeovers like “Medicare for All” or the “Green New Deal?”

The whoopsy-daisy analysis from CMS released last Wednesday would have been an atomic bomb dropped on Obamacare if it came out before the Affordable Care Act was signed, and it would have seriously derailed Democrat scaremongering during the Obamacare repeal battle of 2017, but as Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner noted, the truth was “literally a footnote” when it dribbled out in 2019.

The assumption all along was that repealing the individual mandate of Obamacare – that bizarre trans-Constitutional fine for failing to purchase health insurance that magically transforms from being a “tax” to a “penalty” according to the legal needs of Obamacare’s architects – would prod about 14 million Americans to buy health insurance. Therefore, repealing the mandate would “cancel” the insurance plans of 14 million people. Democrat rhetoric implied most of them would immediately drop dead.

According to the new CMS report, however, only 2.5 million people would “lose” their insurance in 2019 due to repeal of the mandate, and the number will become significantly smaller with every passing year. The report footnote notes that many of the enrollees affected by the mandate repeal “are expected to be somewhat younger and healthier than those who retain coverage,” which implies they won’t “lose” coverage so much as decide not to buy it once the government stops holding a gun to their heads.

Klein pointed out the power of the individual mandate was always wildly overestimated by CBO, which helped Democrats fight back the 2017 repeal effort by improbably estimating that 5 million people would fail to enroll in “free” Medicaid if they were not forced to sign up by the mandate.

“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,” wrote Klein, who noted Republicans got a little payback by using those absurdly high CBO estimates to overestimate the savings from reduced government subsidies when they passed their tax cut bill.

The individual mandate was a core element of Obamacare. The people who cooked up the scheme were convinced a huge number of people would fail to purchase insurance unless they were threatened by Uncle Sam. As Klein noted, Barack Obama himself was reluctant to include the mandate because he was desperate to pretend Obamacare was a wonderful system people would join voluntarily. He wanted to minimize the amount of heavy-handed coercion in the original bill to make it easier to pass, but he became convinced the mandate was necessary to generate enough revenue for the system to work.

In other words, the architects of the ACA concluded that in order to socialize the cost of health insurance, it would be necessary to force a very large number of people to buy insurance and minimize the “free rider” problem. That problem was always dramatically overestimated. Many people grudgingly supported Obamacare because they were convinced uninsured people were imposing backbreaking costs upon the health care system by flooding emergency rooms and obliging hospitals to treat them.

A system that forces everyone to buy insurance seemed like a reasonable solution to the problem… but little attention has been paid to studies that found the problem was much less severe than was widely believed, and it has arguably grown worse under Obamacare. The burden imposed on the old system by the uninsured was nothing to sneeze at, but there were far better ways to handle it than Obamacare, which made itself look reasonable by radically overstating the problem and underselling the cost of the “solution.”

This sort of thing happens all the time. CBO estimates are treated as a gold standard by policymakers, and if they make tax cuts look more expensive or Big Government programs less expensive, they are holy writ to the left-leaning media. In truth, CBO is dramatically wrong in many of its most politically influential estimates, often because it overestimates bureaucratic fidelity to legislation and underestimates how the American people will respond when the heavy hand of government descends upon them.

The core premises of socialism are invalid if the federal government cannot accurately estimate the cost or value of its programs. The very concept of “socializing” costs assumes central planners can measure those costs and predict the effect of controlling them with state power instead of market economics.

How can anyone trust the government to design and implement trillion-dollar schemes when its estimates are routinely off by billions, and even trillions, of dollars? The Obamacare individual mandate is merely the latest in a long series of examples that demolishes the assumption central planners are smarter than the markets. They don’t know what any of their Big Government machinery will actually do when switched on… and they trick us into forgetting there is no way to switch them off, no matter how badly they malfunction.

AMN - Al-Masdar News | المصدر نيوز

Published  1 month ago

Iraq’s former prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, told a local TV station on Sunday that the administration of ex-US President Barack Obama had played a crucial role in the creation of Daesh by allowing the terrorist group to occupy Iraqi territories, PressTV reported.

Maliki, who served as prime minister between 2006 and 2014, reportedly said that the United States had provided Iraq with intelligence and aerial images, locating with great precision positions of Daesh terrorists, who had lined up behind Iraqi borders in Syria.

According to him, large groups of fighters were waiting to cross into neighbouring Iraq after what they believed was going to be the impending downfall of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Maliki elaborated that back then Iraq had shortage of fighter jets capable of attacking Daesh positions, while combat helicopters did not have the range to bomb them.

Therefore, Baghdad turned to Washington for assistance and asked the Obama administration to deliver “one or two” fighter jets to the Iraqi Air Force under the 2008 security agreement between the two countries.

The United States, however, turned down the request and suggested that the Maliki government ask Jordan for help, the report claims. Given that there was not a military cooperation deal between Baghdad and Amman at the time, it was not an option for the Iraqi authorities.

Nonetheless, the Iraqi Army’s 7th Division was sent to root out the terrorists without air support and managed to make some progress before finding itself in the midst of a deadly siege that killed its commander and nearly wiped out the whole division.

Maliki claimed that US support for Daesh did not end there: Washington halted all supplies of helicopter parts and other military equipment to Iraq and stopped its obligations under a contract to sell F-16 attack aircraft to Baghdad, which had paid for them in advance.

The former prime minister then elaborated that he still couldn’t comprehend why the Obama administration made those decisions, thereby allowing Daesh get away by refusing to bomb their positions.

On US Withdrawal from Iraq

Maliki agreed with remarks made by incumbent President Donald Trump during the 2016 US presidential campaign that Obama was the “founder” of Daesh, since he fully evacuated Iraq at the wrong time to let the terrorist group overrun it.

“We should never have gotten out the way we got out. We unleashed terrible fury all over the Middle East. Instead of allowing some small forces behind to maybe, just maybe, keep it under control, we pulled it out”, Trump said in August 2016.

Maliki then said that Washington never asked for permission to return to Iraq after its full troop pull-out in 2011, and questioned Trump’s decision to keep 5,500 US troops in the country to “watch” Iran, saying, that his government had never requested the Pentagon to send in its forces.

Concluding his interview, the ex-PM advised the current government of Adil Abdul-Mahdi to be cautious and not to get on the wrong side with the United States, contending that the Trump White House was causing Iraq trouble.

Even though it was President George W. Bush who came up with the plan to bring American troops back home from Iraq, it was his successor, Obama, who completed the full withdrawal in 2011.

By April 2013, the Islamic State of Iraq had merged with al-Nusra Front*to form the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. After seizing vast territories in Iraq and Syria in 2014, Daesh proclaimed itself a cross-border caliphate with capitals in Iraq’s second-biggest city, Mosul, and Syria’s Raqqa.

The same year, President Obama ordered American troops to be dispatched to Iraq to counter the growing threat posed by Daesh, which was conducted in cooperation with Iraqi officials.

By the end of Obama’s second term in December 2016, Daesh was said to have conducted or inspired more than 140 terrorist attacks in 29 countries beyond Iraq and Syria, “where its carnage has taken a much deadlier toll”.

“Maintaining American troops at the time could not have reversed the forces that contributed to ISIL’s rise: a government in Baghdad that pursued a sectarian agenda, a brutal dictator in Syria that lost control of large parts of the country, social media that reached a global pool of recruits, and a hollowing out of Iraq’s security forces”, Obama said in December 2016 during remarks at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida.

Source: Sputnik

Fox Business

Published  1 month ago

Breitbart editor-at-large Peter Schweizer discusses how Barack Obama used his executive powers to help his friends’ private investment firms.

Former President Barack Obama used his executive powers to impose industry regulations that lowered the value of certain companies and led to financial gains for a firm owned by two close family friends, according to Breitbart editor-at-large Peter Schweizer.

The admissions were revealed in Schweizer’s new book, “Secret Empire,” which found a pattern of investments in coal, offshore mining and for-profit universities that closely tracked the Obama administration’s regulatory policy changes. Billionaire activists Tom Steyer and George Soros were among the beneficiaries.

“It’s the new wave of corruption in Washington, D.C.,” Schweizer said during an interview with FOX Business’ Lou Dobbs Tuesday.

Schweizer said the Vistria Group, run by Obama’s best friend, Marty Nesbitt, drove the for-profit school University of Phoenix into the ground and then swooped in to buy it.

“They come in, they buy it for pennies on the dollar and low and behold, the Obama administration says, ‘You know what, we think we’re going to let GI money float again back to the University of Phoenix,’” he said.

The smash and grab approach was just one pattern that emerged and continued to be repeated in other sectors of the economy.

Schweizer said the level of corruption extended to former Vice President Joe Biden and former Secretary of State John Kerry after both leaders negotiated with China on trade issues.

“At this time the sons, or in one case, John Kerry’s close aide, are involved in businesses that involve multi-billion dollar deals with the Chinese government,” he said on “Lou Dobbs Tonight.”

Schweizer claims that 10 days after Biden flew to Beijing, his son, Hunter Biden, scored a $1.5 billion private equity deal from the Chinse government.

“This is American princelings and there are multiple examples in the book,” he said.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Democrat Kamala Harris held a rally Sunday in Bettendorf, Iowa. Kamala stood in front of the Iowa State Flag which states, “Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.” Then she called for cracking down on gun rights. That line got the biggest applause of the day. During question and answers Kamala told […]

Conservative News Today

Published  1 month ago

The Democrat Party’s recent push for reparations should not be believed, conservative commentator and radio show host David Webb argued Saturday on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends.” “This is pure pandering. Think about some of the states, like the Carolinas and others where the black vote matters. It did for Obama, especially in the primaries. […]

The Lutchman Review

Published  1 month ago

Barack Obama just got a nice dose of karma after suffering a major defeat in Chicago.

As we all know he is opening up a presidential library that is in the process of being built. He worked out one heck of a deal with the city which is being led by his former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel.

Obama got greedy and insisted on his preferred spot for the library.

A group of concerned citizens sued the Obama library in federal court and the judge just made a key ruling in their favor and at Obama’s expense.

This same group has won numerous similar past court cases and were beating Goerge Lucas so badly (Lucas was going to build a star wars museum using a similar public land grab as Obama is trying) Lucas pulled the project.

Remember, Obama’s buddy Rahm Emanuel is out as mayor so this ruling could spell doom for Obama’s library.

From The Chicago Tribune: In a major setback to plans to build the Obama Presidential Center on Chicago’s South Side lakefront, a federal judge ruled Tuesday that a lawsuit challenging its location can proceed.

In a written decision, U.S. Judge John Robert Blakey said the environmental group Protect Our Parks has enough legal ground to bring some of their objections before him. Blakey did toss out parts of the lawsuit filed against the city of Chicago and the park district.

The ruling to allow the suit to proceed is significant because it could delay construction for months, if not years, and potentially raise the question of whether the $500 million sprawling presidential campus can be built at all on lakefront property in Jackson Park.

A major point of contention has been whether Chicago has legal standing to build Obama center on public park property to begin with.

The Cultural Landscape Foundation, which backed the Protect Our Parks suit, said Obama Center planners “created this controversy by insisting on the confiscation of public parkland.

“The Obama Foundation could make this issue go away by using vacant and/or city-owned land on the South Side for the Obama Presidential Center (which is planned to be a private facility rather than a presidential library administered by the National Archives), or, better still, land owned by the University of Chicago, which submitted the winning bid to host the Center,” continued the statement from foundation president Charles A. Birnbaum.

The matter has been closely watched because it is reminiscent of the court case that killed the $400 million museum proposed by “Star Wars” creator George Lucas. In that case, Lucas and his team didn’t wait for a judgment, and decided to move his Museum of Narrative Art to Los Angeles.

The lawsuit challenging the presidential center was filed in May by the leaders of Protect Our Parks and three other plaintiffs. In their suit, the environmentalists called the presidential center an “institutional bait-and-switch.” The Obama Foundation isn’t named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

Instead, the lawsuit targets the city of Chicago and the Chicago Park District, arguing that the presidential center is not the same as a presidential library and should not be granted access to public land.

The foundation has said it wants to break ground this year, but with the lingering issues, there is no concrete date set. The foundation has not revealed if it has a design prepared for another location.

The Federalist

Published  1 month ago

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


Published  1 month ago

Ocasio-Cortez Tried To Hit Back At Her Critics With This 'I Am The Boss' Moment Over Green New Deal - Matt Vespa: So, apparently, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is a little stung .02/24/2019 10:10:33AM EST.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

The last House race of 2018 will finally be resolved.

The Independent

Published  1 month ago

Chinese authorities have granted preliminary approval for dozens of Trump-branded businesses, expanding his commercial empire and raising further conflicts of interest, say lawyers. The 38 trademarks

America First with Sebastian Gorka

Published  1 month 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!

Conservative News Today

Published  1 month ago

Former Obama official Joshua Geltzer is openly calling for a civil war in the unlikely event that President Trump loses the 2020 election but “refuses to accept defeat.” A Projection of What Democrats Did In 2016 In a bizarre projection of how the Democrats reacted when they refused to accept defeat in 2016 even after […]

Washington Examiner

Published  1 month ago

Newsrooms were on fire this week with terrible news: The number of hate groups in the United States has soared to record highs under President Trump.

There are most certainly hate groups in the U.S., and even one is one too many, but I’d encourage everyone to approach the numbers reported this week with calm and caution. There’s nothing partisan operatives would love more than for you to panic and to believe them when they suggest that the problem can be solved by expelling "the other team" from power. That the figures cited by newsrooms come via the decidedly unreliable and hyper-partisan Southern Poverty Law Center also doesn’t help anything.

The New York Times reported, “Over 1,000 Hate Groups Are Now Active in United States, Civil Rights Group Says.”

“Hate groups ‘surge’ across the country since Charlottesville riot, report says,” reads the headline from the Miami Herald.

“Trump 'Fear-Mongering' Fuels Rise of U.S. Hate Groups to Record: Watchdog,” U.S. News and World Report said in a headline that sort of gives the game away.

First, let's keep things in perspective. Remember, for example, that the rise in the number of hate crimes is attributable in some way to the fact that there are more reporting agencies ( hundreds, in fact!) than ever before. It’s easy to say, “Oh, it’s all because of President Trump,” pointing to incidents like his disastrous Charlottesville statement. But the problem of bigotry is far older and deeper than the current administration. That the Trump White House isn’t helping anything is one complaint, but don’t fall for the suggestion that it’s the main driver.

Second, while we’re on the topic of taking things seriously, it’s important to remember that the SPLC is not an organization whose declarations should be taken seriously or treated as fact. As I've written before, much of its “hate group” reporting is trash.

In 2015, for example, the group put Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson on its “extremist watch list,” citing the one-time presidential candidate’s “anti-LGBT views.” Later, in 2016, the SPLC labeled women’s rights activist, female genital mutilation victim, atheist, and ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali an “anti-Muslim extremist” because she opposes Islamic extremism. The British activist and extremist-turned-counterextremist Maajid Nawaz was placed in the same category. The SPLC lumps pro-family and pro-Israel organizations in with actual neo-Nazis.

The SPLC is not in the business of exploring and addressing racial and ethnic bigotry. It's in the business of crushing anything to the right of the Democratic Party.

As for the report the SPLC just released this week, it concedes there is an uptick in the number of black nationalist groups since 2017, but it downplays this fact by claiming those groups “have little or no impact on mainstream politics and no defenders in high office.” I must’ve just imagined noted-anti-Semite and frequent Democratic guest Louis Farrakhan.

The report also has a section titled, “HATE GOES TO WASHINGTON: Meet the Members of Congress Who Traffic in Hate and Extremism.” It includes Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and Mark Harris, R-N.C., for supporting the traditional definition of marriage that Barack Obama supported until a few years ago. In fact, the section on members of Congress includes only Republicans, which is interesting considering that Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., an actual out-and-proud anti-Semite, also went to Washington this year.

The report takes aim at Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and U.S. national security adviser John Bolton. The SPLC report lists the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Family Research Council, and the Family Research Institute as anti-gay “hate groups.” No report that lumps these groups in the same category as the Westboro Baptist Church should ever be relied on by journalists.

Hate groups are real. Hate crimes are real. The SPLC is not. It exploits hate groups to raise money and further political interests unrelated to the problem of hate. Don't fall for the SPLC's lies.

US Liberty Wire

Published  1 month ago

Barack Obama got a brutal dose of karma the other day via a court. He is building his presidential library and worked out a sweetheart deal with the city, led by his former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, to grab some prime public land.

The land is for public use so some residents objected, asking why not use other, less desirable public land that could use an economic boon the library could bring?

Obama chose arrogance and insisted on his preferred site…they love him in Chicago so only a supremely arrogant maneuver like this one could cause such a backlash.

A group of concerned citizens sued the Obama library in federal court and the judge just made a key ruling in their favor and at Obama’s expense.

This same group has won numerous similar past court cases and were beating Goerge Lucas so badly (Lucas was going to build a star wars museum using a similar public land grab as Obama is trying) Lucas pulled the project.

Remember, Obama’s buddy Rahm Emanuel is out as mayor so this ruling could spell doom for Obama’s library.

From The Chicago Tribune: In a major setback to plans to build the Obama Presidential Center on Chicago’s South Side lakefront, a federal judge ruled Tuesday that a lawsuit challenging its location can proceed.

In a written decision, U.S. Judge John Robert Blakey said the environmental group Protect Our Parks has enough legal ground to bring some of their objections before him. Blakey did toss out parts of the lawsuit filed against the city of Chicago and the park district.

The ruling to allow the suit to proceed is significant because it could delay construction for months, if not years, and potentially raise the question of whether the $500 million sprawling presidential campus can be built at all on lakefront property in Jackson Park.

A major point of contention has been whether Chicago has legal standing to build Obama center on public park property to begin with.

The Cultural Landscape Foundation, which backed the Protect Our Parks suit, said Obama Center planners “created this controversy by insisting on the confiscation of public parkland.

“The Obama Foundation could make this issue go away by using vacant and/or city-owned land on the South Side for the Obama Presidential Center (which is planned to be a private facility rather than a presidential library administered by the National Archives), or, better still, land owned by the University of Chicago, which submitted the winning bid to host the Center,” continued the statement from foundation president Charles A. Birnbaum.

The matter has been closely watched because it is reminiscent of the court case that killed the $400 million museum proposed by “Star Wars” creator George Lucas. In that case, Lucas and his team didn’t wait for a judgment, and decided to move his Museum of Narrative Art to Los Angeles.

The lawsuit challenging the presidential center was filed in May by the leaders of Protect Our Parks and three other plaintiffs. In their suit, the environmentalists called the presidential center an “institutional bait-and-switch.” The Obama Foundation isn’t named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

Instead, the lawsuit targets the city of Chicago and the Chicago Park District, arguing that the presidential center is not the same as a presidential library and should not be granted access to public land.

The foundation has said it wants to break ground this year, but with the lingering issues, there is no concrete date set. The foundation has not revealed if it has a design prepared for another location.

Frontpage Mag

Published  1 month 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.

National Review

Published  1 month ago

D.C. has been delusional about the Kremlin since the 1990s.


Published  1 month ago

Nobel Peace Prize

02/22 11:06 am

Barack Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize and he didn’t even do anything to earn it, As Trump said, “they gave it to him, and he didn’t even know why.”

President Trump on the other hand, has earned it! When he took office, we were headed to war with North Korea. Now? No missiles, no rockets, no nuclear testing. We are COMMUNICATING with Kim Jong-Un, and the people of North Korea for the first time since the Korean War.

The Korea thing is YUGE, admittedly, in its own right, but Trump has also vowed to bring home our boys in Syria. This is a huge step in ending one of the longest wars in American history.

Under Trump, America has never been safer than it is right now. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is the first world leader to nominate this very deserving president.


Published  1 month 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  1 month 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 ( : “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) ( until sometime around December 9, 2004 (, 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 ( : “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 ( : “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 ( : “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.


Published  1 month 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.


Published  1 month 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  1 month 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!

Published  2 months ago

Ronald S. Sullivan Jr. is a law professor at Harvard University and faculty dean of Winthrop House, one of the college's 12 residential houses. He was the first black man to serve in such a position, and also directs Harvard's Criminal Justice Institute and Trial Advocacy Workshop. In 2008, he advised the campaign of then-Sen. Barack Obama on criminal justice issues. He represented Michael Brown's family in their suit against the city of Ferguson, Missouri, and his work has led to the release of over 6,000 wrongfully incarcerated people.

You might expect Sullivan to be in good standing with the progressive activist community at Harvard. You would be wrong.

Earlier this month, more than 50 students attended a protest demanding that Sullivan resign his position as dean over alleged #MeToo failings. The Association of Black Harvard Women also wants him gone. "What has been made especially clear is that you have failed us," they wrote in a letter. "You have failed the Black women in this community, not only as one of the few Black Faculty Deans on campus but also as a community leader—someone who we respected and looked to for guidance."

Notably, Sullivan himself has not been accused of sexual misconduct or any #MeToo-related wrongdoing. But he has agreed to represent disgraced movie executive Harvey Weinstein, who was accused of sexual harassment and assault by multiple women—and that in and of itself is apparently an unforgivable offense, in the eyes of victims' rights advocates.

Harvard's administration is taking students' concerns seriously, and has agreed to conduct a review of Sullivan.

"In this situation, we would like to have a more complete understanding of the current environment at Winthrop House," wrote Dean of the College Rakesh Khurana in an email, according to The Harvard Crimson.

One of The Crimson's own editors, Danukshi Mudannayake, is spearheading the effort to remove Sullivan. She started a petition that claims his representation of Weinstein as "not only upsetting, but deeply trauma-inducing." According to Mudannayake, Sullivan has made clear that he does not "value the safety of students he lives with in Winthrop House."

These concerns are, to put it mildly, absurd. Weinstein is not his first loathsome client; Sullivan also represented former NFL player Aaron Hernandez, who was convicted of murder. Every person accused of a crime deserves competent legal representation—even Weinstein and Hernandez. It's abundantly clear that Sullivan takes the principled liberal view that due process matters, and that the accused deserve fairness in the criminal justice system. His entire career is built on these ideas. Agreeing to represent an accused sexual abuser is not an endorsement of sexual abuse.

It's extremely disappointing to see the administration humor the students' misguided notion that Sullivan's choice of clients somehow makes Winthrop an unsafe place, but Khurana's statements have given some credence to this view.

"I take seriously the concerns that have been raised from members of the College community regarding the impact of Professor Sullivan's choice to serve as counsel for Harvey Weinstein on the House community that he is responsible for leading as a faculty dean," wrote Khurana. "I have also met with Professor Sullivan to discuss his responsibilities to the House and have communicated that the College believes that more work must be done to uphold our commitment to the well-being of our students."

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education's Samantha Harris lamented that "the Harvard administration is taking these demands—which boil down to calls to penalize and marginalize a criminal defense attorney for defending criminals—seriously."

This episode is yet more evidence that modern progressive activism is regrettably at odds with previously cherished progressive values. For many on the left, free speech and due process are not principles to defend, but obstacles to overcome.


Published  2 months ago

Jacob Wohl, 21, who left a career in finance amid allegations of fraud, specializes in deceitful schemes and spreading false claims in support of President Trump.

Conservative Tribune

Published  2 months ago

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


Published  2 months ago

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

The Federalist

Published  2 months ago

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

MintPress News

Published  2 months ago

A Venezuela aid concert funded by billionaire Richard Branson is nothing short of a ruse, according to Pink Floyd's Roger Waters.

US Liberty Wire

Published  2 months ago

Barack Obama just got some very bad news. His vanity project of a presidential library may not get off the ground after all.

Obama came under fire for the location of the proposed library and that is saying something – they love him in Chicago so only a supremely arrogant maneuver could have caused the backlash that has plagued the library almost from the jump.

A group of concerned citizens sued the Obama library in federal court and the judge just made a critical decision in their favor and at Obama’s expense.

Remember, Obama’s buddy Rahm Emanuel is leaving his job as mayor so this ruling could have a catastrophic effect on Obama’s library.

From The Chicago Tribune: In a major setback to plans to build the Obama Presidential Center on Chicago’s South Side lakefront, a federal judge ruled Tuesday that a lawsuit challenging its location can proceed.

In a written decision, U.S. Judge John Robert Blakey said the environmental group Protect Our Parks has enough legal ground to bring some of their objections before him. Blakey did toss out parts of the lawsuit filed against the city of Chicago and the park district.

The ruling to allow the suit to proceed is significant because it could delay construction for months, if not years, and potentially raise the question of whether the $500 million sprawling presidential campus can be built at all on lakefront property in Jackson Park.

A major point of contention has been whether Chicago has legal standing to build Obama center on public park property to begin with.

The Cultural Landscape Foundation, which backed the Protect Our Parks suit, said Obama Center planners “created this controversy by insisting on the confiscation of public parkland.

“The Obama Foundation could make this issue go away by using vacant and/or city-owned land on the South Side for the Obama Presidential Center (which is planned to be a private facility rather than a presidential library administered by the National Archives), or, better still, land owned by the University of Chicago, which submitted the winning bid to host the Center,” continued the statement from foundation president Charles A. Birnbaum.

The matter has been closely watched because it is reminiscent of the court case that killed the $400 million museum proposed by “Star Wars” creator George Lucas. In that case, Lucas and his team didn’t wait for a judgment, and decided to move his Museum of Narrative Art to Los Angeles.

The lawsuit challenging the presidential center was filed in May by the leaders of Protect Our Parks and three other plaintiffs. In their suit, the environmentalists called the presidential center an “institutional bait-and-switch.” The Obama Foundation isn’t named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

Instead, the lawsuit targets the city of Chicago and the Chicago Park District, arguing that the presidential center is not the same as a presidential library and should not be granted access to public land.

The foundation has said it wants to break ground this year, but with the lingering issues, there is no concrete date set. The foundation has not revealed if it has a design prepared for another location.

Fox News

Published  2 months ago

2020 presidential hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., expanded on an already-radical proposal on Friday, telling reporters that Native Americans should be “part of the conversation” on reparations for African-Americans -- a move that threatens to bring back her own history with Native Americans.

Taking questions from reporters ahead of a Democratic Party fundraiser in Manchester, N.H., Warren, she said that America has an “ugly history of racism” and outlined her ways to tackle it -- including the possibility of reparations.


“We need to confront it head-on and we need to talk about the right away to address it and make change,” she said.

Warren had said in a statement to The New York Times this week 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.”

“We need systemic, structural changes to address that,” she said.

On Friday, asked whether she would include Native Americans in her support for reparations, Warren answered: “I think it’s a part of the conversation. It’s an important part of the conversation.”

Her fellow 2020 hopefuls Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and former San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro have come out in favor of reparations for African Americans but have so far not gone as far as Warren in opening the door to reparations for Native Americans.

"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."

Since reparations are in response to African-Americans impacted by slavery, presumably reparations for Native Americans would be to make amends for crimes and abuses committed on the Native population by the U.S. government over America’s history.

It is far from clear how much such a policy would cost, and whether it would command support from the public at large. The Times estimated that a reparations policy could cost several trillion dollars. The policy is so radical that President Barack Obama, and 2016 Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders declined to endorse it.

Warren’s apparent willingness to entertain an even broader tent when it comes to reparations not only marks the Democratic 2020 field’s race to the left, and will likely raise a question over what other groups, if any, could be included in monetary compensation for America's past sins.

It is also a sign of a risky move for Warren in particularly as it threatens to again bring up her own history of controversy when it comes to Native Americans, for which she has herself tried to make reparations.

“It’s no surprise Elizabeth Warren would attempt to pander to the Native American community after getting caught falsely claiming Native American status in order to advance her career," Republican National Committee spokesman Steve Guest told Fox News on Saturday.

Warren claimed for years to have Native American ancestry, and this year apologized to the Cherokee Nation for taking a DNA test that she said initially proved she had Native American heritage.

This month it emerged she had listed her race as “American Indian” in a Texas State Bar registration form in the 1980s. The years-long controversy over her heritage has dogged her 2020 bid and led to her being nicknamed “Pocahontas” in right-wing circles -- including from President Trump.

Last month Trump mocked her Instagram livestream by suggesting she should have streamed it from “Bighorn or Wounded Knee.”

“If Elizabeth Warren, often referred to by me as Pocahontas, did this commercial from Bighorn or Wounded Knee instead of her kitchen, with her husband dressed in full Indian garb, it would have been a smash!” he tweeted.

Fox News' Paul Steinhauser and Louis Casiano contributed to this report.

IJR - Independent Journal Review

Published  2 months ago

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) shot down President Donald Trump’s move on Friday to declare a national emergency at the southern border as “unlawful,” saying it’s unconstitutional. However, she’s fundraising off it.

Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) joined together to battle against Trump’s executive action.

“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 wrote in a joint statement.

They continued:

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.

The President’s actions clearly violate the Congress’s exclusive power of the purse, which our Founders enshrined in the Constitution. The Congress will defend our constitutional authorities in the Congress, in the Courts, and in the public, using every remedy available.

“The president is not above the law,” they concluded. “The Congress cannot let the president shred the Constitution.”

Despite putting the president on blast, Pelosi is now using it to her advantage, as she sent out a fundraising email to supporters on Friday to collect money off it.

In the speaker’s email, she criticized Trump’s statement when he said, “I didn’t need to do this. But I’d rather do it much faster.”

“If you don’t ‘need’ to do it, it’s NOT an emergency,” Pelosi wrote, bashing the national emergency as “fake” and calling it a “blatant abuse of power.”

The fundraising email to “support our network against Trump” allows recipients to donate as little as $10 and as much as $250. They can also choose their own amount.

.@SpeakerPelosi fundraising off Trump national emergency declaration: "If you don't 'need' to do it, it's NOT an emergency."

— Scott Wong (@scottwongDC) February 15, 2019

As IJR Red reported, Pelosi’s criticism of Trump’s call to secure the border and curb illegal immigration is a stark contrast from when she praised former President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration.

Next post

Published  2 months ago

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

Fox News

Published  2 months 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.


“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.


Published  2 months 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  2 months ago