Stories about
Nancy Pelosi


Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi (/pəˈloʊsi/; born March 26, 1940) is an American politician serving as the Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives since 2011, representing most of San Francisco, California. She previously served as the 52nd House Speaker from 2007 to 2011, the only woman to do so. As Speaker, she attained the highest political office of any female politician in American history.

America First with Sebastian Gorka

Published  5 hours ago

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

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

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

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

That is when the coup plot was hatched.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New York Post

Published  1 day ago

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez scolded media outlets for reporting that she lives in a luxury high-rise building in Washington, DC, around the time she and other high-profile Democrats appeared on a hit list compiled by a Maryland man arrested for allegedly planning a mass terror attack.

“Journalists are sharing stories about where I live the same day it’s shared that myself + others were targeted by a mass shooter,” the New York Democrat tweeted late Wednesday. “All this paired w/ amplifying unvetted conspiracy theories. It’s reckless, irresponsible & puts people directly in danger. This isn’t a game.”

Court documents show Coast Guard Lt. Christopher Hasson, who was arrested last Friday, drafted a list of politicians and media members whom he was targeting.

The list included Ocasio-Cortez, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, among others.

Hasson, who had an arsenal of 15 firearms in his Silver Spring, Md., home, searched on the internet for “Where in DC do Congress live?” and “Best place in D.C. to see Congress people,” according to police officials.

A number of outlets reported in the past week that the freshman lawmaker, whose congressional salary is $174,000, lives in a tony section of the capital in a building where rents range from $2,000 for a studio apartment to more than $5,000 for a three-bedroom.

While most of them did not give an address, they did provide identifying information and photographs about which stores were in the neighborhood and the amenities offered by her complex, which is under construction.

The articles pointed out Ocasio-Cortez’s platform as a champion of the poor and took her to task for living in an upscale building that they claimed didn’t offer affordable housing.

The building developer told The Post that they participate in the District of Columbia’s housing voucher program and have low-income people living there.

Asked to provide a specific number, the developer said: “We cannot disclose any more specific details about our residents.”

Ocasio-Cortez’s office pushed back against the notion that it was hypocritical for the congresswoman to live in upscale digs.

A spokesman told the Washington Free Beacon that her office also uses a car with an “internal combustion engine that runs on fossil fuels,” even though she thinks their use should be eliminated.

David Harris Jr

Published  1 day ago

Never before have we had someone who is as anti-American as Ilhan Omar, with the exceptions of Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and almost any Democrat you can name. Omar traveled with the Witness for Peace delegation in 2017. Witness for Peace was formed during the cold war to espouse the Soviet Union. They also support the dictators in Cuba and Maduro in Venezuela. The group is communist in nature and opposes everything the United States stands for. If Omar, Tlaib, and AOC become the face of the Democrat party in 2020, the Democrats will be in a heap of big trouble, as Elizabeth Warren would say.

It is just the latest in a series of political gaffes and foreign policy revelations from the Muslim congresswoman. She recently accused the American Israel Public Affairs Committee of buying support for Israel from members of Congress.

She is also scheduled to fundraise for the pro-Hamas group Council for American-Islamic Relations in March and suggested that opposition to Venezuelan despot Nicolas Maduro amounted to an attempted “coup” by the United States.

Additionally, Ilhan criticized President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address for his remarks opposing late-term abortion policy. (RELATED: Rep. Omar Warns Trump About ‘Policing Women’s Bodies’ After President Commits To Banning Late-Term Abortion)

“After traveling to Honduras as part of the Witness for Peace delegation, I’ve returned homewith a heavy heart and deep concern for the electoral process and human rights crisis the people of Honduras are enduring,” Omar tweeted in 2017.

As Fox News noted Thursday, the latest revelation might affect Omar’s membership on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

David Harris Jr

Published  1 day ago

Once again we have more proof that the migrant caravans are being exploited by vicious criminals as a coverup and distraction to gain entry into the USA. MS-13 may be on Nancy Pelosi’s “warm-and-fuzzy” list, but they certainly aren’t on President Trump’s. Just this past week another group of the gang’s infiltrators were discovered and subsequently deported, which is as it should be.

This from Fox News:

At least 25 people affiliated with the MS-13 gang were deported from Mexico after they were revealed to be concealed within the caravan of 1,600 Central American migrants just across the U.S. border, immigration officials said Tuesday.

The caravan first arrived in Piedras Negras, Mexico, two weeks ago across the border from Eagle Pass, Texas, when officials from the Instituto Nacional de Migración identified 10 gang members from Mara Salvatrucha, also known as MS-13.

But after warehouse scuffles with police last week, officials discovered and deported 15 additional MS-13 “agitators,” INM Media Deputy Director Aline Juarez told Fox News.

In addition to the gang members, a total of 70 Central American migrants have been deported to their home countries, while about 1,500 have been granted humanitarian visas to move freely within Mexico.

News of the deportations was first reported by Mexican state news agency Notimex. The news agency reported that deportations came after issues at a shelter in the border city of Piedras Negras.

On Saturday, officials said the shelter where hundreds of Central American migrants have been confined would be closed by Wednesday.

Coahuila State Public Safety Secretary Jose Luis Pliego told the Associated Press that authorities have taken some 400 migrants to neighboring states such as Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas to be incorporated into the workforce, while others may seek other options to try to cross into the United States.

Some migrants still at the shelter said they were not being allowed to come and go despite holding the permits, and they hope to leave as soon as possible for fear of possible deportation.

“I don’t feel safe here,” Donaldo, a Honduran migrant who declined to give his last name, told the AP.

The migrants have wanted to appear at the U.S. border to apply for asylum, but only about a dozen per day have been allowed to do so.

Isn’t that just the way of the Left? Like so many other instances, once again we see how they like to play on our sympathies with Politically Correct labels to get us to show mercy on the “poor, starving refugees escaping from a terrible situation.”

The part they always fail to mention is that the “terrible situation” in the home country has at its roots the socialism they want to force on the rest of us. MS-13 is just one arm of many criminal agents that are doing their very best to bring this country into subjection of the One World Government.

To try Amazing and All Natural supplements that our founder David J Harris Jr had developed, click here!

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

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 day ago

Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh defended President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration and argued that American culture is at risk from illegal aliens if something is not done.

This did not sit well with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who implied that the next Democratic president will declare a national emergency to address liberal issues such as gun control and climate change.

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

While appearing on Fox News, Limbaugh said, “We have an emergency. This is an invasion…the Democrats want a parade of illegal people who are uneducated, don’t even speak the language, they want them here. It is a crisis.”

“We have an emergency. This is an invasion,” Limbaugh said.

“The very existence and definition of American culture, American society, the rule of law. Why does nobody talk about the fact that millions and millions and millions of people are breaking the law coming here illegally and that the Democrat Party wants that to happen?” he asked

Limbaugh continued, “It is undeniable that we have a major immigration problem and a political party that needs a permanent underclass of voters that wants that parade of illegal people who are uneducated, don’t even speak the language, they want them here. It is a crisis.”

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

Limbaugh went on to blast Pelosi’s spending bill as “outrageous,” which he argued includes “welcoming centers for illegals, and all kinds of free medical care.”

“It all boils down to where are we going as a country,” Limbaugh said. “What kind of country are we gonna have? And if anyone is willing to go to the limit to make sure this country remains as founded, they have my support.”

Trump’s national emergency declaration has sent Democrats like Pelosi into panic mode because they don’t want to see the president fully secure the U.S.-Mexico border with a wall.

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

In response, Pelosi implied that a future Democrat president will declare a national emergency over climate change and gun control.

“If the president can declare an emergency on something that he has created as an emergency,” Pelosi began. “An illusion that he wants to convey — just think of what a president with different values can present to the American people.”

She then noted the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, last February.

“You want to talk about a national emergency?” Pelosi asked. “Let’s talk about today, the one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America. That’s a national emergency. Why don’t you declare that emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would.”

It doesn’t make any logical sense, but Pelosi was trying to argue that Trump securing the border from hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens is the same as declaring a national emergency on guns, a constitutionally protected right afforded to Americans.

Rantt

Published  1 day ago

1. Jussie Smollett’s arrest overshadows coverage of a neo-Nazi domestic terrorist: As Jussie Smollett was arrested for allegedly filing a false police report about being attacked by Trump supporters in Chicago, the news of the stunning thwarted terrorist attack was seemingly overshadowed. President Trump chose not to remark on the news of the arrest of alleged neo-Nazi and US Coast Guard Lt., Christopher Paul Hasson, who was planning a deadly attack on prominent Democrats and members of the media. Trump did, however, choose to tweet about Jussie Smollett.

And as we saw, the media seemed to take the same cue, as many of the online publications strived for clicks rather than weighing coverage on the importance of the events at hand.

I really wish it weren’t so easy to predict that legacy media would screw this up. https://t.co/vdihNjE7XZ

— Adam (@aalali44) February 21, 2019

I wrote about the Jussie Smollett case for The Independent and spoke about how although it does do a disservice to victims of real hate crimes, it doesn’t diminish their stories, nor does it detract from the surges in radical right-wing terrorism around the U.S. The piece makes sure to cover the bigger story of the neo-Nazi terrorist plot.

2. House resolution to block Trump’s national emergency declaration: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has said that the House will be voting on a resolution to block President Trump’s national emergency declaration. Democrats have slammed the declaration as an abuse of power intended to solve a manufactured crisis with an unnecessary wall. The resolution will surely pass the Democratically-controlled House since it only needs a simple majority to pass. It’s unclear if it will pass the Senate, but if it does, the White House has signaled President Trump will veto it. The courts will likely be where this emergency declaration is held up.

3. New NC-09 election: After a long inquiry int the election fraud in North Carolina’s 9th district, officials have ordered a new election between Republican candidate Mark Harris and Democratic candidate Dan McCready. Harris had led McCready by 900 votes but the evidence that Harris’ campaign financed illegal get out the vote efforts including forging absentee ballots has shrouded the election in illegitimacy. Looks like the voters of the 9th district will have another chance to decide their fate.

This is only a partial version of our Rantt Rundown newsletter covering Day 763 of Trump’s presidency. To get the full newsletter breaking down the top 5 stories of the day in your inbox every weeknight, please subscribe below.

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.

ABC11 Raleigh-Durham

Published  1 day ago

Texas boy sells hot chocolate to help pay for border wall

AUSTIN, Texas - An Austin boy has raised more than $5,000 from selling hot chocolate dedicated to funds to build a border wall along the southern U.S. border.

On Saturday, Benton Stevens and his dad Shane posted video on Facebook showcasing the hot chocolate stand in front of a shopping complex, selling for $2 a cup.

A sign in front of the boy's stand said "proceeds help Trump build the wall."

For an extra 50 cents, Benton also offered large "Nancy Pelosi" marshmallows to melt. Smaller "Beto O'Rourke" marshmallows were also offered at no extra charge.

After sales over the weekend, Benton's dad posted Monday that the boy raised more than $2,200 through a Venmo account. By Tuesday, the dad reported the account totaled almost $5,000.

NBC4 Washington

Published  2 days ago

Coast Guard Lt. Accused of Plotting Attack

A lieutenant at U.S. Coast Guard headquarters in Washington, D.C., is under arrest for weapons violations but also stands accused of plotting a major attack and creating an apparent hit list of Democrats and media personalities.

In charging documents first posted by George Washington University’s Seamus Hughes and the News4 I-Team, federal prosecutors say 49-year-old Christopher Paul Hasson, of Silver Spring, Maryland, had illegal weapons and was collecting a list of names when he was arrested Friday.

Prosecutors wrote Hasson is a domestic terrorist who “intends to murder innocent civilians on a scale rarely seen in this country” and must be detained.

The feds shared images of a firearms stockpile in Hasson’s basement apartment.

(Published Tuesday, Feb. 19, 2019)

They say internet searches show he was targeting top Democrats and created an Excel spreadsheet list of names, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Sens. Tim Kaine, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Richard Blumenthal, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke. The list also included top names in media, like MSNBC’s Chris Hayes and Joe Scarborough and CNN’s Don Lemon.

Law enforcement sources told NBC News the feds caught on to Hasson because of searches made on his work computer.

He is accused of searching the following phrases on Google the morning of Jan. 17: “what if trump illegally impeached,” “best place in dc to see congress people,” “where in dc to congress people live,” “civil war if trump impeached” and “social democrats usa.”

His search history also included searches for pro-Russian and neo-fascist literature.

Hasson routinely read portions of a manifesto written by Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik that prosecutors said instructs would-be assailants to collect firearms, food, disguises and survival tools, court papers said. Breivik, a right-wing extremist, is serving a 21-year sentence for killing 77 people in a 2011 bomb-and-shooting rampage.

Prosecutors allege that Hasson visited thousands of websites that sold guns and researched military tactical manuals on improvised munitions.

In a deleted email subfolder, authorities found a draft by Hasson saying, “I am dreaming of killing almost every last person on the earth. I think a plague would be most successful … Start with biological attacks followed by attack on food supply.”

In a draft of a letter apparently intended for a known white supremacist leader, Hasson identified himself as a white nationalist for more than 30 years who advocated “focused violence” to create a “white homeland,” according to charging documents.

The chief at the federal defender's office in Maryland, which is representing Hasson, declined to comment on the allegations. The Coast Guard did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Hasson's arrest. No one answered the door Wednesday at the home address for Hasson listed in public records.

Hasson also is charged with possession of a controlled substance. He appeared to be a chronic user of the opioid painkiller Tramadol and had purchased a flask filled with four ounces of "synthetic urine" online, prosecutors said. Authorities suspect Hasson had purchased fake urine to use in case he was randomly selected for a drug test.

He is scheduled to appear in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt Thursday afternoon.

Copyright Associated Press / NBC4 Washington

KRISTV.com

Published  2 days ago

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi will be making a stop in Laredo this weekend.

Television station KGNS in Laredo reports it will be Pelosi’s fourth year coming to Laredo where she will participate in several Washington’s Birthday Celebration events in the city.

Pelosi will be attending the Abrazo Ceremony on Saturday morning which will be held at Bridge Number Two which highlights the relationship between Mexico and the United States.

Pelosi is also expected to take a tour of the bridge with Congressman Henry Cuellar on Friday followed by a press conference.

She has been one of the most vociferous critics of President Trump’s plan to build a border wall.

It will be interesting what she has to say when she visits the area.

And what will her comments be when visiting the area that has the potential to be most dramatically affected if the wall is built.

The Daily Signal

Published  2 days ago

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

American Greatness

Published  2 days ago

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

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

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

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

That is when the coup plot was hatched.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo credit: Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Axios

Published  2 days ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Horn News

Published  2 days ago

The race for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination is officially underway.

With 11 top Democrats already in the fray, party leadership like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are eagerly watching the polls to get a sense of the early favorites.

But they didn’t see this coming.

The top two favorites to take on President Donald Trump in the upcoming election aren’t even in the race — and one has never held political office.

And it’s not even close.

That’s according to a Hill-Harris X poll released on Tuesday, which announced that the two most popular candidate for registered Democratic voters are former First Lady Michelle Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden.

Sponsored: Hillary’s Darkest Secrets Up For Auction?

The two are tied as the favorite potential candidates among Democrats at 25 percent. That dwarfs the other top Democrats that are already spending millions on their campaign.

California Sen. Kamala Harris was third with 12 percent of support, while Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders — the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee runner-up — is fourth with 11 percent.

“Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke polled at six percent, with other candidates—including Senators Corey Booker and Elizabeth Warren —all polling at five percent,” Newsweek reported.

Don’t expect to see another Obama in the White House anytime soon, however.

Michelle told The London Times in July that she had no desire to run for political office.

“I will not be running for office,” she said. “It’s a gruelling thing for any family to go through. Barack made it look easy. It’s not.”

Biden is almost certainly set to enter the race soon, and has privately told associates and political allies that he has the best chance to defeat Trump in 2020.

— The Horn editorial team

Talking Points Memo

Published  2 days ago

FBI Arrests White Nationalist In Coast Guard Allegedly Planning Terror Attack

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 days ago

CNN jumped on the Jussie Smollett hate hoax without any concern that the bizarre story was some weird stunt by an unhinged attention-seeking actor. Last night after police announced charges against Jussie Smollett CNN host Don Lemon was totally distraught. Lemon told his guests he doesn’t think it’s Jussie Smollett’s fault that he already lost […]

The Federalist

Published  2 days ago

We cannot dismiss the campaign to legalize pedophilia as fringy stuff that will get nowhere. It’s real and it’s here and it’s gaining strength.

POLITICO

Published  2 days ago

House Democrats are expected to introduce legislation Friday to block President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration, the first formal step to counter Trump and squeeze Republicans on the border wall.

Texas Democratic Rep. Joaquin Castro’s office, who is leading the effort, circulated an email Wednesday afternoon announcing plans to introduce the resolution of disapproval after Trump’s declaration was published in the Federal Register this week.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who led a congressional delegation overseas to meet with European leaders earlier this week, has yet to weigh in on the resolution. But she and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) issued a scathing statement vowing to fight Trump "using every remedy available" last Friday.

Democrats are also expected to file a lawsuit to halt Trump's effort to circumvent Congress to build his border wall.

Trump issued the emergency proclamation Friday after signing a bill that funds the government through September, including allocating $1.375 billion for border fencing. Trump's declaration allows him to take about $6 billion more from other government accounts to put toward building his border wall.

It’s unclear when Democratic leaders would bring the measure up for a vote on the House floor, but it is expected to easily pass. If it is a privileged resolution, as Castro has previously said, it would automatically receive a vote on the Senate floor, forcing Republicans in both chambers to take a stand on Trump’s use of executive power, which some GOP lawmakers have already harshly criticized.

So far, more than 90 House Democrats have signed onto the resolution with more likely to join. Lawmakers wishing to cosponsor it have until 3 p.m. Thursday to do so, according to the email from aides to Castro, who also serves as chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

As soon as the House votes on the resolution, it starts the clock for Senate GOP leaders, who are required under law to put the measure up for a vote within 18 days.

It would take just four GOP senators to join with Democrats to approve the resolution, which appears quite plausible given Republican concern with Trump’s emergency declaration.

Trump would be certain to veto the measure — the first of his presidency — though Congerss would be unlikely to override him. In the House, more than 50 Republicans would need to join with Democrats to secure the needed 288 votes.

The Associated Press was first to report plans to introduce the resolution on Friday.

Homeland Security

Published  2 days ago

Former Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said Tuesday evening that he does not believe former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's claim that he informed Republican and Democrat leaders in 2017 that the bureau had opened a second counterintelligence probe of President Donald Trump.

McCabe told Savannah Guthrie on NBC's Today show Tuesday that the FBI briefed the "Gang of Eight" about the investigation he himself opened into Trump to probe whether he was a national security threat, and none of the lawmakers objected.

Gowdy, a former chairman of the House Oversight Committee, was on Fox News' The Story with Martha MacCallum to talk about McCabe's latest claims.

He said he didn't know about the investigation, and he doesn't think the Gang of Eight — the leaders of two parties from the House and Senate, along with the leaders of each chamber's intelligence committee — knew about it either.

Gowdy said that the reason McCabe would level an accusation like that is because he knows that the lawmakers are not allowed to discuss anything that is said in a Gang of Eight meeting, so they can't refute him.

"I listened to Devin [Nunez] and Paul [Ryan] quiz the DOJ and the FBI for hours on multiple occasions about the one counterintelligence investigation we all knew about," said Gowdy. "I find it stunning that they would know about a second one and not say a single, solitary word. And I will continue to not believe they knew about it unless one or the other contradicts it."

The first probe -- which everyone knows about -- was the 2016 counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign to see whether it conspired with Russia to defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. That one is being investigated by the DOJ's inspector general.

"Now McCabe says there was one in May of 2017 in addition to the criminal investigation into obstruction of justice," Gowdy said incredulously.

On The View Tuesday, Meghan McCain asked McCabe if he believes the Russians ordered Trump to fire then-FBI Director James Comey. McCabe replied: "We don't know and we certainly didn't know that at the time."

Stop Illegal Immigration!

As taxpayers, we need to make sure immigration laws are upheld.

judicialwatch.org

Asked to respond to McCabe's view that Trump could be a Russian agent, Gowdy exclaimed: "If thinking that Jim Comey is not a good FBI director is tantamount to being an agent of Russia, then just list all the people that are agents of Russia!" Some other possible suspects he suggested included "Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Rod Rosenstein -- who wrote the memo getting rid of Comey -- Michael Horowitz, who's the inspector general."

"I mean, look, I know McCabe liked Jim Comey.... But lots of people thought that Jim Comey had lost the ability to lead that department," Gowdy said. "And the fact that President Trump got rid of him in May of 2017 is not sufficient basis to launch a criminal obstruction of justice probe!"

RedState

Published  3 days ago

In physics, a tipping point refers to the point at which an object is no longer balanced, and adding a small amount of weight can cause it to topple. In general, a tipping point is defined as...

Medium

Published  3 days ago

Bernie Sanders has announced his 2020 Democratic primary run for president of the United States, to predictable sighs of relief from his…

Breitbart

Published  3 days ago

The Green New Deal blueprint introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was crafted by three far-left organizations and is being pushed by a coalition of well-funded professional progressive groups and known leftist agitators. | Politics

Fox News

Published  3 days ago

Move over, Kid Rock: Pro-Donald Trump singer and performer Joy Villa may be entering the world of politics.

Conservative Tribune

Published  3 days ago

Stunning revelations suggest that top officials were actively scheming to wiretap the president, and rallied Cabinet members to turn on the commander in chief.

Washington Examiner

Published  3 days ago

The entry of Sen. Bernie Sanders and 11 other White House challengers has not changed the gambling odds on the expectation that President Trump will win re-election.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  3 days ago

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe told NBC’s “Today” Show on Tuesday that members of the Gang of Eight congressional leaders knew about the deep state FBI spying on President Trump. Members of the Gang of 8 included Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell, Devin Nunes, Adam Schiff, Richard Burr and Mark Warner. […]

America First with Sebastian Gorka

Published  3 days ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The American Spectator

Published  3 days ago

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

Daily Intelligencer

Published  3 days ago

The official entrance of Bernie Sanders into the presidential race was greeted gleefully by the entire Republican Establishment. The White House has ramped up its message that the 2020 campaign is a choice between the whole of American history (as represented by Trump) and socialism — which it defines as Venezuelan-style government control combined with repression of dissent. Trump’s bizarre State of the Union declaration, “America will never be a socialist country,” has become his unofficial campaign motto.

This messaging strategy has been enabled by a wildly exaggerated sense of the Democratic Party’s leftward shift. The Democratic Party is still not “socialist” in any meaningful sense of the term, and to the extent socialism has exerted any influence upon it, it is not of the Venezuelan variety.

At the root of this fairy tale lie some tiny nuggets of truth. Bernie Sanders is an idiosyncratic bridge between Old Left fellow traveler and the mainstream liberalism of the Democratic Party. As a younger — or, I suppose, less old — politician, Sanders routinely praised communist leaders in places like Cuba and Nicaragua. Conservatives are gleefully dredging up old clips of Sanders praising the Soviet Union and even defending bread lines.

This 2020 Democrat primary is going to be BANANAS! The latest candidate LOVES bread lines!! pic.twitter.com/wrf73R8UyS

— ForAmerica (@ForAmerica) February 19, 2019

Sanders never completely abandoned the Marxist habit of describing American politics as a simple class struggle pitting the people against the “billionaire class.” The denouement of his presidential campaign has convinced a cadre of socialist activists to work within the Democratic Party, and they have established a foothold within it as foot soldiers and policy demanders. Some of these newly influential groups blur the line between liberal democracy and illiberal left-wing authoritarianism. The socialist magazine Jacobin, for instance, energetically defended the Chavez-Maduro regime. Left-wing activist Sean McElwee calls for the next Democratic administration to “dismantle Fox News” — which, as awful as Fox News might be, would be incompatible with small-d democratic government.

But, distressing though it may be, illiberalism remains a marginal tendency within the Democratic Party. Even Sanders, who is himself an outlier, has left behind his fellow-traveling habits. He is a political liberal who denounces authoritarian regimes like Venezuela (to the consternation of his most radical supporters) and openly defends the political rights of his opponents against left-wing efforts to shut them down.

Meanwhile Trump himself repurposes Stalinist lingo like “enemy of the people.” He routinely heaps praise on the most brutal dictators on the planet — not despite their brutality but precisely because of it. Republicans have selected Venezuela as their campaign theme in large part because it is one of the few dictatorships Trump does not admire. It is strange that Republicans are excitedly sharing 30-year-old clips of Bernie Sanders lauding aspects of the Soviet economy when Donald Trump is praising the North Korean economic model right now:

North Korea, under the leadership of Kim Jong Un, will become a great Economic Powerhouse. He may surprise some but he won’t surprise me, because I have gotten to know him & fully understand how capable he is. North Korea will become a different kind of Rocket - an Economic one!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2019

There is a bit more truth to the idea that the Democratic Party is moving left on economics. Still, the scale of the shift has been overplayed. Democrats may be moving left, but they remain to the right of most mainstream left parties in the world. News accounts have emphasized the trend rather than the level. The growing share of self-identified liberals within the party ranks has attracted far more attention than the fact that moderate and conservative Democrats still (slightly) outnumber liberals. Twitter battles pit leftists against liberals, but compared both to the Democratic Party’s elected officials and its voting basis, even the liberals occupy the left-of-center space.

The exaggeration of the party’s leftward shift is made apparent when the attempts to describe it try to summon specifics. Former president Bill Clinton’s “social and economic policies,” National Review’s David French asserts, “would make him right-leaning even within the modern Republican party.” Bill Clinton raised taxes on the rich, increased the Earned Income Tax Credit, raised the minimum wage, and attempted to pass universal health care, all of which are heretical positions within the GOP and were hysterically labeled as socialism by the GOP at the time Clinton did all these things.

Meanwhile, a New York Times account of Sanders’s influence begins, “Do you remember the old days of the Democratic Party? Universal health care was controversial. Boasting about taxing the rich was political suicide. And socialism was a dirty word.” In fact, the last two Democratic presidents openly tried to achieve universal health insurance, and both successfully raised taxes on the rich and boasted about it.

Socialism may not be a “dirty word,” exactly. But very few Democrats want to be associated with it — in part because it remains highly unpopular among the public at large.

Possible Democratic presidential nominees Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and Beto O’Rourke have all explicitly disavowed the socialist label. Last year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bluntly told one questioner that the Democratic Party is capitalist.

I am old enough to remember when Pelosi was the prototype of the far-left ideology that would make Democrats radioactive in swing districts. (That was less than three months ago.) It is actually a form of progress that the liberal bogeyman has been replaced by the socialist bogeyman. For one thing, it’s much easier for Democrats to triangulate against socialism than it was for them to triangulate against liberalism. Trump’s campaign has given Democrats an easy way to position themselves in the center. All they need to do is say they believe in a role for free markets and reject socialism.

Parties move slowly and tend to change their character over long periods of time. The entrance of far-left policy demanders in the Democratic Party is a very notable development that might lead to important changes over the long run. In the short run, the party is mostly the same. And Trump’s notion that his reelection is all that stands between the United States and socialism is nothing more than a paranoid fantasy.

Leave a Comment

dailycaller

Published  3 days ago

A young Texas boy faced both praise and ridicule from adults after he opened a hot chocolate stand to raise money for President Donald Trumps’ border wall.

Benton Stevens — a seven-year-old from Austin — wanted to help raise funds for a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border after watching Trump deliver the State of the Union address earlier in February. He set up a hot chocolate stand near a local strip mall as a way to collect money.

The stand, which is explicitly advertised as a fundraiser to help Trump build the wall, sells hot chocolate for $2 a cup. People can customize their drinks by paying an extra 50 cents for a big “Nancy Pelosi” marshmallow or grab smaller “Beto O’Rourke” marshmallows for free.

“I think it’s important that [our children] know what’s going on in the world, where we stand, what we believe in,” said Jennifer Stevens, Benton’s mother. Both Jennifer and her husband, Shane, are members of the Republican National Committee and say their dinner table conversations have clearly influenced Benton. The boy’s parents say he begged them to raise money for the border wall and set up the stand over the weekend.

“Every day he would get off the bus and say, ‘mom can we go do my stand,'” Jennifer stated.

The fundraiser appears to be quite successful, with Benton reportedly raising nearly $1,400 in two days.

Trump recently signed a spending bill that appropriates $1.375 billion to build 55 miles of new wall on the U.S. southern border. The president has taken the controversial step of declaring a national emergency, which is allowing him to grab billions more for wall construction funding. (RELATED: Democrats Fundraise Off Trump’s Plan To Declare National Emergency)

While Benton says some adults were “really happy” to see his stand, others were not so thrilled to see him raising money for a border wall.

“Some people were mad and calling me a ‘little Hitler’ and stuff, and some people were really happy,” Benton explained.

This isn’t the first time Benton has faced backlash for his political beliefs. He said that while he attended Trump’s presidential inauguration three women in pink hats ridiculed his “Make America Great Again” hat.

However, Benton’s parents want it to be a learning experience for him.

“If he’s going to do it, he needs to learn that there’s going to be a little backlash,” Shane stated. “But I just wish [the critics] would do it in a little more respectful, adult-like manner.”

Benton, in the meantime, has big plans for the money he’s raised. The young boy wants to mail the funds to Trump or deliver it to him in person “so that the illegal immigrants can’t get into our town illegally.”

Follow Jason on Twitter.

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

Jihad Watch

Published  3 days ago

On the heels of Bernie Sanders’ announcement about his bid for the Dem nomination in the 2020 presidential race, he has hired “veteran Democratic operative Faiz Shakir,” a man deemed to be a “Progressive Superstar”.

A bit about this “superstar’s” background:

Shakir has served as national political director to the American Civil Liberties Union since early 2017. Prior to that, “he was a senior adviser to then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and before that he worked with House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). He first made a name for himself as an editor at the website ThinkProgress.”

But then there is another important part of Shakir’s background, adding to the already existing Islamic supremacist/anti-Semitic problem in the Democrat camp. Daniel Greenfield states:

During his time at ThinkProgress, Faiz Shakir had repeatedly attacked the Jewish State, endorsing the Hamas aid flotilla to Gaza and attacking Israel’s attempts to defend itself against terrorists”…While the Harvard Islamic Society’s affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood’s MSA is somewhat vague….HIS was co-founded by Yusuf Ibish, the father of Hussein Ibish, who is a veteran pro-terrorist and anti-Israel activist, and Syed Hossein Nasr, an Islamic philosopher and opponent of the United States and Israel, who claims to be able to trace his ancestry back to Mohammed. During Faiz Shakir’s time there, HIS was presided over by Zayed Yasin, who became infamous for his “My American Jihad” speech….In 2000, The Harvard Islamic Society held an Islamic Awareness Week and Faiz Shakir served as the co-chair for the week’s events. One of those events included a fundraiser for the Holy Land Foundation, a group which acted as the fundraising arm for Hamas in the United States…. Zayed Yasin’s defense of the Holy Land Foundation made it quite clear that he was familiar with its true mission.

Shakir also co-authored the “Fear Inc.” report, “which implicitly claimed that Islamophobia was the product of a Jewish conspiracy, and wrote positively about the Tunisian Islamist Al-Nahda Party and its genocidal head, Sheikh Rashid Ghannouchi, who has engaged in blatant anti-Semitism, and has said, ‘There are no civilians in Israel. The population—males, females and children—are the army reserve soldiers, and thus can be killed.'”

It’s no surprise that after Sanders’ announcement about hiring the so-called “superstar” Shakir to manage his campaign, the infamous Linda Sarsour tweeted:

Bernie Sanders hires campaign manager – civil rights advocate and FIRST EVER Muslim American to run a presidential campaign – none other than Faiz Shakir. I am crying. #FeelTheBern https://t.co/7KSvNzASlr

— Linda Sarsour (@lsarsour) February 19, 2019

Bernie Sanders took no offense to the grossly anti-Semitic comments made by Illan Omar, and in fact stated that “we will stand by our Muslim brothers and sisters.” He is certainly doing that, and he isn’t only only standing by “his” Muslim brothers and sisters no matter what, he’s complicit in advancing the anti-Semitism of the Muslim anti-Semites in Congress. The Democrat camp is becoming like the UK’s Labour Party in institutionalizing anti-Semitism — a phenomenon fueled in the UK by Islamic groups with links to jihad terror.

“Sanders hires veteran progressive operative to manage 2020 bid,” by Max Greenwood, The Hill, February 19, 2019:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has hired veteran Democratic operative Faiz Shakir to manage his 2020 presidential campaign, a spokesperson for the Vermont senator confirmed Tuesday.

The news of Shakir’s hiring came hours after Sanders became the latest candidate to throw his name into the running for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The Daily Beast first reported the hire on Tuesday.

Shakir is well-connected in liberal circles. He’s a former vice president for communications at the Center for American Progress and previously worked as an adviser to former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

He joins Sanders’s campaign from the American Civil Liberties Union, where he most recently served as the group’s national political director…..

Breitbart

Published  3 days ago

The Green New Deal blueprint introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was crafted by three far-left organizations and is being pushed by a coalition of well-funded professional progressive groups and known leftist agitators. | Politics

Fox News

Published  3 days ago

A U.S. Coast Guard lieutenant arrested last week on gun and drug charges is a white nationalist who apparently had a hit list of Democratic lawmakers and activists as well as prominent media personalities, federal prosecutors said Wednesday.

In a motion for pretrial detention filed in federal court in Baltimore, authorities said Lt. Christopher Paul Hasson was arrested Friday and charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and an opioid called Tramadol.

However, the filing described the charges as "the proverbial tip of the iceberg," and referred to Hasson as "a domestic terrorist" who meant to "murder innocent civilians on a scale rarely seen in this country."

The filing was first noted by researchers from George Washington University's Program on Extremism.

Prosecutors say Hasson regularly read a manifesto written by Anders Behring Breivik, a Norwegian far-right extremist who killed 77 people in a pair of 2011 terror attacks, and stockpiled weapons and ammunition. According to the documents, federal agents recovered 15 firearms and "conservatively" more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition from Hasson's "cramped basement apartment" in Silver Spring, Maryland.

According to the document, Hasson organized a spreadsheet of so-called "traitors" that he subdivided into three categories: A,B, and C. So-called "Category A" traitors included Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York, Tim Kaine of Virginia, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut (referred to as "Sen blumen jew" in the spreadsheet), Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts (referred to as "poca warren") Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Cory Booker of New Jersey and Kamala Harris of California.

Also listed in "Category A" were House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Rep. Alexandria Oscasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., MSNBC personalities Joe Scarborough, Chris Hayes, and Ari Melber as well as CNN host Don Lemon. Names in the "Category B" list included Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., CNN personalities Chris Cuomo and Van Jones, and the Democratic Socialists of America.

Prosecutors say Hasson Googled topics including "what if trump illegally impeached," "best place in dc to see congress people," and "civil war if trump impeached" roughly a month before his arrest.

The filing said Hasson had "espoused extremist views for years" and quoted a letter he drafted to "a known American neo-Nazi leader" in September 2017, nearly two months after the deadly violence at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. In the letter, Hasson described himself as "a long time White Nationalist, having been a skinhead 30 plus years ago before my time in the military." Hasson added that "I fully support the idea of a white homeland ... We need a white homeland as Europe seems lost. How long we can hold out there and prevent n-----ization of the Northwest until whites wake up on their own or are forcibly made to make a decision whether to roll over and die and to stand up remains to be seen."

Three months earlier, prosecutors say Hasson drafted an email to "friends" in which he said he was "dreaming of a way to kill almost every last person on the earth. I think a plague would be most successful but how to I acquire the needed/ Spanish flu, botulism, anthrax not sure yet but will find something."

In the same email, Hasson mused: "Start with biological attacks followed by attack [sic] on food supply ... Two pronged [sic] attack seems it might before successful. Institute a bombing/sniper campaign."

Prosecutors said Hasson was an acquisitions officer for the National Security Cutter Acquisition Program who had been assigned to the Coast Guard's headquarters in Washington since June 2016. He previously served in the Marine Corps and the Army National Guard.

A detention hearing for Hasson is scheduled for 1 p.m. Thursday.

Fox News' Jake Gibson contributed to this report.

Breitbart

Published  3 days ago

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

US Liberty Wire

Published  3 days ago

A Texas boy just hit the trifecta – he raised 5 thousand dollars and counting to help build Trump’s wall, deliciously trolled Nancy Pelosi, and hit Beto O’Rourke right where it hurts.

Good job, kid.

The boy and his father were camped out in a gas station in Austin, Texas, not exactly a hotbed of conservatism, selling hot chocolate.

Either the kid is a great salesman, or even in the liberal enclave of Austin people want Trump’s wall to be built because they are crushing it. Five thousand dollars is a lot of hot chocolate.

From ABC: An Austin boy has raised more than $5,000 from selling hot chocolate dedicated to funds to build a border wall along the southern U.S. border. On Saturday, Benton Stevens and his dad Shane posted video on Facebook showcasing the hot chocolate stand in front of a shopping complex, selling for $2 a cup.

A sign in front of the boy’s stand said “proceeds help Trump build the wall.”

For an extra 50 cents, Benton also offered large “Nancy Pelosi” marshmallows to melt. Smaller “Beto O’Rourke” marshmallows were also offered at no extra charge.

After sales over the weekend, Benton’s dad posted Monday that the boy raised more than $2,200 through a Venmo account. By Tuesday, the dad reported the account totaled almost $5,000.

EMBED More Videos

Texas boy sells hot chocolate to help pay for border wall

I Love My Freedom

Published  4 days ago

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has recently deleted a tweet that showed sympathy for actor Jussie Smollett who staged an attack on himself. Pelosi wasted no time to jump to Smollett’s defense after the actor claimed he was attacked by two Trump supporters.

On January 29th, Smollett told law enforcement that he was attacked at 2am in Chicago by two Trump supporters who screamed racist and homophobic slurs as they put a noose over his head and poured bleach on his face.

Smollett, who is gay and black, also told police his attackers yelled racial and homophobic slurs at him as well as told him, “This is MAGA country.”

Politicians and celebrities alike rallied around Smollett, including Pelosi, who tweeted on January 29, “The racist, homophobic attack on [Smollett] is an affront to our humanity. No one should be attacked for who they are or whom they love.”

However, as the case unfolded over the past two weeks more questions arose as to whether Smollett was telling the complete truth about the January 29 incident.

VOTE NOW: Should Pelosi Be REMOVED From Office?

This was the tweet that Nancy Pelosi released on the day of the attack that has recently been deleted.

Nancy Pelosi wasn’t the only politician to jump to conclusions. Kamala Harris and Cory Booker both tweeted in defense of Smollett after he came out with his outlandish claims.

Booker was asked questions about the recent revelations concerning Smollett and he stated that he was not going to make any statements until there was more information. This statement from Booker is very interesting considering he didn’t seem to wait for any information when he jumped to Smollett’s defense when Smollett claimed he was attacked by Trump supporters.

According to ABC News, two Nigerian brothers, initially arrested by Chicago Police in connection to the assault against Smollett were later released after telling law enforcement that Smollett paid them to stage the attack.

One of the brothers is Smollett’s personal trainer, according to a statement to ABC News from Smollett’s attorneys. They had decided to cooperate after investigators revealed that they had evidence the brothers had bought the rope that was put around Smollet’s neck at a local hardware store.

With growing evidence against him, Smollett is standing by his story. This is the statement that his attorney released.

“As a victim of a hate crime who has cooperated with the police investigation, Jussie Smollett is angered and devastated by recent reports that the perpetrators are individuals he is familiar with. He has now been further victimized by claims attributed to these alleged perpetrators that Jussie played a role in his own attack. Nothing is further from the truth and anyone claiming otherwise is lying.”

When Smollett originally made his claims that he was attacked at 2am in negative four degree weather by two Trump supporters, the common sense individual would immediately question his claims. But Democrats like Cory Booker and Nancy Pelosi decided to jump to his defense because his story made President Trump and his supporters look bad.

What are your thoughts? Comment below…

[RELATED: WHERE’S NANCY? Pelosi’s Office Raided By Patriots With One Powerful Message]

New York Post

Published  4 days ago

Modal Trigger

Anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist and Democratic congresswoman Ilhan Omar — someone who had previously argued that Jews hypnotized the world regarding their “evil” deeds — recently claimed that Americans only support Israel because of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s “Benjamins” — and then retweeted a person pointing out that she might as well call all Jews “hook-nosed.”

Though House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who put Omar on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, offered a condemnation of Omar’s comments, many progressives jumped immediately to her defense. Some of them implored Omar to stop deploying these ugly “tropes” because they undermine what is a completely reasonable position toward the Jewish state. (Omar has since apologized, promising to avoid using insulting stereotypes when peddling her anti-Semitism.)

The problem is that “anti-Zionism” — the predominant justification for violence, murder and hatred against Jews in Europe and the Middle East — is a growing position on the American left. Though Omar embraces the worst caricatures of this ideology, it’s her core contention regarding the Jewish state — not her clumsy “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”-style insults, which are just a manifestation of her underlying position — that is most consequential.

One of the dishonest arguments regarding Omar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib, who we recently found out wrote a piece for a publication of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, is that they are merely being “critical of Israel.” Yet no serious person has ever made the claim that being critical of Israel’s policies is anti-Semitic. Israel has had both left-wing and right-wing governments over the years. And like governments in any liberal democracy, they can be corrupt, misguided or incompetent. Millions of Israelis are critical of their own nation’s policies every year without any fear of repercussions. Israel isn’t Iran or Turkey, countries that most of Israel’s critics never disparage.

But the best way to gauge whether people are merely being critical of Israel’s policies or they are being critical of the existence of the Jewish state is to use Natan Sharansky’s “3D” test: 1) Do they engage in “delegitimization” of the nation’s existence as does every supporter of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement? 2) Do they engage in “demonization” of the country as do people who claim that Israelis hypnotize the world for evil and that they go around murdering children for kicks? 3) Do they engage in “double standards” — for example, having an obsession with Israel and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee while ignoring illiberalism found throughout the Islamic world and ignoring such things as Muslim concentration camps in China?

The second myth pushed by Omar’s defenders is that Israel dictates American foreign policy with its shekels. The first part of this argument is absurd when one considers that over the past few years, the American government passed the Iranian nuclear deal — which Israel saw as an existential threat — and the American president has embraced the idea of withdrawing troops from Syria. Most of the time, the United States sides with Israel because most of the time Israel’s ideals comport with our own.

Then, of course, there’s a significant difference between contending that you disagree with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s positions and contending that AIPAC bribes Americans with lots of Benjamins. For starters, it’s a lie, because AIPAC doesn’t give any money to politicians. And as Emily Zanotti and others have pointed out, AIPAC, with all its supernatural ability to hypnotize lawmakers, spends about $3.5 million on lobbying for Israeli policies in a good year. “It barely even cracks the top 50, is dwarfed by the beer wholesalers,” Zanotti writes. “In contrast, Planned Parenthood’s PAC spent $20M in 2016.”

Although it might be tough for progressives to understand, many Americans still prefer Israel over Hamas, the Palestine Liberation Organization and Iran for reasons other than money — e.g., a shared understanding of liberalism, theological reasons, historical ties, political realities and practical geopolitical reasons. I do concede that contemporary progressives may not embrace these values anymore. For many decades, however, polls showed widespread support for Israel. AIPAC’s success is predicated on that support.

Some of Omar’s defenders also engaged in a little whataboutism by pointing out that Republicans have had their own anti-Semitic problems. I’m sure they have. But I hate to break the news to people: Being critical of billionaire activist George Soros, who happens to be Jewish but holds positions on Israel that are generally in line with Omar’s, is not automatically anti-Semitic — no more than attacking Sheldon Adelson is necessarily anti-Semitic. Omar’s Jewish stereotypes were aimed at all defenders of Israel.

It will be interesting to see how the Democratic Party’s presidential hopefuls react to Omar’s comments. Their positions have increasing currency in the activist wing of their party. On this issue, there is a big rift opening between young and old. That does not bode well for the establishment or Jews.

I Love My Freedom

Published  4 days ago

On January 29th, actor Jussie Smollett went to the Chicago Police Department and told them that he was attacked by two male Trump supporters who put a noose around his neck and poured bleach on his face while screaming homophobic and racist slurs. Recent revelations suggest that Smollett paid two men to stage the attack on himself.

The story that Smollett shared went viral and got attention from many prominent Democrats including Nancy Pelosi and Cory Booker:

The story received unending press. The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), tweeted, “The racist, homophobic attack on [Smollett] is an affront to our humanity.” Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) called it a “modern-day lynching.” Congresswoman and Fresh Face™ of the Democratic Party Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez slammed anyone who questioned the story, tweeting, “The attack was not ‘possibly’ homophobic. It was a racist and homophobic attack.”

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

These liberals seemed to jump on the bandwagon because they saw it as an opportunity to trash President Trump and his supporters.

Good Morning America even hosted Smollett where he attacked anyone who even questioned his story. Many other celebrities rushed to Smollett’s defense even though none of his claims had been validated.

One tiny problem. The story was a hoax that was completely made up by Smollett.

There was a hate crime that actually happened on the same exact night that got zero media attention. A Jewish man was beaten up by three men in New York. Watch the video below.

A Jew brutally beaten last night in Brooklyn. Nothing stolen. Antisemitism is alive and well in NYC. Time for a hard look at who is doing it and its cause. This has been going on in NY long before Charlottesville or 2016 just ask anyone visibly Jewish. pic.twitter.com/z86dz32YBL

— Motti Seligson (@mottiseligson) January 30, 2019

Check out what Ben Shapiro had to say about it:

This isn’t the only story of anti-Semitism in New York. Not by a long shot. Two weeks before that beating, a Jewish man, 19, was “violently assaulted” as he walked past a local laundromat by a group of teenage black males. In December, a 16-year-old Jewish teen spent a week in a hospital after being beaten by two other teens; witnesses said that the teens screamed “Kill the Jew.” The NYPD categorized the attack as “gang related” rather than a hate crime, angering Jews in the area. This weekend, vandals shattered the window of a Chabad in Bushwick as the rabbi and his family slept inside.

Why didn’t this get any media attention? Well besides the fact that the media seems to ignore almost every anti-Semitic attack these days, the reason why the attack doesn’t appeal to them is because there is no way for the media to twist the story to make it Trump’s fault like they were able to do with the Smollett “attack.”

Ben Shapiro added this:

Indeed, the narrative the Left wishes to push is that America is deeply discriminatory and bigoted, rife with hate. But by statistics, Jews are by far the most likely group to be targeted in America on a per capita basis. This is a problem for the intersectionality-oriented Left, which sees Jews not as victims but as part of the power hierarchy in the United States. How can the Left uphold its hierarchy of victimhood if Jews are the chief targets of hate crime – and furthermore, if such hate crime is largely perpetrated by non-white supremacists, people who supposedly lie higher on the victim hierarchy than Jews?

Furthermore, Jews are inordinately successful and well-treated in the United States; outside of Israel, there is no more philo-Semitic country on earth. So if Jews, the most statistically victimized group in America, aren’t particularly victimized, what does that say about the narrative of America as racist, bigotry-ridden hellhole?

At the end of the day, all the Left cares about is having the ability to claim “victimhood” while pointing fingers at President Trump and his supporters. They want to continually drive the point that America is not a safe place for gays and black people because Donald Trump is president. The Smollett accusations allowed them to do this. Anti-Semitic attacks don’t.

What are your thoughts? Comment below…

POLITICO

Published  4 days ago

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants Europe to know who's really boss in Washington — and it isn't President Donald Trump.

Pelosi and a delegation of U.S. lawmakers were in Brussels on Monday and Tuesday to reassure European partners at a time when transatlantic relations have been deeply fractured by Trump's criticism of allies and his unpredictability in policymaking.

Among the messages that Pelosi said she brought to the EU capital was that the U.S. president is not all-powerful. Of course, it was a lesson Europeans watched her teach Trump in the standoff over a recent government shutdown — where she forced the president to back down.

"We're not a parliamentary government even though we're parliamentarians," Pelosi said at a news conference. "We have Article 1, the legislative branch, the first branch of government, coequal to the other branches and we have asserted ourselves in that way."

Pelosi said that one European colleague had asked why the House of Representatives had only recently adopted a resolution in support of NATO. She said that she explained it was because she and the Democrats had only retaken control of the majority at the start of the year.

"I said because we just got the majority and then we can control, we can manage what goes on to the floor," Pelosi said. "But once the Republican colleagues had the opportunity to vote on this, H.R. 676 NATO Support Act — what was it? 357 to 22 no's. I think that that sends a very clear message."

Pelosi added, "I don't think that there's any difference between Democrats and Republicans on our relationship with NATO. This is not partisan in any way."

Representative Gerry Connolly, a Democrat from Virginia, reiterated Pelosi's point about Congressional authority.

"In terms of the question — is this a reassurance tour? I think it's a reminder tour," Connolly said, "that the United States government is not just one branch. And as the Speaker said, Article 1, the first Article in the Constitution of the United States deals with the powers of the legislative branch not the executive branch and those powers include war and peace and even direction of the armed forces."

Pelosi then leaned back toward the microphone to interject: "And the power of the purse."

It was an unmistakable message to Trump back in Washington, where the president has declared a national emergency, intent on building his wall along the Mexican border even though Congress has denied him the money to do so.

A group of states has filed a lawsuit seeking to stop Trump, and the upcoming court fight will almost certainly test the balance of powers between the executive branch and Congress.

Pelosi and her delegation arrived in Brussels after attending the annual Munich Security Conference, where the deep fissures in transatlantic relations were on full display.

At the news conference in Brussels, Pelosi said that she and her delegation were in Europe "reaffirming our commitment to the transatlantic alliance, our commitment to NATO and respect for the European Union."

The visit was clearly intended to draw a contrast between Congressional Democrats and Trump, who has left America's historic allies deeply unsettled, particularly by the unpredictability of his decisions such as surprise announcements of a drawdown of troops in Syria and Afghanistan and, over the weekend, a threat to release captured ISIS fighters if European allies don't accept them and put them on trial.

In Brussels, Pelosi and her delegation met NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and the EU's high representative for foreign policy, Federica Mogherini.

Daily Wire

Published  4 days ago

On January 29, 2019, Chicago Police opened a hate crime investigation into the alleged assault of Empire actor Jussie Smollett. Smollett, who is black and gay, alleged that two men approached him at 2 a.m. in Chicago, where they shouted “f*****” and “n*****,” tried to wrap a noose around his neck, and poured bleach on him. He also told TMZ that the men shouted, “This is MAGA country.”

The story received unending press. The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), tweeted, “The racist, homophobic attack on [Smollett] is an affront to our humanity.” Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) called it a “modern-day lynching.” Congresswoman and Fresh Face™ of the Democratic Party Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez slammed anyone who questioned the story, tweeting, “The attack was not ‘possibly’ homophobic. It was a racist and homophobic attack.”

The media ran with the story. Good Morning America hosted Smollett, where he maligned anyone who asked questions as a racist and a homophobe. CNN’s Brooke Baldwin stated, “This is America in 2019.” Celebrities parroted their support for Smollett, with many blaming President Trump and Vice President Pence for the attack.

The story was a hoax.

That same night, a Jewish man in New York was beaten by three thugs. Nothing was stolen. The attack was caught on video.

Outside of a report in The Jerusalem Post, the story received virtually no attention.

This isn’t the only story of anti-Semitism in New York. Not by a long shot. Two weeks before that beating, a Jewish man, 19, was “violently assaulted” as he walked past a local laundromat by a group of teenage black males. In December, a 16-year-old Jewish teen spent a week in a hospital after being beaten by two other teens; witnesses said that the teens screamed “Kill the Jew.” The NYPD categorized the attack as “gang related” rather than a hate crime, angering Jews in the area. This weekend, vandals shattered the window of a Chabad in Bushwick as the rabbi and his family slept inside.

This list goes on.

In fact, according to NBC New York, “The city has seen a sharp increase in reported hate crimes so far in 2019, the NYPD said. Police had investigated 42 hate crimes through Feb. 4, compared with 19 at the same point last year. Most of those were anti-Semitic.” The New York Times reported in October of last year that “there have been four times as many crimes motivated by bias against Jews — 142 in all — as there have against blacks. Hate crimes against Jews have outnumbered hate crimes targeted at transgender people by a factor of 20.”

None of this has received media attention comparable to the Smollett situation. Why? Because, as the Times also admitted in October, “anti-Semitism bypasses consideration as a serious problem in New York … because it refuses to conform to an easy narrative with a single ideological enemy.” In other words, it doesn’t fit the narrative.

Indeed, the narrative the Left wishes to push is that America is deeply discriminatory and bigoted, rife with hate. But by statistics, Jews are by far the most likely group to be targeted in America on a per capita basis. This is a problem for the intersectionality-oriented Left, which sees Jews not as victims but as part of the power hierarchy in the United States. How can the Left uphold its hierarchy of victimhood if Jews are the chief targets of hate crime – and furthermore, if such hate crime is largely perpetrated by non-white supremacists, people who supposedly lie higher on the victim hierarchy than Jews?

Furthermore, Jews are inordinately successful and well-treated in the United States; outside of Israel, there is no more philo-Semitic country on earth. So if Jews, the most statistically victimized group in America, aren’t particularly victimized, what does that say about the narrative of America as racist, bigotry-ridden hellhole?

The United States is an amazing place. But the media and much of the Left don’t like that narrative. That’s why they cover Jussie Smollett. And that’s why they won’t cover Jews being attacked on the streets of New York.

bostonherald

Published  4 days ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Review

Published  4 days ago

The Jussie Smollett debacle shows, yet again, that the media are more interested in pushing a left-wing agenda than sticking to facts.

This week, the story of the Jussie Smollett hoax gripped the national media. The story, for those who missed it, went something like this: The Empire actor, who is both black and gay, stated that on a freezing January night in Chicago, in the middle of the polar vortex, he went to a local Subway store to buy a sandwich. On his way back, he was accosted by two men wearing red hats who called him the f-word and the n-word. They then tossed a clothesline around his neck, poured bleach on him, and shouted, “This is MAGA country!”

There were some obvious problems with the story. First, Chicago is not exactly MAGA country — Trump won 12.5 percent of the vote in the city precincts. Second, it seems unlikely that people would stake out Smollett in the middle of the night in below-freezing temperatures. Third, Smollett somehow retained hold of his sandwich after the alleged assault. Fourth, he strolled through his apartment complex without notifying the doorman of the incident. Fifth, he waited 40 minutes to call the police. Sixth, when the police arrived, he was still wearing the clothesline around his neck. Seventh, Smollett claimed that his manager had been on the phone with him at the time of the alleged hate crime; when asked to turn over his phone to the Chicago Police Department to verify this, he refused to do so.

Initially, the media ran with the story without taking such questions seriously. The Washington Post’s Eugene Scott stated, “To many, the Smollett incident — and the political nature of the assault — is yet another reminder for many black gay Americans that this president’s vision of a ‘great America’ does not appear to include them.” Jamil Smith of Rolling Stone tweeted, “The brutal attack on him in Chicago appears to be yet another example not just of further moral decay, but of the brand of terrorism that still doesn’t seem to spark enough response by Americans.” CNN’s Brooke Baldwin simply lamented, “This is America in 2019.”

Celebrities weighed in, too. Actress Ellen Page went on Stephen Colbert’s late-night show where she blamed Vice President Mike Pence for the attack. Cher tweeted, “VILLAINY, RACISM, HOMOPHOBIA, PROMOTED BY MOST INFAMOUS [clown emoji] IN [world emoji], IS THE POISON THAT KILLS [American flag emoji].” Singer Katy Perry tweeted, “Standing with and sending love to @JussieSmollett today . . . this is a racist hate crime and is disgusting and shameful to our country.” Director Rob Reiner added, “The horrific attack on Jussie Smollett has no place in a decent human loving society. . . . No intolerance! No DT!”

Then there were the Democratic politicians. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi tweeted, “The racist, homophobic attack on [Smollett] is an affront to our humanity.” Senator Cory Booker (D., N.J.), who is running for president, called the Smollett incident a “modern-day lynching.” Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez slammed anyone willing to question Smollett’s account, stating, “The attack was not ‘possibly’ homophobic. It was a racist and homophobic attack.”

Why did so many on the political Left buy into the obviously incredible story from the moment that it broke? Because it perfectly fit narratives that the Left loves: the narrative of America as racist, homophobic hellhole; the narrative of Trump supporters as violent bigots; the narrative of Trump himself as an inspirational figure for such violent bigots. The story was too good to be true. So no one cared whether it was or not.

That phenomenon doesn’t exist only on the Left. Confirmation bias is a universal human concern. But in the past six months, we’ve seen the media run with uncorroborated, unverifiable accounts of sexual assault by Judge Brett Kavanaugh decades ago; false accounts of Trump-supporting high-schoolers harassing an elderly Native American man; and now the Smollett case. This isn’t a coincidence. The real message of the past few months is that the media are dominated by those who align with the political Left. That doesn’t mean that everything the media report is fake news. But it does mean that they themselves are too often fake newspeople. They’re actually motivated actors willing to put aside the strictures of journalistic objectivity in order to run with stories that back a preferred narrative. Then, when called on their bias, they run stories about conservatives “pouncing” — as though the story isn’t media bias itself but conservatives’ anger at media bias.

That’s absurd. But so was Smollett’s story from the outset. Either our media will learn to fact-check themselves, or they’ll continue to lose credibility. And either political partisans will learn to stick to the facts, or they’ll continue to tear the country apart on behalf of the narratives they prefer to truth.

HuffPost Canada

Published  4 days ago

They stepped on this rake last year and now it's hitting them in the face.

Mail Online

Published  4 days ago

Jussie Smollett claimed he was attacked at a Subway by two men in ski masks in Chicago. Nancy Pelosi deleted a tweet expressing her sympathy for him after reports it was faked emerged two weeks later.

Conservative News Today

Published  4 days ago

Sen. Cory Booker’s declaration that he was withholding judgement on the alleged attack on actor Jussie Smollett would be commendable if he hadn’t already called it out as “an attempted modern-day lynching.” The Democratic presidential candidate told reporters Sunday that he was now waiting until the facts came in on the alleged hate crime against the “Empire” […]

US Liberty Wire

Published  4 days ago

There is always a tweet. Nancy Pelosi, like most of Hollywood, the media and democratic politicians jumped at the chance to condemn the attacks against Jussie Smollet.

Smollet, of course, claimed he was attacked by Trump fans shouting MAGA or some nonsense and the goons on the left went nuts. They ripped Trump and his supporters for days calling them every name in the book.

They blamed Trump personally saying his rhetoric and hate, blah blah blah – it is the same old broken Dem record.

And as usual with a left-wing hit job, it backfired spectacularly. Turns out Smollet concocted the whole thing, there was no attack and he may be the one sitting in a jail cell for a few years.

So does the left apologize? No, like Pelosi they try to sneak and erase the past hoping we will not notice. Sorry, Nancy.

From The Daily Caller House Speaker Nancy Pelosi deleted her original tweet sympathetic for “Empire” actor and singer Jussie Smollett amid reports that Smollett may have staged the alleged January 29 attack against himself.

Smollett claimed to law enforcement he went to a local Chicago Subway eatery at 2 a.m., and he was physically assaulted by two men in ski masks who poured a bleach-like substance on him and tied a rope around his neck like a noose.

Smollett, who is gay and black, also told police his attackers yelled racial and homophobic slurs at him as well as told him, “This is MAGA country.”

Politicians and celebrities alike rallied around Smollett, including Pelosi, who tweeted on January 29, “The racist, homophobic attack on [Smollett] is an affront to our humanity. No one should be attacked for who they are or whom they love.”

Others have yet to retract their original statements or delete their original tweets, including California Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris and New Jersey Democratic Sen. Corey Booker. Both are running for the Democratic nomination for president.

Booker was asked about the recent developments in the case and would only say he is waiting for more information before he makes any further statements about the matter.

According to ABC News, two Nigerian brothers, initially arrested by Chicago Police in connection to the assault against Smollett were later released after telling law enforcement that Smollett paid them to stage the attack.

Blunt Force Truth

Published  5 days ago

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is one of many Democrats trying to backtrack on their original defense of “Empire” actor Jussie Smollet.

On Jan. 29, Pelosi joined many others and took to Twitter to issue a strong defense of Smollet, who claimed that he was physically assaulted in Chicago by two men in ski masks who poured bleach on him, put a rope around his neck like a noose, and yelled, “This is MAGA country.”

Pelosi emphatically deafened Smollet and portrayed him as a upstanding person.

“The racist, homophobic attack on Jussie Smollet is an affront to our humanity. No one should be attack for who they are or whom they love. I pray that Jussie has a speedy recovery and that justice is served,” Pelosi wrote.

“May we all commit to ending this hate once and for all,” she added.

As noted by Newsmax columnist James Hirsen, the tweet no longer exists on Pelosi’s official Twitter account, meaning it appears to have been deleted.

Speaker Pelosi deleted this with no retraction or commentpic.twitter.com/D9NRP6wOty

— James Hirsen (@thejimjams) February 18, 2019

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.

Daily Wire

Published  5 days ago

Report AdxReason: --Select please--

She said it was a modern-day lynching; she said it without evidence; now that the evidence disproved her assumptions, she has nothing to say.

2020 presidential candidate Kamala Harris was literally speechless when confronted by reporters about recent revelations that "Empire" star Jussie Smollett may have staged a hate crime in order to allegedly gain attention. Upon initially hearing about the alleged hate crime, Harris accepted it at face-value despite the obvious holes in Smollett's initial story.

"Jussie Smollett is one of the kindest, most gentle human beings I know. I’m praying for his quick recovery," she said on Twitter. "This was an attempted modern day lynching. No one should have to fear for their life because of their sexuality or color of their skin. We must confront this hate."

Since then, evidence shows that Smollett may have paid two Nigerian brothers to pull off an elaborate hate crime hoax allegedly because the actor did not appreciate the lack of media attention over a racist letter he received in the mail. When confronted by a reporter on Monday if her opinions regarding the Smollett incident have changed in light of the new evidence, Kamala Harris struggled to utter a phrase before side-stepping the issue.

"Which tweet? What tweet?" Harris asked as the reporter questioned her about the "modern day lynching" comment.

"Um ... I ... I ... Okay, so I will say this about that case, the facts are still unfolding, and, um, I’m very, um, concerned about obviously, the initial, um, allegation that he made about what might have happened," she said. "And it’s something we should all take seriously whenever anyone, um, alleges that kind of behavior, but there should be an investigation. And I think that once the investigation has concluded then we can all comment, but I’m not going to comment until I know the outcome of the investigation."

It is important to note that Harris has not deleted her poorly-aged tweet in support of Smollett as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did. The California senator's deflection echoes that of Cory Booker over the weekend; he told people to withhold judgment until more facts came out.

"The information is still coming out. I'm going to withhold until all the information actually comes out from on the record sources," Booker said over the weekend.

Like Kamala Harris, Cory Booker took Smollett's allegation at face-value without waiting for all the facts to come out.

"The vicious attack on actor Jussie Smollett was an attempted modern-day lynching. I'm glad he's safe," Booker tweeted in response to the attack. "To those in Congress who don't feel the urgency to pass our Anti-Lynching bill designating lynching as a federal hate crime– I urge you to pay attention."

While it's nice that both Harris and Booker believe that evidence and due process should decide someone's guilt, they were singing a completely different tune during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearing, during which they immediately believed Christine Blasey Ford's accusation of sexual assault against the judge without a shred of evidence or a corroborative witness.

David Harris Jr

Published  5 days ago

We recently came across a video posted on Facebook that makes a case against gun registration, which is now receiving national attention as of January 2019. In the video below, which takes place in an unspecified California location, you’ll see a man having a discussion with (count ’em) FOUR police officers who showed up to his house to confiscate his guns. The man purposely followed existing law to get them appropriately registered, only to have them taken away.

by clicking here.

It’s been said many times that California is the place where the “trial balloons” of the most radical liberal leftists are flown before trying to get them implemented on a national level. Nancy Pelosi just last month floated a National Universal Gun Registration proposal, also known as H.B. 8, which would undoubtedly lead the entire nation down a slippery slope to the ultimate goal of removing all firearms from the hands of the law-abiding citizen.

The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) reported that H.B. 8, if passed, would:

*** OUTRIGHT BAN all private firearms sales — requiring every gun purchase to be pre-approved by the federal government at YOUR expense.

*** MAKE IT ILLEGAL to let your friend or even family member borrow your firearm on a hunting trip.

*** FORCE all firearm purchases to be registered through the Brady-NICS registration system.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but this sets off a major alarm bell. The disarming of Americans has been a high priority for decades, and it is a blatant attack against the Constitutional protections afforded by the Second Amendment. The biggest problem of it all is that if the law-abiding citizens are disarmed, the only ones left with the means to protect themselves with firearms will be the criminals. The way the California registration laws work right now its a damned-if-you-do or damned-if-you-don’t scenario. I have no doubt the Left would love to totally disarm us all and implement globalism.

A more complete rundown of what’s at stake can be seen in an article found here.

To try Amazing and All Natural supplements that our founder David J Harris Jr had developed, click here!

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

Zero Hedge

Published  5 days ago

"I pray Jussie has a speedy recovery..." *poof*

Katrina Pierson

Published  5 days ago

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi deleted her original tweet sympathetic for “Empire” actor and singer Jussie Smollett amid reports that Smollett may have staged the alleged January 29 attack against himself.

Smollett claimed to law enforcement he went to a local Chicago Subway eatery at 2 a.m., and he was physically assaulted by two men in ski masks who poured a bleach-like substance on him and tied a rope around his neck like a noose.

Smollett, who is gay and black, also told police his attackers yelled racial and homophobic slurs at him as well as told him, “This is MAGA country.”

Politicians and celebrities alike rallied around Smollett, including Pelosi, who tweetedon January 29, “The racist, homophobic attack on [Smollett] is an affront to our humanity. No one should be attacked for who they are or whom they love.”

However, as the case unfolded over the past two weeks more questions arose as to whether Smollett was telling the complete truth about the January 29 incident.

Others have yet to retract their original statements or delete their original tweets, including California Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris and New Jersey Democratic Sen. Corey Booker. Both are running for the Democratic nomination for president.

Booker was asked about the recent developments in the case and would only say he is waiting for more information before he makes any further statements about the matter.

According to ABC News, two Nigerian brothers, initially arrested by Chicago Police in connection to the assault against Smollett were later released after telling law enforcement that Smollett paid them to stage the attack.

One of the brothers is Smollett’s personal trainer, according to a statement to ABC News from Smollett’s attorneys. They had decided to cooperate after investigators revealed that they had evidence the brothers had bought the rope that was put around Smollet’s neck at a local hardware store.

Breitbart

Published  5 days ago

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

dailycaller

Published  5 days ago

A Democratic lawmaker who called the alleged hate crime attack against Jussie Smollett a “modern-day lynching” now says that he is withholding judgement in the case amid reports that authorities believe the “Empire” actor orchestrated a hoax.

“Well, the information is still coming out, and I’m going to withhold until all the information comes out,” New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, a 2020 presidential candidate, told reporters Sunday when asked about his past remarks on the Smollett case.

Booker’s remarks are a far cry from a tweet he posted in the hours after Smollett’s alleged attack was reported.

“The vicious attack on actor Jussie Smollett was an attempted modern-day lynching. I’m glad he’s safe,” Booker wrote on Jan. 29.

NEW: Booker said he is waiting for more info on the new reports of Jussie Smollet’s attack potentially being a planned hoax. He called it a “modern-day lynching” when first reported. pic.twitter.com/rHNNJtNvCs

— Bo Erickson (@BoKnowsNews) February 17, 2019

Smollett, who is black and gay, claimed that he was attacked on Jan. 29 by two white men who hurled racist and homophobic insults at him while he was walking in Chicago. The actor also claimed that his assailants placed a rope around his neck during the attack. (RELATED: Here Are All The Politicians Who Rushed To Judgement In The Smollett ‘Hate Crime’)

Democratic lawmakers and left-wing activists jumped to Smollett’s defense. In addition to Booker, California Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris called the incident a “modern-day lynching.” New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Speaker Nancy Pelosi asserted it was a “racist, homophobic attack.”

Chicago police now suspect that Smollett paid two acquaintances to stage an attack against him, according to reports from numerous outlets. The two men, who are U.S. citizens of Nigerian descent, were arrested Wednesday but released from custody Friday. They are reportedly cooperating with investigators.

Instead of backtracking on his earlier comments in the Smollett case, Booker shifted Sunday to a discussion of other hate crimes in the U.S.

“We know in America that bigoted and biased attacks are on the rise, in a serious way,” Booker told reporters.

Asked whether Smollett should comment publicly in the face of new information in the case, Booker said: “Again, I’m following this case as you are. We’ll see this happen.”

Booker was also asked whether Smollett’s apparent hoax undercuts an anti-lynching bill that the Democrat introduced earlier this week.

Booker dodged the question.

“We have seen painful realities surge in our country, a rise in anti-Semitism, anti-Islamic attacks,” he said. “We’re seeing just vicious, horrific, cruel violence that’s motivated by bias and hate. We need to do more to protect all Americans and make sure all neighborhoods and communities are safe.”

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

Big League Politics

Published  5 days ago

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) deleted a Tweet from several days ago in which she said the “attack on Jussie Smollett is an affront to our humanity.”

First noted on Twitter by Nick Monroe, the Tweet is no longer live on Pelosi’s account.

Hey @SpeakerPelosi , it appears you DELETED your Jussie Smollett tweet. Want to comment as to why?

If this was done on accident, I'm happy to report that there's a copy of it archived. https://t.co/vXpCSgnj8j

over 20,000 Retweets

over 100,000 likes pic.twitter.com/oqfbNBkR02

In full, it read:

“The racist, homophobic attack on @JussieSmollett is an affront to our humanity. No one should be attacked for who they are or whom they love. I pray that Jussie has a speedy recovery & that justice is served. May we all commit to ending this hate once & for all.”

Pelosi did not publicly apologize for piling on after the media blamed supporters of President Donald J. Trump for the attack. She has not publicly commented on the event since the now-deleted Tweet.

Per Pelosi’s request, it looks like justice will be served – against Smollett, who fabricated the entire event.

Smollett allegedly paid two Nigerian friends and cast members on “Empire” to stage stunt. The pair bought the rope that was found hanging around Smollett’s neck.

The actor claimed that he was beaten, a rope was tied around his neck, and bleach was poured on him while he fought for his life. He claimed that his “attackers” yelled homophobic and racial slurs. as well as “this is MAGA country” during the “attack.”

Sunday morning, Smollett’s lawyers doubled down, insisting that Smollett is still a victim, despite what police said. Their move signals that Smollett is not ready ready to give up on the hoax just yet. Chicago Police warned that Smollett will be “held accountable” for the hoax.

Daily Mail reported that Smollett could face up to three years in jail for filing a false report.

dailycaller

Published  5 days ago

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi deleted her original tweet sympathetic for “Empire” actor and singer Jussie Smollett amid reports that Smollett may have staged the alleged January 29 attack against him.

Smollett claimed to law enforcement he went to a local Chicago Subway eatery at 2 a.m., and he was physically assaulted by two men in ski masks who poured a bleach-like substance on him and tied a rope around his neck like a noose. (RELATED: Here Are All The Politicians Who Rushed To Judgement On The Smollett ‘Hate Crime’)

Smollett, who is gay and black, also told police his attackers yelled racial and homophobic slurs at him as well as told him, “This is MAGA country.”

Politicians and celebrities alike rallied around Smollett, including Pelosi, who tweeted on January 29, “The racist, homophobic attack on [Smollett] is an affront to our humanity. No one should be attacked for who they are or whom they love.”

However, as the case unfolded over the past two weeks more questions arose as to whether Smollett was telling the complete truth about the January 29 incident.

Others have yet to retract their original statements or delete their original tweets, including California Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris and New Jersey Democratic Sen. Corey Booker. Both are running for the Democratic nomination for president.

Booker was asked about the recent developments in the case and would only say he is waiting for more information before he makes any further statements about the matter. (RELATED: Cory Booker Called Smollett ‘Attack’ A ‘Lynching,’ Now He’s Refusing Comment Amid New Evidence In The Case)

According to ABC News, two Nigerian brothers, initially arrested by Chicago Police in connection to the assault against Smollett were later released after telling law enforcement that Smollett paid them to stage the attack.

One of the brothers is Smollett’s personal trainer, according to a statement to ABC News from Smollett’s attorneys. They had decided to cooperate after investigators revealed that they had evidence the brothers had bought the rope that was put around Smollet’s neck at a local hardware store.

Smollett’s attorneys released a statement denying he staged his own attack, saying in part, “As a victim of a hate crime who has cooperated with the police investigation, Jussie Smollett is angered and devastated by recent reports that the perpetrators are individuals he is familiar with. He has now been further victimized by claims attributed to these alleged perpetrators that Jussie played a role in his own attack. Nothing is further from the truth and anyone claiming otherwise is lying.”

Follow Kerry on Twitter

Kerry Picket is a host on SiriusXM Patriot 125

dailycaller

Published  5 days ago

When Jussie Smollett claimed he was assaulted by two men wearing “Make America Great Again” hats, many Democratic politicians quickly came to his defense.

Those Democrats included Sens. Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, and Reps. Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, among others.

Waters blamed the attack on President Donald Trump and asked, “Why all of a sudden do we have people unable to study while black, unable to mow a lawn while black, unable to have picnic while black, and being attacked?”

Pelosi tweeted, “The racist, homophobic attack on [Smollett] is an affront to our humanity. No one should be attacked for who they are or whom they love.”

Kamala Harris tweeted that the attack was a “modern-day lynching,” while her fellow senator and presidential candidate Cory Booker used the same term to describe the alleged attack.

Meanwhile, Ocasio-Cortez tweeted that the attack was not “possibly” a racist and homophobic attack, but that “it was a racist and homophobic attack.”

Smollett, who is gay, claimed that his attacker shouted racist and homophobic slurs at him. However, additional details later added a cloud of doubt to Smollett’s story, including the fact that Smollett was later seen walking to his house in the early hours of the morning with a subway sandwich in his hand. (RELATED: Jussie Smollett On MAGA Hats: ‘I Never Said That!’)

On Thursday, reports emerged that the Chicago Police Department now believe that the incident was a hoax and that Smollett staged the attack to garner sympathy because his character was being written off the show “Empire,” a report which 20th Century Fox denied, calling the claims “patently ridiculous.”

On Wednesday, two Nigerian brothers were arrested in connection with the case, and on Saturday CNN reported that the brothers are “now cooperating fully with law enforcement.”

Chicago police now believe that Smollett paid the two brothers to stage the assault.

Follow William Davis on Twitter

CALmatters

Published  5 days ago

Gavin Newsom will be the first Democrat in more than a century to succeed another Democrat as governor and the succession also marks a big generational transition in California politics.

A long-dominant geriatric quartet from the San Francisco Bay Area – Gov. Jerry Brown, Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi – has been slowly ceding power to younger political strivers.

Moreover, Newsom is succeeding someone who could be considered his quasi-uncle, since his inauguration continues the decades-long saga of four San Francisco families intertwined by blood, by marriage, by money, by culture and, of course, by politics – the Browns, the Newsoms, the Pelosis and the Gettys.

The connections date back at least 80 years, to when Jerry Brown’s father, Pat Brown, ran for San Francisco district attorney, losing in 1939 but winning in 1943, with the help of his close friend and Gavin Newsom’s grandfather, businessman William Newsom.

Fast forward two decades. Gov. Pat Brown’s administration developed Squaw Valley for the 1960s winter Olympics and afterward awarded a concession to operate it to William Newsom and his partner, John Pelosi.

One of the Pelosis’ sons, Paul, married Nancy D’Alesandro, who went into politics and has now reclaimed speakership of the House of Representatives. Another Pelosi son married William Newsom’s daughter, Barbara. Until they divorced, that made Nancy Pelosi something like an aunt by marriage to Gavin Newson (Nancy Pelosi’s brother-in-law was Gavin Newsom’s uncle).

The Squaw Valley concession was controversial at the time and created something of a rupture between the two old friends.

William Newsom wanted to make significant improvements to the ski complex, including a convention center, but Brown’s Department of Parks and Recreation balked. Newsom and his son, an attorney also named William, held a series of contentious meetings with officials over the issue.

An eight-page memo about those 1966 meetings from the department’s director, Fred Jones, buried in the Pat Brown archives, describes the Newsoms as being embittered and the senior Newsom threatening to “hurt the governor politically” as Brown ran for a third term that year against Ronald Reagan.

Pat Brown’s bid for a third term failed, and the Reagan administration later bought out the Newsom concession. But the Brown-Newsom connection continued as Brown’s son, Jerry, reclaimed the governorship in 1974. He appointed the younger William Newsom, a personal friend and Gavin’s father, to a Placer County judgeship in 1975 and three years later to the state Court of Appeal.

Justice Newsom, who died a few weeks ago, had been an attorney for oil magnate J. Paul Getty, most famously delivering $3 million to Italian kidnapers of Getty’s grandson in 1973. While serving on the appellate bench in the 1980s, he helped Getty’s son, Gordon, secure a change in state trust law that allowed him to claim his share of a multi-heir trust.

After Newsom retired from the bench in 1995, he became administrator of Gordon Getty’s own trust, telling one interviewer, “I make my living working for Gordon Getty.” The trust provided seed money for the PlumpJack chain of restaurants and wine shops that Newson’s son, Gavin, and Gordon Getty’s son, Billy, developed, the first being in a Squaw Valley hotel.

Gavin Newsom had been informally adopted by the Gettys after his parents divorced, returning a similar favor that the Newsom family had done for a young Gordon Getty many years earlier. Newsom’s PlumpJack business (named for an opera that Gordon Getty wrote) led to a career in San Francisco politics, a stint as mayor, the lieutenant governorship and now to the governorship, succeeding his father’s old friend.

He’s keeping it all in the extended family.

Trump Train

Published  6 days ago

President Trump won a strategic victory Friday when he signed legislation to avoid another government shutdown and provide a down payment on border security funding – and then declared a national emergency to get billions of dollars more needed to protect our southern border.

After insisting for well over a month that the president would never get any funding for a border wall, congressional Democrats meekly backed down in the face of President Trump’s unwavering commitment to border security, giving the White House nearly $1.4 billion for 55 miles of new fencing along the border.

“The fact is a wall is an immorality,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said during the partial government shutdown, joking that she would only give the president $1 out of the $5.7 billion he requested. The president’s request was based on advice from law enforcement experts.

“There’s not going to be any wall money in the legislation,” Pelosi later reiterated.

While the government funding bill passed by Congress and signed by the president Friday isn’t a perfect solution to the ongoing border crisis, it’s certainly an important start.

By getting the Democrats to abandon their obstructionist position, President Trump shifted the momentum of the debate in his favor, setting the stage for him to take executive action to finish the job.

Some conservatives argue that the president should have rejected the government funding bill passed by Congress because it did not include the full $5.7 billion needed for a border wall. But this criticism misses the bigger picture.

Now that Congress has agreed to border barriers in principle, President Trump has a much stronger hand to play when it comes time to secure the remaining funds.

Make no mistake: President Trump isn’t finished fighting for real border security, and he won’t be until our communities are finally protected from the drugs and crime flowing across our southern border.

Even if Congress refuses to provide another dime in wall funding, the nearly $1.4 billion down payment it agreed to represents a big chunk of the president’s request. And the executive actions the president announced add more than $8.1 billion in funding for a border wall and other border security measures.

Trump is the first president in a generation who is willing to take political risks to secure our border. His declaration of a national emergency proves that he won’t settle for anything less than a fully funded wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

As for the government funding bill, it’s over a billion times better than the best offer Speaker Pelosi ever put on the table. That alone is enough to make it a victory worth savoring.

CBS Philly

Published  6 days ago

WASHINGTON (CBSLA/CBS News) – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was so thankful to be signing a border security bill aimed at averting another government shutdown that she wished those gathered a Happy Thanksgiving – on Valentine’s Day.

The House voted Thursday to pass a compromise bill on border security hours after the Senate overwhelmingly approved it, averting a second shutdown in two months. The White House said President Donald Trump will sign the bill and declare a national emergency to bolster border security beyond the funding provided in the bill.

After the signing, Pelosi addressed the crowd of reporters and politicians on Capitol Hill.

“Happy Valentine’s Day. We saluted our victory – or the victory for the American people – earlier with chocolate. Chocolate from California, I call it the champagne of chocolate. So again, I wish you all a Happy Thanksgiving. You should go home now to your loved ones,” she said.

Those standing behind the speaker immediately reacted to Pelosi’s comment, including California Rep. Pete Aguilar who laughed and said “Thanksgiving?”

The bill passed in both chambers by large bipartisan majorities – 83 to 16 in the Senate, and 300 to 128 in the House.

The measure passed in Congress only provides $1.375 billion for a border wall, far less than the $5.7 billion requested by Trump. In addition to funding border priorities at the Department of Homeland Security as a whole, the legislation includes funding for six other departments or programs that had not yet been approved.

The president allowed a 35-day government shutdown, which saw 800,000 federal employees furloughed or working without pay, in an attempt to persuade Democrats to budge on wall funding.

© 2019 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Fox News

Published  6 days ago

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

NRA-ILA

Published  6 days ago

The Nancy Pelosi Speaker Era 2.0 continued on Wednesday, Feb. 13, with a markup of H.R 8, the “universal” background checks bill, in the House Judiciary Committee. Following on the heels of last week’s Judiciary Committee hearing, the same committee held a markup on Wednesday, where amendments and corrections to H.R. 8 could be considered. Unfortunately, the markup was clearly designed to allow the anti-gun Democrats who control the Judiciary Committee to grandstand and promote attacks on law-abiding gun owners, rather than consider efforts to combat violent crime.

It was clear from the outset that the anti-gun Democrats had no interest in considering reasonable approaches to addressing violent crime. The committee’s Ranking Member, Doug Collins (R-Ga.), offered the first amendment to the bill, which sought other approaches to combating crime rather than “universal” background checks, which study after study have shown to be ineffective, or their effectiveness inconclusive. His amendment was simply dismissed as not germane, without any discussion of its merits.

Please Contact Your U.S. Representative and Ask Them to Vote Against H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112!

H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112 cause undue burden's to law-abiding gun owners!

Representative F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) offered the next amendment. It simply sought to add to the list of exemptions from the “universal” background check requirements anyone who possessed a valid permit to carry a firearm. Adoption of the amendment would have still left the bill as an anti-gun mess, but it was a reasonable proposal considering carry permit holders already undergo a background check in order to obtain their permits. The anti-gun majority made clear they were not interested in anything reasonable, and the amendment was defeated.

The Sensenbrenner amendment was attacked by anti-gunners on the committee with ridiculous arguments and inaccurate information. Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) objected because not all states that issue permits to carry firearms require any training, even though the “universal” background checks mandated by H.R. 8 have no training requirements.Representative David Cicilline (D-R.I.) objected because, according to him, some states have no issuing requirements for permits, which is patently false. Other anti-gun legislators tried to claim that some states that issue permits after an applicant has submitted to a background check actually don’t check an applicant’s criminal history.

This process repeated itself throughout the day, with other amendments seeking to make even minor improvements to a monumentally bad piece of legislation being rejected similarly, either voted down or ruled not germane, by the anti-gun majority and Chair. This includes simple amendments that merely sought to put a cap on the fees that could be charged for a “universal” background check.

The Chair even spoke out against an amendment that sought to exempt victims of domestic violence from “universal” background check provisions of H.R. 8 by raising the concern of “evidentiary standards” when determining if the victim is actually a victim, even though anti-gun politicians have consistently refused to acknowledge “evidentiary standards” when promoting legislation to strip gun owners of their firearms.

After several hours, H.R. 8 was passed after anti-gun Democrats rejected every amendment offered by Republicans. The Judiciary Committee then took up H.R. 1112, legislation that would change current law that allows an FFL the option to transfer a firearm after three days if a NICS check is delayed. That discussion was much shorter, being dealt with in under an hour.

Although the actual language for H.R. 1112 has still not been made available on Congress.gov, as anti-gun Democrats have been apparently trying to rush legislation to the floor before it is truly ready for consideration, Chairman Nadler explained that the bill would extend the “delay” period from three days to 10 business days. However, after 10 business days, the transfer is not allowed to go through. The prospective purchaser must first file a petition with the Attorney General. If a “proceed” message is still not received 10 business days after the filing of the petition, only then may the transfer go through. However, NICS checks are only valid for 30 calendar days, so this new proposed proceed provision appears to be practically worthless because in almost all scenarios it will take more than 30 calendar days to accomplish.

The entire premise of H.R. 1112 is predicated on the notion that it would have prevented the horrific murders committed in Charleston, S.C., on June 17, 2015. Proponents have argued that the perpetrator of that crime would not have been able to commit his crime if the background check had taken longer. That, however, is simply not true, as the violent murderer was not prohibited from purchasing the firearm he used and his terrible crime took place more than two months after he first attempted to buy a firearm, so even the extended delay of H.R. 1112 would have had no effect in his case.

Ranking Member Collins may have best summarized this week’s markup and last week’s hearing in his opening remarks on Wednesday, when he stated, “I’m sad the bill before us represents another missed opportunity to prevent violence in our communities.” Neither H.R. 8 nor H.R. 1112 will do anything to address violent crime, but both will surely create problems for otherwise law-abiding gun owners and prospective gun owners.

Please thank Ranking Member Collins and the 13 other members of the House Judiciary Committee who voted against the misguided and ineffective legislation that is designed to score political points, not address crime, violence or mental health.

Please use this link to let your elected officials know that you won’t be blamed for the actions of violent criminals. Ask your Representative to oppose H.R.8 and H.R 1112. Additionally, you may call your U.S. Representative using the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121.

Dan Bongino

Published  6 days ago

Freshman Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-MN) is expected to participate in a fundraiser for an Islamic organization deemed by the Department of Justice as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding trial.

Omar is the keynote speaker for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) 4th Annual Valley Banquet to empower Muslims on March 23.

The Daily Caller writes:

CAIR is a notable pro-Palestinian organization with ties to Islamic terror groups. The U.S. Department of Justice listed CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator in funding millions of dollars to the terrorist organization Hamas. Additionally, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) named CAIR a terrorist organization along with al-Qaeda and ISIS in 2014.

Last week, Omar was embroiled in scandal after she accused Jewish advocacy group AIPAC of paying off politicians.

The freshman lawmaker responded to a tweet about Congress and its support for Israel, writing, “It’s all about the Benjamins baby.”

It's all about the Benjamins baby 🎶 https://t.co/KatcXJnZLV

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) February 10, 2019

She then responded “AIPAC!” when one individual on Twitter asked who she thought paid American politicians to be pro-Israel.

Omar eventually apologized for her anti-Semitic tweets after top Democrats–including Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Steny Hoyer (D-MD)–urged her to do so and condemned her comments.

On Twitter, Omar released the following statement:

“Anti-Semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes. My intention is never to offend my constituents or Jewish Americans as a whole. We have to always be willing to step back and think through criticism, just as I expect people to hear me when others attack me for my identity. This is why I unequivocally apologize. At the same time, I reaffirm the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics, whether it be AIPAC [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee], the [National Rifle Association] or the fossil fuel industry. It’s gone on too long and we must be willing to address it.”

House Democrats said,“…Congresswoman Omar’s use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel’s supporters is deeply offensive. We condemn these remarks and we call upon Congresswoman Omar to immediately apologize for these hurtful comments.”

Last month, in a Yahoo! News interview, the congresswoman said she “almost chuckles” when she hears Israel called a democracy, and compared the Jewish nation to Iran.

When asked how the U.S. could facilitate peace talks between Israel and Iran, Omar replied, “Most of the things that have been aggravating to me is that we have had a policy that makes one superior to the other. And we mask it with a conversation about justice and a two-state solution. When you have policies that clearly prioritize one over the other.”

When asked to explain in detail what she meant, Omar went on to criticize Israel.

“I mean just our relationship with the Israeli government and the Israeli state. And so when I see Israel institute laws that recognize it as a Jewish state and does not recognize the other religions that are living in it,” she said.

She continued, “And we still uphold it as a democracy in the Middle East I almost chuckle because I know that if we see that any other society we would criticize it, call it out. We do that to Iran, we do that to any other place that sort of upholds its religion. And I see that now happening with Saudi Arabia and so I am aggravated, truly, in those contradictions.”

dailycaller

Published  6 days ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US Liberty Wire

Published  6 days ago

The Democrats just got some really bad news from a noted liberal legal scholar. Writing a terrifying op-ed for the left, he shows clearly that using Obama’s precedent, Trump will win the wall fight in the courts.

This would be a devastating blow to the opposition and it will happen, according to Jonathan Turley, because the courts will have to decide in Trump’s favor based on Obama’s precedent.

Turley titled his piece, “Why Trump will win the wall fight” and he makes a strong case. He wrote:

“Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, “If my fellow citizens want to go to hell, I will help them. It is my job.” What he was expressing is the limited role of courts in challenges to federal law. It is not their task as judges to sit as a super legislature to question the priorities or policies of the political branches. They will gladly send Congress to hell. It only needs to be clear about the destination.

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

For decades, Congress frittered away control over its inherent powers, including the power of the purse. I have testified repeatedly before Congress, warning about the expansion of executive power and the failure of Congress to guard its own authority. The two primary objections have been Congress giving presidents largely unchecked authority and undedicated money. The wall controversy today is a grotesque result of both failures.

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

At the same time, Congress has continued to give the executive branch billions of dollars with few conditions or limitations. That is why President Obama was able not only to go to war in Libya without a declaration but to fund the entire war from billions of undedicated funds. At the time, neither House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) nor most of the current Democratic leadership made a peep of objection. Democrats have indicated they will rely on the ruling in House of Representatives versus Sylvia Burwell, in which a court not only ruled that the House of Representatives had standing to sue over executive overreach but that Obama violated the Constitution in ordering the payment of billions to insurance companies without authorization from Congress.

I was the lead counsel for the House of Representatives in that case. Ironically, Pelosi vehemently opposed the litigation as a frivolous and unfounded challenge to presidential authority. We won. Superficially, the Burwell case may look like the current controversy. Obama sought funds from Congress and, when unsuccessful, acted unilaterally. The difference is that Obama ordered the money directly from the Treasury as a permanent appropriation, like the money used annually to pay tax refunds. Congress never approved such payments.

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

Congress has yielded more and more power to the executive branch over decades. In many areas, it has reduced the legislative branch to a mere pedestrian in government, leaving real governing decisions to a kind of “fourth branch” of federal agencies. For their part, presidents have become more and more bold in circumventing Congress. When Obama gave a State of the Union address proclaiming his intention to circumvent Congress after it failed to pass immigration and other measures, Democrats applauded rapturously.

Many of them, like Pelosi, denounce this unilateral action by Trump yet ecstatically supported the unilateral actions by Obama, including his funding of critical parts of the Affordable Care Act after Congress denied any funds. Democrats insist Trump can be challenged on his use of emergency authority since they do not believe an emergency exists on the border. They will fail in spectacular fashion if the case gets to the Supreme Court. While the source of funding can be challenged, there is no compelling basis to challenge the declaration itself.

That brings us back to Holmes. Congress has the authority to rescind the declaration of Trump with a vote of both chambers. It should do so. If it cannot muster the votes, however, a federal judge is unlikely to do so. Simply put, the courts were not created to protect Congress from itself. Congress has been heading to hell for decades, and it is a bit late to complain about the destination”, Turley concluded to devastating effect.

The American Mirror

Published  6 days ago

What is wrong with Nancy Pelosi? The House Speaker held a public bill signing on Thursday, and during her remarks, she wished reporters a 'Happy Thanksgiving.' It was Valentine's Day. She was a mere 84 days late. Watch:  Earlier in the day, the House Speaker gave her weekly brief press conference, she could be seen suffering brain freezes, confusing millions and billions, and at one point, caught herself holding up only five fingers while talking about six bills.  After suffering an early brain freeze while talking about her colleagues being in North Carolina for a funeral, Pelosi struggled

WayneDupree.com

Published  6 days ago

'Say Anything' star is one of the president's most obsessive Hollywood critics

Conservative News Today

Published  6 days ago

A member of the Council on Foreign Relations believes Rep. Ilhan Omar should be removed from office

Dr. Qanta Ahmed believes the Minnesota Democrat is shaping up to be anything but an asset to American Muslims, noting that her Islamist and anti-Semitic views are reason enough for Democrats to at least remove her from the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

“She’s proving to be a tremendous liability to America’s Muslims,” the Muslim scholar and author told “Fox & Friends” host Ainsley Earhardt on Friday.

“In her remarks, she’s branded every Muslim in America as an anti-Semite, and this is absolutely unacceptable and un-Islamic,” Ahmed said, accusing the freshman lawmaker of “insolence,” and “arrogance” with anti-Semitic views going back over years.

“Eject her from the House Foreign Affairs Committee immediately,” she added, arguing that Democrats have “no justification” for keeping her there. “Anything she’s proposing is now going to be interpreted through the lens of anti-Semitism.”

Ahmed indicated that she is especially alarmed at Omar’s affiliation with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement which seeks the eradication of Israel. She noted that there is a new wave of anti-Semitism which has “infected” Islam, a view that is “antithetical to Islamic belief.”

Where does Islamist antisemitism come from? Distinguishing #Islam and it’s central tenet of pluralism including reverence of #Judaism from #Islamism which holds cosmic enmity with Jewry. islamophobia must not be used to shelter #Islamism @IlhanMN @foxandfriends @ainsleyearhardt pic.twitter.com/xV2H6sXYCk

— Qanta Ahmed (@MissDiagnosis) February 16, 2019

The far-left congresswoman came under fire last week by leaders of her own party, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, after commenting about a pro-Israel lobby’s influence on U.S. politics. Omar tweeted that AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, was paying members of Congress to support Israel.

Omar issued an apology of sorts, only to retweet a thread from a Democratic activist just a few hours later who supported her earlier claims that sparked the controversy. President Trump called for Omar’s resignation or that she at least be removed from serving on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Her disrespectful behavior in a fiery clash with President Trump’s Venezuela envoy, Elliott Abrams, during a House hearing even earned her praise from controversial far-left leaders.

Ahmed slammed Omar’s apologies as “hollow,” saying “there’s no justification, ever, for anti-Semitic speech,” which she classified as “hate speech” and “genocidal speech.”

She explained that the views are not in line with true Islam and are now “rife” among Muslims “without critical thinking.”

For Muslims in America, we are faced with the realization that Muslim anti-Semites claim to speak for our Islamic faith and our Muslim identity. They invite hostility to our own communities, and more misunderstanding of Islam within America. @MissDiagnosis https://t.co/8tGY8SUfTY

— Wendy R. Acho (@Acho_Wendy) February 15, 2019

She concluded by pointing out a misconception especially among Democrats that criticizing someone like Omar and calling out comments or views that are hateful is not a form of Islamophobia.

“So to all the viewers and listener, criticizing the endorsement of anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, anti-Zionist speech by a Muslim is not Islamophobia,” Ahmed said. “That is a false construct that just prefers Islamism and denies us to look at the truth.”

In a powerful op-ed published by The Daily Caller, Ahmed clearly defined the dangerous problems Omar and her colleague, Michigan Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib, bring with their radical views.

“America’s Muslims must distinguish themselves from these patently anti-Semitic views,” she wrote. “If we fail to distance ourselves from these sentiments, we Muslims in the Diaspora will invite animus from our host communities and be personally responsible for the debasement of our own faith by our own hand.”

News Punch

Published  6 days ago

Nancy Pelosi's brother-in-law received a whopping $737 million dollars from Obama's energy department in 2011.

WayneDupree.com

Published  6 days ago

Americans are raising their voices and sending a message to Rep. Nancy Pelosi who doesn’t want to help fix the existing border wall and update the deteriorating sections.

In return for participating, those who purchase a brick(s), received a commemorative coin, which is a proud moment.

Jack Murphy, the creator of this viral campaign, said: “We wanted a fun and creative way to tell the Democrats that we’re serious about the wall, and what better way to send Pelosi a message than with thousands of bricks at her front door?” Murphy writes for the website “I Love My Freedom.”

The bricks you see in the picture above are being sent to Pelosi’s California and Washington, DC offices. Here is the letter that has been sent with each package:

“Dear Nancy Pelosi,

Every brick you receive was ordered specifically for you by the American people. Many of them even left a friendly message for you, as you’ll see below we’ve included them.

We hope you’ll take some time and think about the way you’re treating the safety of the American people. All 7,982 bricks that we’re sending you have been ordered by Americans across the country in less than 9 days. You’ll be receiving weekly shipment of bricks to your Washington D.C. and San Francisco office until you take care of your duty. We thank you for your open mind and willingness to do what the American people have asked. BUILD THE WALL AND PROTECT OUR COUNTRY!

-Your Friends At The DJT Collector Club”

Read: CNN Guest Stops Dem Politician For Blaming Country Racism Problem On Trump!

If you would like to join, click on this picture below:

Here are some responses sent with patron’s brick purchases:

Please consider making a donation to WayneDupree.com

and help our mission to make the world a better place

If you find inaccurate information within this article, please use the contact form to alert us immediately.

NOTE: Facebook and Twitter are currently censoring conservative content. We hope they will reverse their policy and honor all voices shortly. Until then, please like our page on Facebook and PLEASE check the Wayne Dupree homepage for the latest stories.

Having problems finding a source for real news links in real time, click on Whatfinger.com. Visit, bookmark and share this resource and then tell your friends and family.

TheHill

Published  6 days ago

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, “If my fellow citizens want to go to hell, I will help them. It is my job.” What he was expressing is the limited role of courts in challenges to federal law. It is not their task as judges to sit as a super legislature to question the priorities or policies of the political branches. They will gladly send Congress to hell. It only needs to be clear about the destination.

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

For decades, Congress frittered away control over its inherent powers, including the power of the purse. I have testified repeatedly before Congress, warning about the expansion of executive power and the failure of Congress to guard its own authority. The two primary objections have been Congress giving presidents largely unchecked authority and undedicated money. The wall controversy today is a grotesque result of both failures.

Start with the National Emergencies Act of 1976. Presidents have long declared national emergencies based on their inherent executive authority. The use of that authority produced some conflicts with Congress, the most famous being the case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company versus Charles Sawyer, in which the Supreme Court declared that the federal seizure of steel mills during the Korean War to be unconstitutional because Congress never gave President Truman that authority.

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

At the same time, Congress has continued to give the executive branch billions of dollars with few conditions or limitations. That is why President Obama was able not only to go to war in Libya without a declaration but to fund the entire war from billions of undedicated funds. At the time, neither House Speaker Nancy Pelosi nor most of the current Democratic leadership made a peep of objection. Democrats have indicated they will rely on the ruling in House of Representatives versus Sylvia Burwell, in which a court not only ruled that the House of Representatives had standing to sue over executive overreach but that Obama violated the Constitution in ordering the payment of billions to insurance companies without authorization from Congress.

I was the lead counsel for the House of Representatives in that case. Ironically, Pelosi vehemently opposed the litigation as a frivolous and unfounded challenge to presidential authority. We won. Superficially, the Burwell case may look like the current controversy. Obama sought funds from Congress and, when unsuccessful, acted unilaterally. The difference is that Obama ordered the money directly from the Treasury as a permanent appropriation, like the money used annually to pay tax refunds. Congress never approved such payments.

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

Congress has yielded more and more power to the executive branch over decades. In many areas, it has reduced the legislative branch to a mere pedestrian in government, leaving real governing decisions to a kind of “fourth branch” of federal agencies. For their part, presidents have become more and more bold in circumventing Congress. When Obama gave a State of the Union address proclaiming his intention to circumvent Congress after it failed to pass immigration and other measures, Democrats applauded rapturously.

Many of them, like Pelosi, denounce this unilateral action by Trump yet ecstatically supported the unilateral actions by Obama, including his funding of critical parts of the Affordable Care Act after Congress denied any funds. Democrats insist Trump can be challenged on his use of emergency authority since they do not believe an emergency exists on the border. They will fail in spectacular fashion if the case gets to the Supreme Court. While the source of funding can be challenged, there is no compelling basis to challenge the declaration itself.

The reason? Congress has never been particularly concerned over past declared emergencies, which have continued with perfunctory annual renewals. Most such emergencies are entirely unknown to the vast majority of Americans. Indeed, the first proclamation of a national emergency occurred under President Wilson in 1917, “arising from the insufficiency of maritime tonnage to carry the products of the farms, forests, mines, and manufacturing industries of the United States.”

Remember that emergency over the “anchorage and movement of vessels” with respect to Cuba? How about the emergency over uncut diamonds from Sierra Leone? Then there are the declarations over property owned by certain Zimbabwean figures, the presidential election in Congo, and issues concerning Yemen, Burundi, Myanmar, Lebanon, Somalia, and South Sudan. All “national emergencies.”

Curiously, Pelosi called for the declaration of a national emergency to deal with the “epidemic of gun violence in America.” She added that she wished Trump would add that declaration but that a “Democratic president can do that.” Yes, a Democratic president could, and that is the key point. Congress gave all presidents the power to make such declarations, and Pelosi is making the case for Trump.

While Democrats insist this emergency declaration is simply an effort to use executive power to get what Congress would not give him, any litigation would be an effort to use judicial power to do much the same thing. The House of Representatives would try to convince a federal judge of the merits against a wall, after failing to convince enough members of Congress to override the emergency declaration and a presidential veto.

That brings us back to Holmes. Congress has the authority to rescind the declaration of Trump with a vote of both chambers. It should do so. If it cannot muster the votes, however, a federal judge is unlikely to do so. Simply put, the courts were not created to protect Congress from itself. Congress has been heading to hell for decades, and it is a bit late to complain about the destination.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  6 days ago

Guest post by Mike LaChance at American Lookout Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the far left rep from New York, played a major role in sinking the Amazon deal in New York which would have brought tens of thousands of high paying jobs to the state. The craziest part is that she actually seems proud of this. Some […]

I Love My Freedom

Published  6 days ago

In a story that shows just how little respect that Democrats have for the intelligence of the American people, freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar is working to explain away her controversial anti-Semitic rhetoric as merely a

I Love My Freedom

Published  6 days ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the goofy granny with the James Brown Hair.

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

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

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

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

Watch it HERE.

POLL: Does Trump have your vote in 2020?

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

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

Raw Story

Published  6 days ago

Constitution expert Laurence Tribe on Saturday explained how Speaker Nancy Pelosi has legal standing to sue President Donald Trump over his declaration of a national emergency to build his border wall.

Prof. Tribe has taught at Harvard Law for fifty years and has argued three dozen cases before the United States Supreme Court.

“Trump’s actions clearly violate the Congress’s exclusive power of the purse, which our Founders enshrined in the Constitution,” Pelosi tweeted. “The Congress will defend our constitutional authorities in the Congress, in the Courts, and in the public, using every remedy available.”

Tribe agreed, while explaining a potential remedy at the Speaker’s disposal.

“The House of Representatives has standing to sue Trump in the US district court for DC,” Tribe noted.

He cited a 2015 case as precedent.

“Speaker Pelosi shouldn’t hesitate to take Trump to court. She’ll have a compelling case,” he explained.

Here are some of his additional thoughts on the national emergency:

I Love My Freedom

Published  6 days ago

Speaker Nancy Pelosi is becoming known for her brain freezes when speaking before reporters. Time after time, the California Democrat seems to jumble and slur her words - tto go along with face spasms that

The Gateway Pundit

Published  6 days ago

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) wished everyone a “Happy Thanksgiving” — on Valentine’s Day at the bill signing this week. Pelosi was so excited to be signing the new border bill this week that she had another brain freeze. The Democrat Speaker of the House also slipped and called the border bill “our victory” because […]

TheWrap

Published  1 week ago

The set of “Morning Joe” was not happy about the decision by Amazon to pull out of their new planned headquarters in New York City yesterday, laying the blame for the decision at the feet of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and fellow recalcitrant progressive lawmakers.

On set there was near unanimity that Ocasio-Cortez did not understand the broader situation and was unfamiliar with basic economics.

“The protests that we saw were to get on AOC’s bandwagon. And what’s shocking to me is yet once again she shows how little she understands, about not just economics, but even unemployment,” show mainstay Susan Del Percio said. “Just because she has a progressive agenda, which some people like, does not mean she has the city’s best interests. What she showed me today, or yesterday, is that she only cares about herself.”

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Joins Sundance After All, by Webcast

On set, there was also much discussion about how public polling generally showed that ordinary New Yorkers had supported Amazon’s plan, including large majorities of black and Latino voters.

“End of the line, the people who wanted the jobs the least to come to the area were white elites in Manhattan, according to all of the polls,” Joe Scarborough added.

Even Mika Brzezinski, typically sympathetic to Ocasio-Cortez, said the whole situation made her “cringe.”

“She needs to follow some of the more successful more mature members. I would suggest Nancy Pelosi would be a great example,” she said. “But you don’t know what you don’t know and you’re going to step in it if you’re not careful. And they have a few times. I watch AOC with a lot of hope, but I’m also cringing because I’d love to give her some advice.”

Reps for Ocasio-Cortez did not immediately respond to request for comment.

On Thursday, Amazon officially made the momentous decision, with the company citing New York City’s hostile political climate as a cause.

“While polls show that 70 percent of New Yorkers support our plans and investment, a number of state and local politicians have made it clear that they oppose our presence and will not work with us to build the type of relationships that are required to go forward with the project we and many others envisioned in Long Island City,” Amazon said in a statement.

Though she took heat from the political class, AOC was celebrated by her base after the pullout and exulted on Twitter when the decision was announced.

“Anything is possible: today was the day a group of dedicated, everyday New Yorkers & their neighbors defeated Amazon’s corporate greed, its worker exploitation, and the power of the richest man in the world,” she said.

11 Media Losers of 2018, From Les Moonves to Michael Avenatti (Photos)

2018 was hard for a lot of media folks, but particularly so for this rogues' gallery. For some, it was MeToo. For others, industry headwinds were too much. And for more still, disgrace and ignominy came after just saying the wrong thing.

David Harris Jr

Published  1 week ago

Three Tanzanian men and one minor, all here illegally, gang-raped an 18-year-old girl in Kuna, Idaho and have been arrested for the crime. Elias Lupango, Rashidi Mulanga, Swedi Iyombelo and the minor were arrested for the assault, and the three men are now facing life in prison for their crime. Illegal aliens have shown a proclivity for committing sex crimes, especially against underage victims, something that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer apparently approve of since they concentrate on defending illegal aliens while telling American citizens to go to hell.

Three men and a teenage boy are in custody after police say they sexually assaulted an 18-year-old woman earlier this month.

Elias Lupango, 19, Rashidi Mulanga, 18 and Swedi Iyombelo, 18, all of Boise, were arrested on felony rape charges and booked into the Ada County Jail Thursday. The juvenile suspect, a 16-year-old boy whose name has not been released, was arrested Friday morning, and is held in Ada County’s Juvenile Detention facility.

Kuna Police began investigating the case Feb. 8. The victim told investigators that she had been with Iyolmbelo, who she had met recently, in a car in a Kuna neighborhood when he began to sexually assault her.

A short time later, she said, the other three suspects showed up, and also sexually assaulted her in the car.

Detectives investigated the case and conducted interviews, ultimately developing enough evidence to get arrest warrants for Lupango, Mulanga, Iyombelo, and the 16-year-old.

Is this a manufactured crisis? What will it take for all of our elected officials to understand the need for a border wall and stronger border security?

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

Washington Examiner

Published  1 week ago

How far left has the Democratic Party shifted? Here's one answer: A violent antifa leader, recently charged with assaulting two Marines on the street in Philadelphia, had been working with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Democratic members of Congress to implement regulations on consumers and small businesses.

On Nov. 17, two U.S. Marines were attacked in Philadelphia by a group of antifa activists. One of those recently charged in the attack with aggravated assault, ethnic intimidation, and terroristic threats was Joseph Alcoff. Alcoff also ran Smash Racism D.C., the organization that laid siege to the home of Tucker Carlson and chased Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and his wife out of a restaurant where they were dining.

On social media, Alcoff, using an alias, has called for the overthrow of capitalism and the institution of communism in the United States.

Meanwhile, as campaign manager at a liberal “consumer advocacy” group called Americans for Financial Reform, or AFR, Alcoff reportedly helped the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB, draft financial regulations which have had a harmful effect on consumers and small businesses. In fact, he sat in on three meetings with former CFPB Director Richard Cordray to discuss rule-making.

Alcoff’s past work has also been praised by Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc. He has also appeared with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and with House Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters, D-Calif.

It's deeply disturbing to learn that a radical individual who promoted anarchy and allegedly committed physical violence was able to help shape sweeping financial policy and regulation impacting millions of Americans. But that's just one symptom of a much deeper problem that is the Democratic Party's radicalization.

The 2020 election is just around the corner, and the leading Democrats’ plans to defeat President Trump are just warmed over socialism with an attitude. It's a grab bag of "big government" fantasies, featuring job-crushing financial regulations and a confiscatory tax regime. Add to that violence and intimidation, and you have a toxic cocktail of economic depression, class resentment, and unbridled rage.

For his part, Trump is making the Democrats own the failures of socialism. In his recent State of the Union address, Trump delivered words that were both a warning and a call to action. “Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country,” he said. “America was founded on liberty and independence, not government coercion, domination, and control. We are born free and we will stay free. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country.”

These words should hearten all lovers of liberty and free enterprise in America, especially since socialist and other radical policy proposals are being proposed more frequently by the Democratic Party’s radical left wing than ever before.

New and emerging Democratic leaders, such as freshmen Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., are openly embracing the label of “socialist.” This past fall, Politico ran a symposium with left-wing figures titled, “What Would a Socialist America Look Like?” The Guardian has covered the surge in support for socialism among young Americans. And upon the emergence of Sen. Bernie Sanders. I-Vt., as a popular alternative to Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary ahead of 2016, the progressive magazine The Nation declared: “Socialism in America is closer than you think.”

In response to President Trump’s warning, Ocasio-Cortez took to MSNBC to accuse the president of an “ad hominem” — no, the term doesn't fit — attack on socialism, and defended the socialist economics of Venezuela by claiming that the conflict there is really “an issue of authoritarian regime versus democracy.”

Now, Ocasio-Cortez has introduced her “Green New Deal,” which would eliminate cars, air travel, and nuclear power, among other things. Even liberal House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called it a “green dream.” Regardless, it seems that Ocasio-Cortez intends to create socialism even if it means putting hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work.

As out of step as these ideas might seem, it's not enough just to mock them. We must not only educate our fellow Americans on the benefits of capitalism and free enterprise, but more importantly work to ensure that those who promote intimidation and violence are exposed and brought to justice. Additionally, those who associate with these kinds of individuals in any way must be held accountable.

As President Trump said just last week: “We must keep America first in our hearts. We must keep freedom alive in our souls.”

Ken Blackwell, a former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, is a member of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty's board, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, and Ohio's former secretary of state.

Military.com

Published  1 week ago

A Coast Guard lieutenant assigned to the service's headquarters in Washington, D.C., has been arrested on drug and gun possession charges, and is accused of plans to "murder innocent civilians on a scale rarely seen in this country," according to documents filed in Maryland District Court.

Lt. Christopher Paul Hasson, an acquisitions officer for the National Security Cutter Acquisition Program, was arrested Feb. 15 and charged with possession of a firearm and ammunition by an unlawful user or addict of controlled substances, and possession of Tramadol, a Schedule IV pain medication.

The documents were first unearthed by Seamus Hughes of The Program on Extremism at George Washington University, and shared with Military.com.

A motion for detention pending trial, filed by U.S. Attorney Robert K. Hur, paints a much more menacing portrait of Hasson's crimes and planned crimes.

"The current charges, however, are the proverbial tip of the iceberg," Hur wrote. "The defendant is a domestic terrorist, bent on committing acts dangerous to human life that are intended to affect government conduct."

Hur cited a draft email written by Hasson in June 2017 in which he said he was "dreaming of a way to kill almost every last person on the earth" using a "Spanish flu, botulism, anthrax" or some other mass toxin.

Another draft letter to a "known American neo-Nazi leader" identified Hasson as a white nationalist looking for an opportunity for "a little focused violence" to establish racial supremacy.

When Hasson was arrested in Silver Spring, Maryland, earlier this month, the document states, law enforcement agents found 15 firearms, including shotguns, rifles and handguns, and "conservatively, over 1,000 rounds of mixed ammunition."

A list of potential targets allegedly compiled by Hasson in January included "prominent Democratic congressional leaders, activists, political organizations, and MSNBC and CNN media personalities" including TV host Chris Hayes; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California; Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Virginia; Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York; and many others.

U.S. Coast Guard spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Scott McBride confirmed that Hasson worked in the Coast Guard acquisition directorate and released a statement regarding the investigation.

"An active-duty Coast Guard member stationed at Coast Guard Headquarters in Washington, D.C., was arrested last week on illegal weapons and drug charges as a result of an ongoing investigation led by Coast Guard Investigation Services, in cooperation with the FBI and the Dept. of Justice," he said in the statement. "Because this is an open investigation, the Coast Guard has no further details at this time."

A message left for FBI Baltimore did not immediately receive a response.

-- Hope Hodge Seck can be reached at hope.seck@military.com. Follow her on Twitter at @HopeSeck.

© Copyright 2019 Military.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Mail Online

Published  1 week ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 week ago

When asked on Thursday if he would tear down the existing border barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border, Beto O'Rourke answered by saying "absolutely." This answer came in response to a tweet from Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX)

The Federalist

Published  1 week ago

Nancy Pelosi's flippant remarks show that she's not taking this crisis seriously. Meanwhile, Americans continue to die from illegal drug overdoses.

RT International

Published  1 week ago

Pro-Israel lobbyists funneled more than $22 million into the 2018 US election cycle, making the lobby far more active and influential than those aligned with other foreign nations, public records show.

US Liberty Wire

Published  1 week ago

Nancy Pelosi woke up today, read this and knew her stance against Trump’s wall was doomed.

The courts will rule for Trump, which will shock the television pundits and their friends in the Democratic party for one reason – precedent.

Obama got away with moving money around and Pelosi not only stood around and did nothing while in Congress she actually encouraged it.

And this is not anyone saying this, but a famous liberal lawyer who used to work for Nancy, Jonathan Turley, because the courts will have to decide in Trump’s favor based on Obama’s precedent.

Turley just wrote a piece titled, “Why Trump will win the wall fight” and based on precedent, which is what our system uses to decide cases, Trump wins easily. He wrote:

“Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, “If my fellow citizens want to go to hell, I will help them. It is my job.” What he was expressing is the limited role of courts in challenges to federal law. It is not their task as judges to sit as a super legislature to question the priorities or policies of the political branches. They will gladly send Congress to hell. It only needs to be clear about the destination.

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

For decades, Congress frittered away control over its inherent powers, including the power of the purse. I have testified repeatedly before Congress, warning about the expansion of executive power and the failure of Congress to guard its own authority. The two primary objections have been Congress giving presidents largely unchecked authority and undedicated money. The wall controversy today is a grotesque result of both failures.

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

At the same time, Congress has continued to give the executive branch billions of dollars with few conditions or limitations. That is why President Obama was able not only to go to war in Libya without a declaration but to fund the entire war from billions of undedicated funds. At the time, neither House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) nor most of the current Democratic leadership made a peep of objection. Democrats have indicated they will rely on the ruling in House of Representatives versus Sylvia Burwell, in which a court not only ruled that the House of Representatives had standing to sue over executive overreach but that Obama violated the Constitution in ordering the payment of billions to insurance companies without authorization from Congress.

I was the lead counsel for the House of Representatives in that case. Ironically, Pelosi vehemently opposed the litigation as a frivolous and unfounded challenge to presidential authority. We won. Superficially, the Burwell case may look like the current controversy. Obama sought funds from Congress and, when unsuccessful, acted unilaterally. The difference is that Obama ordered the money directly from the Treasury as a permanent appropriation, like the money used annually to pay tax refunds. Congress never approved such payments.

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

Congress has yielded more and more power to the executive branch over decades. In many areas, it has reduced the legislative branch to a mere pedestrian in government, leaving real governing decisions to a kind of “fourth branch” of federal agencies. For their part, presidents have become more and more bold in circumventing Congress. When Obama gave a State of the Union address proclaiming his intention to circumvent Congress after it failed to pass immigration and other measures, Democrats applauded rapturously.

Many of them, like Pelosi, denounce this unilateral action by Trump yet ecstatically supported the unilateral actions by Obama, including his funding of critical parts of the Affordable Care Act after Congress denied any funds. Democrats insist Trump can be challenged on his use of emergency authority since they do not believe an emergency exists on the border. They will fail in spectacular fashion if the case gets to the Supreme Court. While the source of funding can be challenged, there is no compelling basis to challenge the declaration itself.

That brings us back to Holmes. Congress has the authority to rescind the declaration of Trump with a vote of both chambers. It should do so. If it cannot muster the votes, however, a federal judge is unlikely to do so. Simply put, the courts were not created to protect Congress from itself. Congress has been heading to hell for decades, and it is a bit late to complain about the destination”, Turley concluded to devastating effect.

WayneDupree.com

Published  1 week ago

The newly minted Minnesota Democrat actually accused Republicans of accepting bribes to support Israel

WayneDupree.com

Published  1 week ago

She has, on multiple occasions, qualified at best, defended at worst, the actions of ISIS terrorists.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 week ago

It's the same old song and dance, people. Apparently the "Russian Collusion" story is only big news to the liberal media when it's NOT favorable towards President Trump. Get a load of this... As reported by Breibart: The

Diamond & Silk

Published  1 week ago

Some in media have asked Democrats that if they agree with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that walls are immoral, would they tear down any of the existing barriers/walls that are already in place at the border?

Most have known better than to answer that question in the affirmative.

Not Rep. Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke (D-TX).

During an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, O’Rourke actually said that he would tear down the existing wall.

Hayes asked a question that was tweeted by Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), which is whether O’Rourke would tear down existing wall in El Paso despite the fact the wall there is working.

“If you could, would you take the wall down here now?” Hayes asked O’Rourke.

“Yes, absolutely, I would take the wall down,” O’Rourke replied.

Here’s the question that Crenshaw had asked:

So O’Rourke wants to take down walls that are working. He had previousy accused walls of killing people.

And Trump’s campaign amanager, Brad Parscale, asked if any of the other potential 2020 candidates wanted to go where O’Rourke was going.

Something tells me he’s not going to have that many takers.

The Daily Beast

Published  1 week ago

An extra-constitutional order based on a false crisis is much worse than just a feeble PR play by a frustrated President itching to do something after being slapped by the Speaker.

BlueDot Daily

Published  1 week ago

Donald Trump is very desperate to get funding for his border wall. After his 35-day government shutdown temper tantrum failed to get him the results he wanted, he started floating the idea of declaring a national emergency at the border to bypass congress in getting funding to build the wall.

Except, as the Washington Post is reporting, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi can force Congress to vote on it anyway. This fact has congressional Republicans torn about whether to support and enable their idiot President, or you know, do their job:

“Republicans have good reason to be deeply nervous. Here’s why: According to one of the country’s leading experts on national emergencies, it appears that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) can trigger a process that could require the GOP-controlled Senate to hold a vote on such a declaration by Trump — which would put Senate Republicans in a horrible political position.”

What exactly can Nancy Pelosi do?

Elizabeth Goitein, who has researched this topic extensively for the Brennan Center for Justice, says that if Pelosi exercises this option, it will require a Senate vote in some form. The NEA stipulates if Pelosi’s House passes such a resolution, which will be easy to do, Mitch McConnell’s Senate will have to act on it quickly – forcing GOP senators to choose whether to support it.

Washington Examiner

Published  1 week ago

Republicans are pushing back on reports that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., beat President Trump in the latest budget shutdown fight, claiming that Congress approved historic funding levels for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol, added miles to the border wall, and erased the cap on criminal illegal immigrants that can be jailed.

Insiders who worked on the deal said that compared to going along with a spending continuing resolution, the GOP scored several wins, though it did not reach the $5.7 billion funding Trump wanted for the wall.

“I know the conventional wisdom is that he lost on the wall in this package. But he gained … under impossible conditions,” said one insider on background.

While a country mile away from being able to declare it a victory, the number of wins the GOP won in the three weeks of negotiations were sizable, said insiders.

What’s more, Trump and GOP negotiators led by Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., and his team blocked several moves by Pelosi and other Democrats to fill the deal with anti-wall moves like lowering spending for ICE and slashing the number of “detention beds” to hold criminal illegal immigrants.

“Pelosi lost. She knew her position on detentions beds was unsustainable and only playing to her fringe. She also said no new miles for the wall,” said the source. “She had to step back from all positions.”

Compared to a simple continuing resolution, or CR, with nothing extra beyond current spending levels set in fiscal 2018, Trump gained extra funding for the wall. A CR would have provided $500 million, said the source, but Trump received $1.375 billion. That is “triple” the number of miles in the fiscal 2018 budget and “nearly three times as much as would have been available under a CR,” said the source.

On detention beds, the number increased 13 percent over fiscal 2018. And when another $750 million in transfer and reprogramming authority is added in, it represents a 44 percent increase, said the source.

What’s more, the bill provides historic funding levels for ICE and Customs and Border Protection, a rejection of liberal efforts to kill the agencies. It was a 7 percent budget increase for a combined $21.5 billion.

Conservative News Today

Published  1 week ago

Being left with few options by a dysfunctional Congress incapable of acting outside party interests, President Donald Trump is reportedly set to declare a national emergency on the porous southern border to secure funding to build a wall. And while the president can honestly say he did everything possible to work with the corrupt DC political […]

Washington Examiner

Published  1 week ago

When someone says, "I'm a glass half-full person," that means he or she tries to look on the positive side of any situation, even if the reality is mixed. In the case of border security and the spending bill passed by Congress, it would be hard, from the administration's point of view, to call it a glass half-full result, given that President Trump won just $1.375 billion of the $5.7 billion he asked Congress to appropriate for a border barrier. On the other hand, Trump emerged from the negotiations having made significant progress -- even before considering his declaration of a national emergency.

For Trump, the glass is a quarter-full, and maybe more, if he moves thoughtfully in coming months.

The first positive note is that the president got anything at all for a barrier. Remember that the Democratic position, expressed repeatedly by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, was that Trump would get nothing for a barrier -- and by "nothing," Democrats meant "nothing." That is precisely what the president got in the measure to end the government shutdown. Pelosi even famously declared Trump's wall proposal "immoral." In the end, though, the Democratic House approved -- with 300 votes, including Pelosi's -- enough money to build 55 miles of the president's proposed barrier.

So now, after vowing to provide nothing for the barrier, Pelosi has now given her approval to 55 miles of immorality.

No, it is not what the president wanted, but even those 55 miles, combined with the roughly 125 miles of inadequate, dilapidated old fence that the administration is already replacing with new barrier, are a net plus for border security.

Then there is the national emergency. It is actually misleading to refer to Trump's action simply as the declaration of an emergency. In fact, the president proposed three separate ways to use additional funds for barrier construction, and only one of them requires the declaration of an emergency. The following comes mostly from a Twitter explanation of Trump's action by Conn Carroll, communications director for Republican Sen. Mike Lee:

First, as Carroll noted, the White House "announced they would be funding $601 million in wall construction from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund [which] does not require an emergency declaration." The Fund is an account containing forfeitures from prosecutions of drug cartels and other criminal enterprises. Congress specifically directed that money from the Fund could go to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection. In any event, the White House believes it does not need outside approval or an emergency declaration to use the money.

Second, as Carroll observed, the White House "announced they would be funding $2.5 billion in wall construction [from military construction funds] for combating drug trafficking. This does not require an emergency declaration."

Put the three sources of money together -- the $1.375 billion appropriated by Congress, the $601 million from the Forfeiture Fund, and the $2.5 billion from military construction funds -- and that totals $4.47 billion for barrier construction. Carroll noted that the White House plans to spend the money sequentially, first spending the appropriated money and then the money that can be tapped without an emergency declaration. That could build a significant amount of new barrier.

Meanwhile, as that construction goes on, the administration would be litigating the emergency declaration in court. The declaration, were the president to win the legal fight, would allow a White House plan to spend $3.6 billion in military construction funds that do require an emergency declaration.

At least, that is the plan. It is guaranteed that Democrats in Congress will not only try to stop the national emergency declaration but also the spending that the White House argues does not require an emergency declaration. As always, there is no way to predict exactly how that will work out.

But the president starts with the $1.375 billion that Congress has appropriated specifically for barrier construction. It is real money, ready to be spent. And in addition to funding the construction of a barrier, the appropriation also argues in favor of the national emergency. Trump is not declaring a national emergency to undertake some action that Congress has expressly forbidden. Indeed, he proposes to do something -- building a barrier -- that Congress has specifically approved, even though he wants to do more of it than Congress has included in the new legislation.

In a recent article, Berkeley law professor and former Bush administration Justice Department official John Yoo pointed to Congress' acts as a difference between the Trump emergency declaration and the famous Supreme Court Youngstown decision, in which the Court stopped President Harry Truman's proposed seizure of steel mills:

Here, unlike Youngstown, there is no direct conflict between Congress and the President. Congress has not passed a law denying the President the authority to take measures to protect the border; in fact, in 2006 Congress passed a law by bipartisan majorities authorizing the construction of a wall. In Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981), the Court found that when Congress broadly delegates a general power to the executive branch in the area of foreign affairs, such as the power to impose economic sanctions, it would not read Congress's neglect to grant a more specific, related authority as foreclosing the president from exercising that authority. Instead, it would treat Congress's silence as acquiescence to presidential initiative, especially in times of emergency. That is exactly the case here: Congress has authorized a wall and other security measures at the border, it has not passed any law forbidding such a wall, and the president has invoked delegated powers to continue the wall's construction.

Other legal experts, no fans of Trump, have argued that the president has solid arguments on his side.

Today, there are the 31 active, noncontroversial national emergencies declared by previous presidents and by Trump himself. Now, the president is declaring another emergency. Is it fundamentally different from those earlier actions? Specifically forbidden by Congress? Those are questions to be settled in court. But for now, Trump has money in hand -- money Nancy Pelosi said he would never have -- to start building.

100PercentFedUp.com

Published  1 week ago

Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (CA) has a reputation for jumbling up words and sentences. She also has a reputation for gloating after major victories over Republicans, like the time she paraded through lawmakers with a giant gavel to celebrate the passing of the disastrous and unconstitutional Obamacare mandate.

Yesterday, during another one of her victory lap speeches, Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (CA) wished everyone a “Happy Valentine’s Day.” Pelosi started by telling Americans that Democrats were saluting THEIR victory (because, as we all know, it’s never about their constituents…it’s all about the power of the party), suggesting Republicans and President Trump caved to their demands. With all of the theatrics we’ve become accustomed to seeing when Nancy addresses reporters, Pelosi told them, “We saluted our victory – or the victory for the American people – earlier with chocolate. Chocolate from California, I call it the champagne of chocolate. So again, I wish you all a Happy Thanksgiving.” Happy Thanksgiving?” How in the world is anyone supposed to trust that this woman is capable of being third in line for President of the United States?

Pelosi then told everyone they should now go home to their loved ones.

Trending: MUSLIM ASSIMILATION? It’s Not Happening In Minneapolis’ “Little Mogadishu” Where Sharia Rules [Video]

California Rep. Pete Aguilar, who is standing to the right of Pelosi can be seen attempting to correct her, as he laughs, asking, “Thanksgiving?”

Watch the incredible moment here, captured and tweeted by CBS reporter Bo Erickson.

In his tweet, the CBS reporter mocked Pelosi, saying: Speaker Pelosi must be so thankful for this funding bill she wished those gathered tonight “Happy Thanksgiving”

Speaker Pelosi must be so thankful for this funding bill she wished those gathered tonight "Happy Thanksgiving" pic.twitter.com/mNYm65QeVI

What do you think? Is this woman capable of being third in line for the presidency? Is it worth the risk to have a dimwit like Pelosi representing the Democrat Party? We’d love to know what you think about Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in the comment section below.

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

President Trump won a strategic victory Friday when he signed legislation to avoid another government shutdown and provide a down payment on border security funding – and then declared a national emergency to get billions of dollars more needed to protect our southern border.

After insisting for well over a month that the president would never get any funding for a border wall, congressional Democrats meekly backed down in the face of President Trump’s unwavering commitment to border security, giving the White House nearly $1.4 billion for 55 miles of new fencing along the border.

“The fact is a wall is an immorality,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said during the partial government shutdown, joking that she would only give the president $1 out of the $5.7 billion he requested. The president’s request was based on advice from law enforcement experts.

HANS A. VON SPAKOVSKY: TRUMP FORCED TO DECLARE EMERGENCY BECAUSE OF CONGRESSIONAL APATHY, NEGLIGENCE AND INCOMPETENCE

“There’s not going to be any wall money in the legislation,” Pelosi later reiterated.

While the government funding bill passed by Congress and signed by the president Friday isn’t a perfect solution to the ongoing border crisis, it’s certainly an important start.

By getting the Democrats to abandon their obstructionist position, President Trump shifted the momentum of the debate in his favor, setting the stage for him to take executive action to finish the job.

Some conservatives argue that the president should have rejected the government funding bill passed by Congress because it did not include the full $5.7 billion needed for a border wall. But this criticism misses the bigger picture.

Now that Congress has agreed to border barriers in principle, President Trump has a much stronger hand to play when it comes time to secure the remaining funds.

Make no mistake: President Trump isn’t finished fighting for real border security, and he won’t be until our communities are finally protected from the drugs and crime flowing across our southern border.

Even if Congress refuses to provide another dime in wall funding, the nearly $1.4 billion down payment it agreed to represents a big chunk of the president’s request. And the executive actions the president announced add more than $8.1 billion in funding for a border wall and other border security measures.

Trump is the first president in a generation who is willing to take political risks to secure our border. His declaration of a national emergency proves that he won’t settle for anything less than a fully funded wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

As for the government funding bill, it’s over a billion times better than the best offer Speaker Pelosi ever put on the table. That alone is enough to make it a victory worth savoring.

Charlie Kirk is the founder and executive director of Turning Point USA, an advocacy group for young conservatives.

Chicks On The Right — Young Conservatives

Published  1 week ago

Some in media have asked Democrats that if they agree with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that walls are immoral, would they tear down any of the existing barriers/walls that are already in place at the border?

Most have known better than to answer that question in the affirmative.

Not Rep. Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke (D-TX).

During an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, O’Rourke actually said that he would tear down the existing wall.

Hayes asked a question that was tweeted by Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), which is whether O’Rourke would tear down existing wall in El Paso despite the fact the wall there is working.

“If you could, would you take the wall down here now?” Hayes asked O’Rourke.

“Yes, absolutely, I would take the wall down,” O’Rourke replied.

So O’Rourke wants to take down walls that are working. He had previousy accused walls of killing people.

And Trump’s campaign amanager, Brad Parscale, asked if any of the other potential 2020 candidates wanted to go where O’Rourke was going.

POLITICO

Published  1 week ago

After President Donald Trump declared a national emergency Friday morning, Democrats were quick to condemn the move as an illegitimate one made simply to allow the president to construct a border wall in a more timely manner.

“I want to do it faster,” Trump told reporters. “I can do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn't need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was quick to jump on Trump’s remark, calling the emergency “fake” on Twiiter.

“Mr. President, how can this possibly be an national emergency if you’re saying you don’t need to do it?” Schumer tweeted Friday.

Later in the afternoon, Speaker Nancy Pelosi chimed in, too.

“Clearest sign that @realDonaldTrump’s #FakeTrumpEmergency is not legitimate? The President himself says he didn’t need to declare a national emergency – it’s just a faster way to force taxpayers to foot the bill after Congress wouldn’t let him have his way,” Pelosi tweeted.

Trump faces what could be months or years of court battles over the emergency declaration. Democratic lawmakers, state officials, immigrant rights advocates, property rights activists and environmentalists have all trumpeted plans to take legal action against what they say is a violation of the budget process laid out in the Constitution.

The president predicted Friday that the matter would go all the way to the Supreme Court, as did his executive travel ban on people from certain Muslim-majority countries, which was eventually upheld by the courts. Trump forecast a similar victory for his administration.

“We will then be sued," Trump told reporters. “And we will possibly get a bad ruling, and then we will get another bad ruling, and then we will end up in the Supreme Court and hopefully we will get a fair shake and win in the Supreme Court, just like the ban.”

Washington Press

Published  1 week ago

Senate Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) just sent shockwaves through America’s political universe by revealing that President Trump plans to declare a fake national emergency to build a wall monument to racism along America’s southern border.

If Trump does use an emergency declaration to redirect money from other Congressional appropriations, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) could set up a legislative showdown to stop him, quickly forcing an up or down Senate vote that could divide the Republican Party.

But there’s nothing that could stop a stupid Trump tweet from emerging (there’s one for everything, right?) which highlights just how ludicrous it is for the President to invent a fake immigration emergency when all he’s doing is being a racist.

It turns out that the Hypocrite in Chief hyper-overreacted to President Obama’s legitimate use of the Executive Order to create DACA, which courts have upheld time and time again and described his current presidential fail to a tee.

— Adam Mintzer (@adammintzer) February 14, 2019

Trump’s big plan to subvert the Constitution has been brewing for months, starting with his first big fake emergency during the 2018 midterm elections. Aided and abetted by mainstream news organizations reporting about his frivolous nonsense “caravan” scare tactics, the President ruined the holidays for thousands of troops.

A couple of weeks into the Trump shutdown, the President began floating his fake emergency idea, which frankly, he could’ve pushed forward a month ago, without damaging the lives of many thousands of federal employees and contractors.

Just like the shutdown, we can also partially attribute his fake national emergency to the advice of the “Fox News cabinet.”

Speaker Pelosi is America’s best chance at ending the fake Trump emergency with a House resolution, which would give the Senate exactly 36 days before it would be forced to vote on the matter according to the Post:

“The NEA lays out a timetable for this process, and by [the Brookings Institute’s Elizabeth] Goitein’s reading, it would all take place within the protracted period of barely longer than a month.”

“’In short, there could be 36 days between introduction of the resolution in the House and a vote on the Senate floor,’ Goitein told me, ‘but that vote would have to happen,” and once it did, one way or the other, it would put senators ‘on record.'”

The Senate’s Republican majority could take steps to prevent that vote, but not without going on the record supporting Trump’s constitutional end run.

Even staunch pro-Trump Republicans like Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson and five others are pushing back against the fake wall emergency since allowing a tyrannical dictatorship to exist in the White House could take money away from their pet projects.

Donald Trump would be wise – if that was even possible – to consult his old tweets about presidential overreach before going fully ahead with his fake emergency declaration, but only after signing the Congressional compromise to fully fund the government this week so that 800,000 federal workers and more contractors don’t bear the brunt of his foolishness yet again.

Add your name to support the effort to prevent Trump from pardoning himself and his corrupt cronies!

True Pundit

Published  1 week ago

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) quickly dodged a reporter’s question Wednesday about whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should also have to release her tax returns if President Donald Trump is forced to do so, according to Hot Air.

The reporter’s question was related to H.R. 1, a bill which includes a provision that would require the president and vice president, and all candidates for those offices, to release the previous 10 years of their tax returns.

“Should House Speaker Pelosi be required? Yes or no?” the reporter asked.

“That’s a question that I think you should direct to Speaker Pelosi,” Jeffries replied, quickly looking for the next reporter to ask a question.

Reporter: H.R.1 would legally require the president and vice president to release their tax returns. Should House Speaker Pelosi be required?

Rep. Jeffries: That's a question that I think you should direct to Speaker Pelosi https://t.co/IsN5Gzz0qg pic.twitter.com/GM50Tssn3b

Why would Pelosi be the only person who can answer whether her tax returns should be public? No Democratic politician would say it should be up to Trump whether he should release his tax returns. – READ MORE

Patriot Rising

Published  1 week ago

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday issued a warning to Republicans poised to support President Trump’s decision to declare a national emergency at the southern border: the next Democratic president, she said, could do the same on guns. “A Democratic president can declare emergencies, as well,” Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. “So the precedent […]

Daily Wire

Published  1 week ago

Democrat Beto O'Rourke said on Thursday that if it was up to him he would "absolutely" tear down the existing border barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

The House of Representatives on Thursday night approved the border security package to avert another government shutdown that was passed overwhelmingly by the Senate earlier in the day -- even as another legal showdown looms over the White House's plan to declare a national emergency to secure more wall funding.

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) warned Republicans on Thursday that they should worry about the “threshold that they are crossing” by supporting President Donald Trump’s expected declaration of a national emergency at the border because it could open the door to future Democrats in the White House declaring a national emergency on issues like gun control.

With Trump expected to sign a spending bill to keep the government open and declare a national emergency to get more funding for his border wall, Pelosi said Republicans “have some unease about it no matter what they say” because “if the president can declare an emergency on something that he has created as an emergency, an illusion that he wants to convey, just think of what a president with much different values can present to the American people.”

Pelosi said she is not advocating presidents doing an “end run around Congress,” but warned that a “Democratic president can” declare national emergencies as well on issues like gun control, and “the precedent that the president is setting is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans.”

“You want to talk about a national emergency? Let’s talk about today—the one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America. That’s a national emergency,” Pelosi said, in reference to the one-year anniversary of the Parkland shooting. “Why don’t you declare that a national emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would.”

She emphasized that Republicans should “have some dismay about the door that they are opening, the threshold that they are crossing” with Trump’s expected declaration of a national emergency at the border.

The Washington Times

Published  1 week ago

Many lawmakers weren't sure what was in the massive spending agreement, but fear of another government shutdown greased the skids as Republicans and Democrats linked arms and voted to approve a bill t

TheHill

Published  1 week ago

This week’s controversial tweets by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), one of the first two Muslim women to serve in Congress, has put the spotlight on the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Daily Wire

Published  1 week ago

The omnibus bill that President Donald Trump is reportedly set to sign contains multiple serious flaws that will devastate his agenda on immigration if he signs the bill into law.

National Review

Published  1 week ago

There’s an obvious answer to the question, “Why would Jussie Smollett do something like that?”

On January 29, tabloid news site TMZ broke the shocking story that Jussie Smollett, a gay black entertainer and progressive activist, had been viciously attacked in Chicago. Two racist white men had fractured his rib, poured bleach on him, and tied a noose around his neck. As they were leaving, they shouted the ominous words: “This is MAGA country” — a reference to President Trump’s campaign slogan. MSNBC reported the rumor that they were even wearing MAGA hats.

Leaks from the Chicago police over the weekend, however, indicate that Smollett likely paid two Nigerian-American brothers he knew to orchestrate the attack. Smollett denied any wrongdoing through a statement released to the media by his lawyers.

That the original story broke days just after the Covington narrative fell apart last month didn’t stop it from spreading quicker than a wildfire. Within hours of TMZ’s report, some of America’s most influential politicians and celebrities amplified the story — and the belief that America is a dangerous place for minorities — to millions across the world.

2020 Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Cory Booker described the attack as “an attempted modern-day lynching.” He used the incident to press for more hate-crime legislation. California senator Kamala Harris, who is leading the polls for the 2020 race, repeated Booker’s words. Speaker Nancy Pelosi described the attack as “an affront to our humanity.” Freshman congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez castigated media for describing the incident as a “possible” hate crime. Her colleague Rashida Tlaib wrote that “the right wing is killing and hurting our people.”

Jussie Smollett is the lead actor on the Fox drama Empire and has deep roots in Hollywood and the Democratic party. Celebrities, many of them friends with Smollett, pounced on the story. Pansexual pop star Janelle Monae shared a (now-deleted) photo of her and Smollett on social media, writing that “it is still a risk daily to be a black, out and proud human being.” Smollett’s co-star Grace Bryers wrote that “hatred, inequality, racism and discrimination continue to course through our country’s veins.” Rapper T.I. condemned the attack on “OUR PEOPLE” and said “the hits won’t stop until we hit back!” He warned that a “revolution is imminent.”

Numerous media outlets exploited the incident. GQ published an essay by Joshua Rivera arguing that the racist, homophobic attack on Smollet is white America’s “endgame.” The Bay area’s Mercury News ran a report implying that those who voiced skepticism were peddling a “conspiracy theory.”

When news leaks from the Chicago police painted an image of Smollett being generally uncooperative, a second phase of reactions were weaponized against doubters. Black Lives Matter activist Deray McKesson tweeted to his million followers that Fox 32 Chicago reporter Rafer Weigel was “responsible for much of the misinformation disseminated by Chicago PD ‘sources.’” Weigel was one of the local journalists who reported leaks that turned out to be accurate. McKesson did not respond to me when I asked if the source of his accusation was Smollett. The president of the Human Rights Campaign, Chad Griffin, echoed McKesson, saying that “this is exactly the treatment that victims of hate crimes fear and why they often stay silent.” Griffin also did not respond when I asked if he was in contact with Smollett.

On February 14, Smollett gave his first sit-down interview about the alleged attack on Good Morning America. A credulous Robin Roberts gave a softball interview that highlighted his emotions rather than evidence. At this point, Smollett was already receiving the services of high-profile crisis PR firm Sunshine Sachs (who also represents Harvey Weinstein) — and it showed. “It feels like if I had said [the suspect] was a Muslim, or a Mexican, or someone black, I feel like the doubters would have supported me much more,” he said.

The strategy was clear: If you doubt him, you are motivated by racism.

Now that Smollett’s story has all but fallen apart, some of the loudest voices two weeks ago are suddenly quiet. Yesterday Senator Booker wouldn’t respond to the recent developments in Smollett’s story despite having been one of the first to express outrage. Instead, he pivoted to talking about right-wing terrorism and white supremacy.

Now many are asking, “Why would Jussie do this?” To me it’s all but clear.

Jussie Smollett’s hoax is symptomatic of America’s illness. Because of the mainstreaming of academia’s victimhood culture, we are now in a place where we place more value on being a victim than on being heroic, charitable, or even kind. Victims or victim groups high on intersectionality points are supposed to be coveted, treated with child gloves, and believed unreservedly. Their “lived experience” gives them infinite wisdom. Those who urge caution are treated as bigots.

Outside of the rare prosecution for faking a hate crime, the incentives for being a victim — real or imagined — are endless.

Anyone not blinded by bias or panic should have been skeptical of Smollett’s story from the beginning. He openly harbors an intense hatred for Donald Trump and his supporters, going so far as comparing them to klansmen. That his alleged attackers perfectly fit this description should have raised eyebrows across the political spectrum. The cartoony, screenplay-villain portrayal of white Trump supporters was outrageously comical. But to insulated urban progressives who have little to no experience interacting with conservatives, a Trump supporter may as well be synonymous with evil.

“Hate-crime hoaxes are found in collective conflicts,” Jason Manning tells me. Manning is a sociologist at West Virginia University and coauthor of the 2018 book The Rise of Victimhood Culture. “Perpetrators might not even think of them as [false] accusations since in many cases they see it as an attempt to draw attention to a real problem. To the extent that modern society increasingly valorizes victimhood, claiming victim status through outright lies will become more attractive.”

While I can only speculate as to Smollett’s motives, perhaps a clue can be found in his bioline on Twitter. Smollett writes: “I am simply here to help save the world.”

The Old School Patriot

Published  1 week ago

In the military we have a saying, “never get in your enemy’s way when they are self-destructing.” I cannot think of a better adage when it comes to the insidious, absurd, and, yes, stupid, things emanating from the progressive socialist left . . . the folks who have taken control of the Democrat Party.

It is somewhat like the movie, “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.” Some alien life form has taken over the bodies of these Democrats, and the insane screeching noise from their mouths is non-nonsensical. As always. there were some great contestants for this week’s Old School Patriot “Stuck on Stupid Saturday” recognition, including the chuckleheads who undermined thousands of new high paying jobs coming to NYC. But, in the end, there was one clear-cut choice, and I think you will agree.

This week’s recipient of the “Stuck on Stupid Saturday” award is none other than Ms. “We have to pass the bill in order to find out what is in it,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

As reported by The Hill:

“Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday issued a warning to Republicans poised to support President Trump’s decision to declare a national emergency at the southern border: the next Democratic president, she said, could do the same on guns.

“A Democratic president can declare emergencies, as well,” Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. “So the precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans.” Pelosi noted that Thursday marked the one-year anniversary of the shooting at a high school in Parkland, Fla., that left 17 students and faculty dead. She argued that the real national emergency is not illegal border crossings, but gun violence in the U.S.

“Let’s talk about today: The one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America,” Pelosi said. “That’s a national emergency. Why don’t you declare that emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would.”

“But a Democratic president can do that.” Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) also shared a tweet calling several issues championed by Democrats, such as climate change and income inequality, a “national emergency.”

Oh boy, the progressive socialist left just let us in on something. They believe that non-compliance with their ideological agenda qualifies as a national emergency. Rep. Cleaver reiterated that gun violence, and even access to healthcare, are real national emergencies. Border security is not, as he asserted in his Twitter post. There is no way that Speaker Pelosi can delete what she said, we have video evidence forever.

It is quite disconcerting, disturbing, that the left, under a Democrat president, would use their ideological agenda as the basis for declaring a national emergency. For Speaker Pelosi to hint that an individual act of violence presents grounds for a Democrat president to enact a national emergency is Constitutionally dangerous. I must ask, Ms. Pelosi, what would be the specific details of a national emergency on “gun violence?” Does this mean that by way of an executive order, action, the left will erase the Second Amendment? Part of our Constitution’s individual Bill of Rights? Does this mean that a Democrat president would authorize a violation of the Fourth Amendment and nationally violate due process criminalize millions of innocent Americans by way of firearms confiscation . . . forcibly?

Does this mean that a Democrat president would declare income inequality a national emergency and by executive order force wealth redistribution? Will we be forced only to purchase certain types of cars and forcibly be made, by national emergency executive mandate, to make our houses “green?” Don’t laugh. Already in California, they passed a law that all newly built houses must have solar panels.

I have stated before, and will say so again, the progressive socialist left bases what is lawful, and now what will constitute an emergency, based upon their ideological agenda.

So what does this mean? It’s simple, Barack Obama said that he had a pen and a phone and the Democrats cheered. Now, Nancy Pelosi has told us exactly what will happen if We the People are stupid enough to vote in Democrat president — they will declare national emergencies to enact their ideological agenda.

The first objective would be gun control, disarming the American people. This is what I mean by not getting in their way as they declare to us exactly what their plan is . . . and they are triple dog daring us to stop them. They do not believe that we can, or will. Just think about the shooting yesterday in Aurora, Illinois. Yep, before the details and evidence are released, here comes the national emergency.

Why are we awarding Nancy Pelosi the “Stuck on Stupid Saturday” recognition? Because, only someone so stupid would make such a declaration, in an official and public manner.

Going forward into the 2020 presidential election the question to every Democrat candidate is, “Would you declare a national emergency on gun violence, income inequality, climate change, and access to healthcare?” If they say no, then who is the liar, them or Pelosi? If they say yes — which the progressive socialist base will demand — then will have shown their hand. They are not running to govern, but to rule, and the dictatorship will have begun, and America will be unrecognizable. This is who the left is in America, they seek ideological domination, and will use any aspect of power to assure that vision.

To the left, Americans being killed by illegal immigrants is not a national emergency. Americans dying at the hands of illicit drugs flowing across our border is not a national emergency. Criminal illegal immigrant gangs thriving in America is not a national emergency. American taxpayers surrendering their resources to pay for social welfare benefits for illegal immigrants is not a national emergency.

But, disarming the American people? That is worthy of being declared a national emergency by a Democrat president.

Thanks so very much, Nancy, for being so stupid as to let the American people know what your plan is for America if a Democrat president is sworn into office in January 2021. You are indeed deserving of the “Stuck on Stupid Saturday” award, and we thank you for being such a dunce. We are now forewarned . . . and we shall forever be forearmed!

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

The failure to get a border wall built lies with Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and the rest of the Republicans who held a majority in both the House and Senate for two years prior to this latest border funding battle.

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

Former Texas Democratic Rep. Beto O'Rourke said Thursday that he would "absolutely" support tearing down existing barriers along the southern border with Mexico, in a full-throated embrace of open-borders rhetoric that has left conservatives wondering where other potential 2020 Democratic White House hopefuls stand on the issue.

O'Rourke's comments came as the House and Senate passed a compromise spending bill that would partially fund President Trump's proposed border wall, to the tune of $1.4 billion. Trump, who had been pressing for billions more, has vowed to declare a national state of emergency to fund the remainder of the project.

Amid the congressional debate, Texas GOP Rep. Dan Crenshaw wrote on Twitter earlier Thursday that he wanted O'Rourke to answer a simple question: "If you could snap your fingers and make El Paso’s border wall disappear, would you?" He cited Department of Homeland Security (DHS) figures suggesting that illegal border crossings dropped sharply in El Paso following the construction of a wall there.

WHAT'S IN THE BILL PASSED BY CONGRESS THURSDAY NIGHT? MORE DETENTION BEDS FOR ICE, MONEY FOR WALL

MSNBC host Chris Hayes posed a version of that question to O'Rourke on-air: "Would you, if you could, would you take the wall down here -- knock it down?"

"Yes, absolutely," answered O'Rourke, who is widely thought to be a potential candidate in 2020 but has not formally announced his intention to run. "I'd take the wall down."

Asked whether El Paso residents would support that move in a referendum, O'Rourke replied, "I do."

He continued: "Here's what we know. After the Secure Fence Act [of 2006], we have built 600 miles of wall and fencing on a 2,000-mile border. What that has done is not in any demonstrable way made us safer. It's cost us tens of billions of dollars to build and maintain. And it's pushed migrants and asylum seekers and refugees to the most inhospitable, the most hostile stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border, ensuring their suffering and death."

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and other Democrats, including then-Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, supported the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorized the construction of some 700 miles of fencing at the border. As of 2015, virtually all of that fencing had been completed, according to government figures.

"More than 4,000 human beings, little kids, women and children, have died," O'Rourke continued. "They're not in cages, they're not locked up, they're not separated -- they're dead, over the last 10 years, as we have walled off their opportunity to legally petition for asylum, to cross in urban centers like El Paso, to be with family, to work jobs, to do what any human being should have a right to be able to do, what we would do if faced with the same circumstances they were."

In response, Trump's 2020 campaign manager, Brad Parscale, asked on Twitter whether other possible or declared Democratic White House hopefuls agreed.

Earlier this month, Trump challenged House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has called the White House's proposed southern border wall "an immorality," to explain why she is not insisting on the removal of existing physical barriers, or opposing ongoing construction of new wall projects near San Diego.

"If Nancy Pelosi thinks that Walls are 'immoral,' why isn’t she requesting that we take down all of the existing Walls between the U.S. and Mexico, even the new ones just built in San Diego at their very strong urging," Trump tweeted. "Let millions of unchecked 'strangers' just flow into the U.S."

Some progressives in Congress, including Democratic Texas Rep. Veronica Escobar, insisted this month that "we know walls don't work." Escobar, signaling she may support removing some barriers, called walls "ugly" and "monuments to division."

The San Diego Union-Tribune has reported that physical barriers, including walling and fencing, encompass some 46 miles of the city's 60-mile border with Mexico. In February, construction is slated to begin on 14 miles of additional secondary walling, with work to begin on 15 miles of replacement wall this summer.

Earlier this month, in an interview with CNN, Democratic California Rep. Juan Vargas acknowledged that those physical defenses were effective and enhanced security for local residents.

"I mean, you go to the border and you see long lines of people waiting to come in. ... So we do have a problem of having huge wait lines to come in,” Vargas told anchor Don Lemon. “You know, there is fencing already there, to be honest with you. There are places where we already have fencing where it made sense for some security.”

O'Rourke's comments to MSNBC on Thursday, however, were the most stark anti-wall comments yet by a prominent Democrat -- and set up another potential confrontation between Trump and the progressive star. On Monday night, Trump held a campaign-style rally in El Paso — just as O'Rourke led a border wall protest roughly a half-mile away.

Fox News' Nicole Darrah contributed to this report.

Newsweek

Published  1 week ago

Amid President Donald Trump's planned national emergency declaration for his long-promised border wall, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that a future Democratic president could use that precedent to declare a national emergency on gun violence.

"Want to talk about a national emergency? Let's talk about today, the one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America," Pelosi said at a press conference, referencing the Parkland, Florida school shooting that left 17 dead last year. "That's a national emergency. Why don't you declare that emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would."

Pelosi then looked toward a future with a president from a different party.

"But a Democratic president can do that," Pelosi said. "A Democratic president can declare a national emergencies as well. The precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans."

Trump's intention to declare a national emergency became known earlier on Thursday when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the president would sign a bipartisan spending bill preventing another government shutdown—but that he also planned on declaring the emergency.

"I had an opportunity to speak with President Trump and he, I would say to all my colleagues, has indicated he's prepared to sign the bill," McConnell said on the Senate floor. "He will also be issuing a national emergency declaration at the same time."

It had been previously reported that McConnell was against any emergency declaration, but apparently he has since moved away from that stance.

"I indicated to [Trump] I’m going to support the national emergency declaration," McConnell said.

Trump has long threatened to declare a national emergency over the southern border. The president already sparked the longest-ever U.S. government shutdown over his demand for funding for his long-promised wall.

Sean Hannity

Published  1 week ago

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi accused President Trump of “doing an end-run” around Congress Thursday; vowing to “review our options” when the Commander-in-Chief declares a “national emergency” at the US-Mexico border.

“That’s an option. We’ll review our options. It’s important to note that when the president declares this emergency -first of all- it’s not an emergency. It’s a humanitarian challenge to us,” said Pelosi.

“In any event, the President’s doing an end-run around Congress about the power of the purse. You’ve heard me say this over and over again. Article One, the legislative branch has the power of the purse,” she added.

Pelosi says she may file a legal challenge if Trump declares a national emergency pic.twitter.com/wtCBwdy1n7

— TicToc by Bloomberg (@tictoc) February 14, 2019

Daily Wire

Published  1 week ago

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Thursday that President Donald Trump will sign a spending bill to avoid another government shutdown and is declaring a national emergency to secure the funds needed to build the border wall.

"He's prepared to sign the bill, he will also be issuing a national emergency declaration at the same time," McConnell said. "And, I’ve indicated to him that I am going to support the national emergency declaration. So, for all of my colleagues: the president will sign the bill. We’ll be voting on it shortly. And, with that, I ask the chair to lay before the Senate the conference report to accompany House Joint Resolution 31."

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement: "President Trump will sign the government funding bill, and as he has stated before, he will also take other executive action - including a national emergency - to ensure we stop the national security and humanitarian crisis at the border. The President is once again delivering on his promise to build the wall, protect the border, and secure our great country."

"If Trump follows through, lawmakers and the White House would dodge their second partial shutdown since December, sparing about 800,000 federal workers from more financial pain," CNBC reported. "But the emergency declaration would quickly spark lawsuits challenging the president's authority, creating yet another fight over his key campaign promise."

"The emergency declaration would allow Trump to redirect funds from other parts of the government to the project without congressional approval," CNBC added. "The move could in part assuage conservative critics who argued the president should not accept the latest congressional plan, which denied him the funding he demanded for the border barrier."

BREAKING: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says Trump is signing the spending bill and he is declaring a *national emergency* pic.twitter.com/Y4BeSBENcs

— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) February 14, 2019

"Outlined in the National Emergencies Act of 1976, the president has the authority to declare emergencies, thus unlocking certain provisions, when the country is 'threatened by crisis, exigency, or emergency circumstances' other than wars or natural disasters, a 2007 report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) explains," Fox News reported. "Some of those provisions include the ability to seize commodities or property; control production, transportation and communication; institute martial law or restrict travel, according to the report."

Democrats immediately sought to discredit Trump calling for a national emergency by suggesting that there is no "emergency" on the border, despite the hundreds of thousands of people who are apprehended every year illegally trying to enter the U.S. on the southern border.

"It’s important to note that when President declares this emergency, first of all, it’s not an emergency," Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. "The precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans."

Last month, Trump highlighted words from Rep. Adam Schiff about Trump's ability to use a national emergency to suggest that he has the ability to use it in this circumstance.

"Congressman Adam Smith, the new Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, just stated, 'Yes, there is a provision in law that says a president can declare an emergency. It’s been done a number of times,'" Trump tweeted. "No doubt, but let’s get our deal done in Congress!"

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has deleted her tweet of sympathy for the Empire actor Jussie Smollett, who police in Chicago reportedly believe orchestrated a hoax hate crime attack against himself.

Last month, Smollett alleged that he was the victim of a racist and homophobic hate crime by two men who yelled “This is MAGA Country” after beating him. The incident sparked widespread condemnation and support from senior Democrats and celebrities, including Pelosi.

“The racist, homophobic attack on [Smollett] is an affront to our humanity. No one should be attacked for who they are or whom they love,” Pelosi had written on January 29th. “I pray that Jussie has a speedy recovery [and] that justice is served. May we all commit to ending this hate once [and] for all.”

On Saturday, Chicago police confirmed that the focus of the investigation had “shifted.” CNN crime and justice reporter Shimon Prokupecz reported that authorities believe that “Smollett paid two men to orchestrate the assault,” adding that the “the two men are now cooperating fully with law enforcement.”

Pelosi was one of many senior Democrat politicians to condemn the attack, with 2020 presidential candidates Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) describing it as an example of a “modern-day lynching.” Others even blamed it on Trump and Vice President Mike Pence.

The vicious attack on actor Jussie Smollett was an attempted modern-day lynching. I'm glad he's safe.

To those in Congress who don't feel the urgency to pass our Anti-Lynching bill designating lynching as a federal hate crime– I urge you to pay attention. https://t.co/EwXFxl5f2m

— Cory Booker (@CoryBooker) January 29, 2019

.@JussieSmollett is one of the kindest, most gentle human beings I know. I’m praying for his quick recovery.

This was an attempted modern day lynching. No one should have to fear for their life because of their sexuality or color of their skin. We must confront this hate.

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) January 29, 2019

Unlike Pelosi, neither Booker nor Harris have deleted their tweets, and have so far refused to offer any comment on the case’s latest developments. Meanwhile, Smollett’s attorneys have released a statement this weekend denying their client’s deliberate involvement in the attack.

“As a victim of a hate crime who has cooperated with the police investigation, Jussie Smollett is angered and devastated by recent reports that the perpetrators are individuals he is familiar with,” they wrote. “He has now been further victimized by claims attributed to these alleged perpetrators that Jussie played a role in his own attack. Nothing is further from the truth and anyone claiming otherwise is lying.”

Follow Ben Kew on Facebook, Twitter at @ben_kew, or email him at bkew@breitbart.com.

dailycaller

Published  1 week ago

President Donald Trump is declaring a national emergency at the U.S. southern border to begin construction on his proposed wall in addition to accepting congressionally negotiated compromise funding, he announced during a Friday morning press conference in the Rose Garden.

WATCH (begins at 1:10:20):

Trump will accept the $1.375 billion in funding appropriated by Congress in addition to the $600 million available to him as a result of asset forfeiture, appropriate funding under his authority to interdict drug corridors and use military construction funds available to him under his authority as commander-in-chief.

Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney told reporters Friday that the declaration was necessary because Congress is “incapable” of appropriating the amount of money of needed in the administration’s eyes to build the 234-mile-long border wall. (RELATED: Trump Will Sign Border Bill, Declare National Emergency)

White House officials familiar with the deal say all together, Trump will have $8 billion at his disposal, though they said they could not guarantee all 234 miles could be built because of statutory restrictions on the amount of funding available.

The announcement ends a nearly two-month-long saga involving the longest lapse of federal funding in U.S. history, a high stakes showdown with a newly controlled Democratic Congress and the use of every executive action effort available to fulfill Trump’s signature campaign promise.

Trump’s speech included an emotional appeal, asking mothers and wives of people slain by illegal immigrants to hold up photos of their deceased family members to the assembled reporters.

Two officials familiar with the plans say Trump will attempt to begin construction on the wall nearly immediately and that the funding available to him will be tapped sequentially to head off any potential court challenges.

Trump’s intent to declare a national emergency already drew ire in Congress from Republicans and Democrats who say a dangerous precedent is being set and that the legislative body’s constitutional power of the purse is being usurped.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the move an “end run” around Congress; other congressional Democrats said they would attempt to block the declaration through measures available under the National Emergencies Act.

White House officials assured supporters Friday morning that they would veto any attempts by Congress to override Trump’s national emergency.

Trump’s national emergency declaration will also likely face legal challenges. The president addressed that issue during his Rose Garden speech, noting that is is highly possible the case is taken all the way to the Supreme Court. However, he sounded optimistic that he would ultimately prevail on such a challenge. (RELATED: Here’s What Would Happen If Trump Declared A National Emergency)

Legal experts have said that Trump would have the authority to build the wall under a national emergency as long as he uses money from an unmarked pot of Department of Defense funds. The DoD funds are to be used for military construction projects and can only be accessed under an emergency.

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

Thursday at her weekly press briefing, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said President Donald Trump would be “doing an end run around Congress” if he declared a national emergency to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Pelosi said, “It’s important to note that when the president declares this emergency, first of all, it’s not an emergency, what’s happening at the border.”

She continued, “The president is doing an end run around Congress about the power of the purse. You’ve heard me say over and over again, Article 1, the legislative branch, the power of the purse, power to declare war, many other powers listed in the Constitution. And of course, the responsibility to have oversight. So the president is doing an end run around that.”

She added, “I’m saying we are reviewing our options. We have to see what the president will say. I don’t believe that the—there’s any good faith negotiation to have with the Republicans in Congress if they’re going to support the president doing an end run about what the will of the people, the Congress of the United States has put forth. So we will review our options, and I’m not prepared to give any preference to any one of them right now.”

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

President Trump will take dramatic actions to fund his long-promised border wall and declare a national emergency, which will enable his administration to move $8 billion from various federal agencies to fund the project, a senior administration official told Fox News late Thursday.

The news comes as Trump is expected to sign a House border security package that provides $1.4 billion for the project, which is far below the $5.7 billion Trump insisted he needed and would finance just a quarter of the 200-plus miles he wanted.

Sarah Sanders, the White House press secretary, said earlier today that Trump will sign the spending bill and declare a national emergency at the same time tomorrow morning.

The White House said he’d sign the legislation but act unilaterally to get more, prompting condemnations from Democrats and threats of lawsuits from states and others who might lose federal money or said Trump was abusing his authority.

In an unusual joint statement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said such a declaration would be “a lawless act, a gross abuse of the power of the presidency and a desperate attempt to distract” from Trump’s failure to force Mexico to pay for the wall, as he’s promised for years.

GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“Congress will defend our constitutional authorities,” they said. They declined to say whether that meant lawsuits or votes on resolutions to prevent Trump from unilaterally shifting money to wall-building, with aides saying they’d wait to see what he does.

Fox News' Gregg Re, Edmund DeMarche, Ellison Barber and The Associated Press contributed to this report

The Washington Times

Published  1 week ago

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that if President Trump can declare a national emergency to construct his border wall, a Democratic president can use the same powers to take all sorts of steps the GOP won’t like.

She specifically suggested guns as an area where a Democratic president might try an end-run around Congress.

“Because if the president can declare an emergency on something that he has created as an emergency, an illusion that he wants to convey, just think of what a president with different values can present to the American people,” she said.

She continued: “You want to talk about a national emergency, let’s talk about today, the one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America. That’s a national emergency”

She made her comments to reporters Thursday afternoon, after the White House said Mr. Trump will sign the spending bill moving through Congress, which shortchanges his request for wall money, but will claim emergency powers to have the Pentagon build the wall anyway, using money Congress already appropriated.

Mrs. Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer have vowed to try to overturn the president’s planned declaration, and some Republican senators have said they’ll join Democrats in that move.

Lawsuits are also expected.

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

POLITICUSUSA

Published  1 week ago

Rachel Maddow laid out the blueprint on Thursday for how House Speaker Nancy Pelosi could essentially stop Donald Trump’s phony national emergency declaration before it even begins.

According to the MSNBC host, all Pelosi has to do is hold a vote to block Trump’s declaration, which would trigger a Senate vote that is far from a shoo-in for the president.

“If Pelosi in the House passes a resolution blocking Trump from declaring this emergency … it would trigger a vote automatically in the Senate and once that vote was triggered in the Senate, honestly, it would only take a couple of Republicans voting with the Democratic senators to, in fact, block President Trump from declaring this emergency,” Maddow said.

Rachel Maddow says Trump’s emergency declaration is already in trouble. #ctl #p2 #maddow pic.twitter.com/m1LFVtQMJJ

— PoliticusUSA (@politicususa) February 15, 2019

Maddow said:

So if Pelosi does this, if Pelosi in the House passes a resolution blocking Trump from declaring this emergency, once that vote happened, it would trigger a vote automatically in the Senate and once that vote was triggered in the Senate, honestly, it would only take a couple of Republicans voting with the Democratic senators to, in fact, block President Trump from declaring this emergency. That’s all it would take. And we all know from the public record, from the tape, from the receipts, that a lot more than just a couple Republican senators are on the record bluntly and unequivocally and recently saying that an emergency declaration from this president on this would be a terrible idea and they would be willing to fight him on it. Well, if they put their money where their mouth is, they could stop this president from doing it. And this is not hypothetical.

While it’s mostly a pie in the sky idea to think that Republicans will ever adequately stand up to Donald Trump, on this issue – the emergency declaration – they may have boxed themselves in so badly that they can’t turn back.

In recent weeks, likely because they didn’t believe Trump would actually go forward with a fake national emergency, a handful of Republicans have said they oppose the move. They are on tape saying it’s a bad idea and that they would fight Trump on it.

Now that Trump is on the verge of declaring the national emergency, all Nancy Pelosi has to do is trigger a vote that would force Republicans in the Senate to put their money where their mouths are.

Conservative Tribune

Published  1 week ago

'But beyond its hateful rhetoric, the Iranian regime openly advocates another Holocaust and it seeks the means to achieve it,' the vice president said.

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

President Trump said Friday he is declaring a national emergency on the southern border, tapping into executive powers in a bid to divert billions toward construction of a wall even as he plans to sign a funding package that includes just $1.4 billion for border security. 

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

Democratic leaders directed their deputies on the 2019 border security panel to hide their negotiating victories from President Donald Trump.

The Last Refuge

Published  1 week ago

The actual budget appropriations bill is seven compartments consisting of more than 5,000 pages. However, here is the 29 page summary outlining the key elements as negotiated by congress. WARNING: …

Dan Bongino

Published  1 week ago

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) will allow a vote on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-NY) radical Green New Deal.

Yesterday, McConnell told reporters, “I’ve noted with great interest the Green New Deal. And we’re going to be voting on that in the Senate. We’ll give everybody an opportunity to go on record and see how they feel about the Green New Deal.”

The Green New Deal proposal has come under fire by many on the right for its unrealistic and radical agenda and embarrassing “frequently asked questions” (FAQ) paper.

The FAQ document–which has since been scrubbed from Ocasio-Cortez’s website–promised to make air travel “unnecessary,” guaranteed a job for every person in America, and “economic security” for those “unwilling” to work.

The FAQ document also tackled the dire issue of “farting cows.” It states, “We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.”

Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) seemed dismissive of the plan, telling Politico last week, “It will be one of several or maybe many suggestions that we receive. The green dream, or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it, right?”

Fox News points out that the Senate vote will have implications for Democrats running in the 2020 presidential race:

“But McConnell’s move to bring the plan to a vote on the Senate floor will be a key test for Democratic presidential candidates such as Sens. Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, who are running on the progressive platform in 2020.

While backing of the far-left proposal will ultimately improve their liberal bona fides and their support from the Democratic base, the support of the plan will undoubtedly be the target of attacks during the general election.”

NaturalNews.com

Published  1 week ago

It is widely reported today that President Trump is declaring a national emergency over the continued migrant invasion of the United States of America that's taking place via a largely [...]

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

Trump must cautiously study every word in Congress’s spending bill, to ensure it does not negate emergency power to build the border wall.

Washington Examiner

Published  1 week ago

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said President Trump’s plan to use a national emergency declaration to unilaterally provide federal funding for a border wall would set a precedent Republicans may come to regret.

Democrats, she said, could use it later to enact their own priorities, such as increasing gun control.

"Why don't you declare that a national emergency? I wish you would,” Pelosi during a press conference Thursday, noting it was the one-year anniversary of the high school shooting in Parkland, Fla., that killed 17 students and staff. “But a Democratic president can do that.”

Democrats may try to block Trump’s national emergency declaration in court. They may also pass a resolution stopping the move. Pelosi said Democrats are “reviewing our options,” depending on what, exactly, Trump says he is going to do.

Earlier Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Trump informed him he would sign a border security and spending measure that provides $1.375 billion of the $5.7 billion Trump is seeking for structural barriers along the southern border. McConnell said Trump would declare a national emergency to acquire more funding beyond what is in the legislation.

“Republicans should have some dismay about the door they are opening,” Pelosi said.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 week ago

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) fiercely attacked President Trump on Thursday after Senator McConnell said Trump will declare a national emergency to secure border wall funding.

Pelosi and Schumer said Thursday that Trump declaring a national emergency would be a lawless act, a gross abuse of the power of the presidency and a desperate attempt to distract from the fact that President Trump broke his core promise to have Mexico pay for his wall, reported Chad Pergram.

Pelosi then took her rhetoric to the next level and attacked the 2nd Amendment. Pelosi warned Republicans that the next president could declare a national emergency on guns, The Hill reported.

“A Democratic president can declare emergencies, as well,” Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. “So the precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans.”

Nancy Pelosi brought up the one-year anniversary of the Parkland shooting massacre and argued the ‘epidemic of gun violence’ in America is a national emergency.

“Let’s talk about today: The one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America,” Pelosi said. “That’s a national emergency. Why don’t you declare that emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would. But a Democratic president can do that.”

Other gun-grabbing Democrat lawmakers also claimed a national emergency should be declared on guns and even climate change.

Congressman Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) called gun violence, climate change, income inequality, access to healthcare all national emergencies.

Gun violence is a national emergency

Climate Change is a national emergency

Income inequality is a national emergency

Access to healthcare is a national emergency

Building a wall on the southern border is not.

— Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (@repcleaver) February 14, 2019

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) confirmed from the Senate Floor Thursday afternoon that President Trump will be signing the new border deal and will also be issuing a national emergency at the same time.

There is a crisis at the US-Mexico border, however the Democrats want illegal aliens pouring into this country because the illegal alien vote is their new voting bloc.

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said Thursday that President Donald Trump will sign legislation to prevent a second partial government shutdown and declare a national emergency to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

“He’s prepared to sign the bill, he will also be issuing a national emergency declaration at the same time,” McConnell said ahead of a Senate vote on a measure to keep the government running past the February 15 deadline.

The comprise measure keeps departments running through the fiscal year but without the $5.7 billion the president wanted for the border wall with Mexico.

Moments after McConnell’s remarks, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders confirmed in a statement that the president will sign the funding bill and take executive action to build the wall. “President Trump will sign the government funding bill, and as he has stated before, he will also take other executive action – including a national emergency – to ensure we stop the national security and humanitarian crisis at the border. The President is once again delivering on his promise to build the wall, protect the border, and secure our great country,” Sanders said.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said Democrats “may” file a legal challenge if a national emergency is declared, saying she and other party leaders are reviewing their options. “I may, that’s an option. We will review our options,” she said when asked if Democrats will take legal action. “But it’s important to note that when the president declares this emergency, first of all, it’s not an emergency. What’s happening at the border is a humanitarian challenge to us. The president is trying to sell a bill of goods.”

Following Pelosi’s remarks, Sanders told reporters that the administration is “very prepared” for legal challenges, adding that “there shouldn’t be” any. “The president’s doing his job. Congress should do theirs,” she said.

The Democrat-controlled House is poised to pass the sweeping measure Thursday evening, and the Republican-led Senate is expected to approve as well. Bargainers formally completed the accord moments before midnight Wednesday night.

The product of nearly three weeks of talks, the agreement provides almost $1.4 billion for new barriers along the boundary. That’s less than the $1.6 billion for border security in a bipartisan Senate bill that President Trump spurned months ago, and enough for building just 55 miles of barricades, not the 200-plus miles he had sought.

Notably, the word “wall” — which fueled many a chant at Trump campaign events and then his rallies as president — does not appear once in the 1,768 pages of legislation and explanatory materials. “Barriers” and “fencing” are the nouns of choice.

The compromise would also squeeze funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, in an attempt to pressure the agency to gradually detain fewer immigrants.

Speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill, House Freedom Caucus chair Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) warned “it would be political suicide” if the president backs the bill and does not seek money elsewhere to fund the wall.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

ABC30 Fresno

Published  1 week ago

WASHINGTON --

Battling with one branch of government and opening a new confrontation with another, President Donald Trump announced Friday he was declaring a national emergency to fulfill his pledge to construct a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Bypassing Congress, which approved far less money for his proposed wall than he had sought, Trump said he would use executive action to siphon billions of dollars from federal military construction and counterdrug efforts for the wall, aides said. The move is already drawing bipartisan criticism on Capitol Hill and expected to face rounds of legal challenges.

RELATED: California likely to sue President Trump over emergency declaration to fund wall on U.S.-Mexico border

Trump made the announcement from the Rose Garden, as he claimed illegal immigration was "an invasion of our country."

Trump's move followed a rare show of bipartisanship when lawmakers voted Thursday to fund large swaths of the government and avoid a repeat of this winter's debilitating five-week government shutdown. The money in the bill for border barriers, about $1.4 billion, is far below the $5.7 billion Trump insisted he needed and would finance just a quarter of the more than 200 miles (322 kilometers) he wanted this year.

To bridge the gap, Trump announced that he will be spending roughly $8 billion on border barriers - combining the money approved by Congress with funding he plans to repurpose through executive actions, including the national emergency. The money is expected to come from funds targeted for military construction and counterdrug efforts, but aides could not immediately specify which military projects would be affected.

Despite widespread opposition in Congress to proclaiming an emergency, including by some Republicans, Trump was responding to pressure to act unilaterally to soothe his conservative base and avoid appearing like he's lost his wall battle.

Word that Trump would declare the emergency prompted condemnations from Democrats and threats of lawsuits from states and others who might lose federal money or said Trump was abusing his authority.

In a sing-songy tone of voice, Trump described how the decision will be challenged and work its way through the courts, including up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

He said, "Sadly, we'll be sued and sadly it will go through a process and happily we'll win, I think."

In an unusual joint statement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called it an "unlawful declaration over a crisis that does not exist" and said it "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. "

"The President's actions clearly violate the Congress's exclusive power of the purse, which our Founders enshrined in the Constitution," they said. "The Congress will defend our constitutional authorities in the Congress, in the Courts, and in the public, using every remedy available."

Democratic state attorneys general said they'd consider legal action to block Trump. Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rossello told the president on Twitter "we'll see you in court" if he made the declaration.

Even if his emergency declaration withstands challenge, Trump is still billions of dollars short of his overall funding needed to build the wall as he promised in 2016. After two years of effort, Trump has not added any new border mileage; all of the construction so far has gone to replacing and repairing existing structures. Ground is expected to be broken in South Texas soon on the first new mileage.

The White House said Trump would not try to redirect federal disaster aid to the wall, a proposal they had considered but rejected over fears of a political blowback.

Associated Press writers Lisa Mascaro, Padmananda Rama, Andrew Taylor, Deb Riechmann, Colleen Long, Lolita Baldor and Matthew Daly contributed.

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

Mitch McConnell reportedly gave President Donald Trump false information about legislation to prevent a second partial government shutdown.

Big League Politics

Published  1 week ago

Multiple sources inside the White House have confirmed for Big League Politics that high-level officials within the President Donald J. Trump’s administration – without Trump’s knowledge – denied Angel Moms a meeting with Trump to discuss Thursday’s proposed budget bill, which does not include full border wall funding.

Sabine Durden, one of the Angel Moms, a group of brave activists whose children have been slain by illegal aliens, was denied the opportunity to meet with Trump to discuss her opposition to the budget.

“Somebody doesn’t want Donald Trump to see us, because one look at us and our dead children, and he won’t want to sign that bill,” said Angel Mom Sabine Durden. “This request to meet with Donald Trump has been put in for quite some time, so it was a surprise.”

According to multiple sources, Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and Director of Strategic Communications Mercedes Schlapp personally nuked the meeting. The sources told BLP that Trump does not even know that the Angel Moms are in Washington, D.C., and that his staff is actively working to make sure that Trump does not learn of their presence.

“I don’t want [Trump] seeing dead kids before the budget vote because then he won’t vote for it,” Mulvaney reportedly said.

This confirms an earlier Tweet from One America News reporter Ryan James Girdusky. BLP was able to confirm that the staffer was Mulvaney.

Angel moms are in Washington D.C. right now and we’re rejected by the White House when they requested a meeting with @realDonaldTrump by his staff. Two sources told me the staff doesn’t want him to see them b/c “he won’t want to sign the DHS funding bill if he sees dead kids”

— Ryan James Girdusky (@RyanGirdusky) February 14, 2019

The sources told BLP that Jared Kushner, the President’s son-in-law and senior advisor, is working with White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications Bill Shine behind the scenes to spike any criticism of the bill. According to one source, the White House even had a phone call with Fox News’ Sean Hannity and Lou Dobbs, opponents of the bill, to ask them to stop publicly criticizing it.

As GOP establishment forces around Trump lead him towards signing the heaping pile of garbage that is the budget bill, Durden understands Trump’s team is actively working against him to subvert his America First agenda.

Durden is a legal immigrant whose son, Dominic, was killed by an illegal alien. She said that when the Angel Moms are in D.C., they are usually invited onto Fox News, and hope that that will be the case tonight, so they can tell this story.

Amy Kremer, co-founder of Women for Trump, was also present with the group in the white house.

Durden said that the last time the group visited Washington, D.C., they went to the office of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a staunch border security opponent. She recounted that the group was treated dismissively by the staff, though the staff did remove a poster with children wearing “undocumented and proud” t-shirts in the presence of the Angel Moms. She said that she left Pelosi one dollar, the exact amount of funding offered by Pelosi to build a border wall.

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

President Trump took bold and decisive action in the best interests of the American people when he declared a national emergency Friday to enable construction of a badly needed barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border to stymie human trafficking, drug trafficking and criminal crossings.

David Harris Jr

Published  1 week ago

There is now a report from multiple sources that say police now believe Jussie Smollett paid Olabinjo and Abimbola Osundairo $3,500 to participate in a fake attack on him. Police suspected the brothers of perpetrating the attack, but after questioning them, police let them go and requested another interview with Smollett. This has gotten serious for Smollett, as faking the attack can now land him to up to 3 years in prison for his false police report. Smollett’s lawyers now claim that their client is not guilty of any crime, but that doesn’t explain why he hired one of the top criminal lawyers in the country.

Law enforcement sources with knowledge of the Smollett investigation told CNN on Saturday that police believe that Smollett hired two men to stage the attack on him.

And considering the amount of attention Smollett’s original report received from liberal celebrities and top Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, a candidate for the Democratic nomination, the latest development could be more than a little embarrassing for the country’s liberal political and entertainment establishment.

The men, identified by ABC News as brothers Olabinjo and Abimbola Osundairo, were arrested on Wednesday as persons of interest in the investigation into Smollett’s claim that he had been attacked on Jan. 29.

The Osundairos were released 48 hours later without being charged, due to Chicago law enforcement’s discovery of “new evidence,” CNN reported.

ABC News reported that Chicago police said they were “eager to speak to Jussie Smollett” after they released the Osundairos.

According to CBS News Chicago sources, the brothers told detectives that Smollett rehearsed the attack with them in the days leading up to Jan. 29.

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

Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Published  1 week ago

Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer released this joint statement on President Trump declaring a national emergency:

“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. 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.

“This issue transcends partisan politics and goes to the core of the Founders’ conception for America, which commands Congress to limit an overreaching executive. The President’s emergency declaration, if unchecked, would fundamentally alter the balance of powers, inconsistent with our Founders’ vision.

“We call upon our Republican colleagues to join us to defend the Constitution. Just as both parties honored our oath to protect the American people by passing the conference committee bill, the Congress on a bipartisan basis must honor the Constitution by defending our system of checks and balances.

“The President is not above the law. The Congress cannot let the President shred the Constitution.”

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

House Majority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said Wednesday that Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) could face “further action” from Democrat leaders if she continues expressing prejudiced views.

Asked by reporters about antisemitic statements made by Omar and fellow freshman congresswoman Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Hoyer replied, “Congresswoman Omar apologized,” adding that “the real test is the actions on the floor.”

“We need to treat one another with respect and without language that would refer to any kind of interpretation of bigotry, prejudice, or hate,” he continued. “We’ll continue to pursue and advocate for that, and very frankly, if that doesn’t pan out, there may be further action we would take.”

The Maryland Democrat did not elaborate on how leadership could punish lawmakers for racism.

Omar apologized Monday for tweets suggesting the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) pays Republican members of Congress to support Israel. “Anti-Semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes. My intention is never to offend my constituents or Jewish Americans as a whole,” the Minnesota Democrat claimed in a statement. “We have to always be willing to step back and think through criticism, just as I expect people to hear me when others attack me for my identity. This is why I unequivocally apologize.”

Omar then went on to criticize AIPAC once more, calling their so-called “role” in American politics “problematic.”

She failed to note in her apology that the pro-Israel org does not make financial contributions to candidates.

AIPAC responded to the lawmaker’s remarks on Sunday evening, saying: “We are proud that we are engaged in the democratic process to strengthen the US-Israel relationship. Our bipartisan efforts are reflective of American values and interests. We will not be deterred in any way by ill-informed and illegitimate attacks on this important work.”

President Donald Trump on Tuesday called for Omar to resign from either the House Foreign Affairs Committee or Congress.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) named Omar to the House Foreign Affairs Committee last month, despite her previous support of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel and previous tweets in which she claimed the Jewish state was “hypnotizing the world” and responsible for “evil doings.”

“Anti-Semitism has no place in the United States Congress. And Congressman Omar, it’s terrible what she said and I think she should either resign from Congress or she should certainly resign from the House Foreign Affairs Committee,” said the president said. “What she said is so deep-seated in her heart that her lame apology, that’s what it was, it was lame and she didn’t mean a word of it, was just not appropriate.”

“I think she should resign from Congress frankly, but at a minimum, she shouldn’t be on committees, certainly that committee,” he added.

Hill Reporter

Published  1 week ago

This afternoon, Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell announced President Trump would sign the latest funding bill. This was, however, a caveat to the news. Trump also plans on declaring a national emergency in order to secure the funds needed to build a border wall.

Whether or not the Republicans can prove that there is an emergency at the border, is up for debate. The decision by Trump would set a dangerous precedent. Nancy Pelosi warned the president that the next democratic president can also make use of this strategy.

Pelosi said to Trump, “You want to talk about a national emergency? Let’s talk about today, the one-year anniversary” of the Parkland shooting.” She continued, “Why don’t you declare that a national emergency? I wish you would. But—a Democratic president can do that.”

"You want to talk about a national emergency?" Speaker Pelosi says. "Let's talk about today, the one-year anniversary" of the Parkland shooting.

"Why don't you declare that a national emergency? I wish you would. But—a Democratic president can do that." https://t.co/RtDFa4fl1T pic.twitter.com/nohS0WmH2u

— ABC News (@ABC) February 14, 2019

The argument made by Pelosi has also been made by Republican Senator Roy Blount (R-MO), who said, “I think it sets a dangerous precedent and I hope he (Trump) doesn’t do it.”

Mitt Romney was stronger in his condemnation. He said that not only would he not support the declaration, “he will be studying” a vote to block Trump from moving forward with declaring a national emergency.”

The ball will now be in the Republican’s court. The decision by Trump is sure to have far reaching implications.

Katrina Pierson

Published  1 week ago

As reported by DailyCaller

Democrat New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez praised fellow Democrat, Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, on Tuesday for claiming Republicans’ support for Israel is bought by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

“Unlike this President, Rep. [Omar] demonstrated a capacity to acknowledge pain & apologize, use the opportunity to learn [about] history of antisemitism [sic],+grow from it while clarifying her stance,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted. “I’m also inspired by Jewish leadership who brought her in, not push her out, to heal.”

Unlike this President, Rep. @IlhanMN demonstrated a capacity to acknowledge pain & apologize, use the opportunity to learn abt history of antisemitism,+grow from it while clarifying her stance.

I’m also inspired by Jewish leadership who brought her in, not push her out, to heal. https://t.co/ONRegDJK2S

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) February 12, 2019

Omar is facing massive backlash after she quote-tweeted a link to an article by Haaretz where House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy threatened punishment against Omar and Democratic Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib, America’s first two Muslim congresswomen; both Omar and Tlaib have been embroiled in allegations of anti-Semitism.

Omar first commented on the tweet, saying “It’s all about the Benjamins baby,” and after she was pressed to clarify who she was referring to, she tweeted “AIPAC!”

The comments received swift condemnation from members of congress on both sides of the aisle, including from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership.

Sara A. Carter

Published  1 week ago

President Trump Speaks on the National Security & Humanitarian Crisis on Our Southern Border https://t.co/FqdfFORbv5

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) February 15, 2019

Trump declared a national emergency Friday after Congress passed a bill Thursday avoiding another government shutdown. White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said the president planned to sign the compromise ahead of the House vote.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell encouraged bipartisan cooperation ahead of Thursdays vote. “We’ll be voting to secure our nation’s borders and keeping American communities safe. And we’ll do it free from the influence of poison pills that sought to derail progress and stifle compromise” , tweeted McConnell.

We’ll be voting to secure our nation’s borders and keeping American communities safe. And we’ll do it free from the influence of poison pills that sought to derail progress and stifle compromise.

— Leader McConnell (@senatemajldr) February 14, 2019

The bill offers a mere $1.4 billion in border wall funding. The president is attempting to get the $5.7 billion he originally requested through other means.

Moreover, Sanders said that “other executive action, including a national emergency,” would be declared by the president.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the potential executive action a ‘lawless act” and a “gross abuse of the power of the presidency.” Pelosi also criticized the action saying President Trump ‘broke his core promise to have Mexico pay for the wall.’

Declaring a national emergency would be a lawless act, a gross abuse of the power of the presidency and a desperate attempt to distract from the fact that @realDonaldTrump broke his core promise to have Mexico pay for his wall.

— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) February 14, 2019

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) says he supports the President’s decision to declare a national emergency. “The budget deal is a down payment on the wall, providing funding for more immigration judges, and does not include a cap on detention beds for violent illegal immigrant offenders.” said Graham.

The budget deal is a down payment on the wall, provides funding for more immigration judges, and does not include a cap on detention beds for violent illegal immigrant offenders.

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) February 14, 2019

Trump is now taking his fight to the courts. Wherein, approval for a southern border wall will face many roadblocks.

He addressed the need for a border wall as a nationlal security and humanitarian crisis. “I will never waver from my sacred duty to defend this Nation and its people. We will get the job done.” said Trump.

Trump pointed to the large caravans, human smuggling, and drug trafficking as some of the key reasons the American people need a border wall.

The Washington Times

Published  1 week ago

Many lawmakers weren't sure what was in the massive spending agreement, but fear of another government shutdown greased the skids as Republicans and Democrats linked arms and voted to approve a bill t

The Hive

Published  1 week ago

Later today, William Barr is expected to be confirmed as Donald Trump’s next attorney general, despite just three Democrats voting to advance his nomination earlier this week. But the Barr family is intent on gaining the nation’s trust. In order to avoid any thorny work situations, Barr’s son-in-law, Tyler McGaughey, will be leaving his job in the Justice Department . . . for a new gig that will seemingly provide even more opportunities for conflicts of interest, this time of the Russian variety!

CNN reports that McGaughey, the husband of Barr’s youngest daughter, has been hired as an attorney in the White House counsel’s office, where he’ll “advise the president, the executive office, and White House staff on legal issues concerning the president and the presidency.” While the division is separate from the legal team that defends Trump in the Russia investigation—a group of leading lights that includes Rudy “maybe there was collusion” Giuliani—its work nevertheless does “intersect with the investigation.” (Trump reportedly blamed former White House counsel Don McGahn for failing to bring the probe to a close.) Meanwhile, Mary Daly, Barr’s oldest daughter, will be leaving her current job in the deputy attorney general’s office for a gig at the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), which has had its own Russian intrigues.

Barr, of course, has his own special conflicts of interest when it comes to Robert Mueller’s probe. Last June, he sent an unsolicited 20-page memo to the Justice Department calling the inquiry into potential obstruction of justice by Trump “fatally misconceived” and Mueller’s actions “grossly irresponsible,” and insisting “Mueller should not be permitted to demand that the President submit to interrogation about alleged obstruction.” (Presumably, the memo didn’t hurt Barr’s position on the short list to replace the long-suffering Jeff Sessions.) While Barr said in January that he would not end the Mueller inquiry without cause if asked to do so by the president, he also told lawmakers he saw no reason to recuse himself in light of the memo, saying he would “seek the counsel of Justice Department ethics officials” but would not necessarily take their advice.

Walter Shaub, the former director of the Office of Government Ethics, said it was a “good idea” for McGaughey and Daly to leave the D.O.J., but added that McGaughey’s beeline for the White House was “concerning.” “That’s troubling because it raises further questions about Barr's independence,” he told CNN.

More Great Stories from Vanity Fair

— The leaking, gossiping, and infighting that made Kellyanne Conway a formidable White House player

— Nancy Pelosi is America’s most powerful power-suit boss

— Your passport to Vanity Fair’s 25th Hollywood Issue with Saoirse Ronan, Timothée Chalamet, Chadwick Boseman, and more

Looking for more? Sign up for our daily Hive newsletter and never miss a story.

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

Democratic Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who launched her presidential bid at a snow-covered address in Minneapolis on Sunday, told Fox News' "Special Report with Bret Baier" on Tuesday that the "Green New Deal" proposal is merely "aspirational" and that she would likely oppose specific elements of the plan if they came up for a vote.

Mediaite

Published  1 week ago

Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) told CNN this morning he accepts Rep. Omar Ilhan’s (D-MN) apology for her controversial tweets about the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC.

“I do accept Rep. Omar’s apology and I think it’s entirely appropriate,” the GOP lawmaker said during an appearance on New Day.

“She’s a brand-new, freshman representative. Sometimes, you get out there and you say things and then you try to correct it,” Lankford added. “For any of us that are on television, like right now, you get questions, you make responses or you put out a tweet trying to be funny or to try to press a point, and sometimes you go over the line.”

Ilhan released the following apology statement on Monday after some accused her of promoting antisemitic tropes in her criticism of AIPAC:

“Anti-Semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes. My intention is never to offend my constituents or Jewish Americans as a whole. We have to always be willing to step back and think through criticism, just as I expect people to hear me when others attack me for my identity. This is why I unequivocally apologize.”

However, she did not back off from her opposition to pro-Israel lobbying, saying, “I reaffirm the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics, whether it be AIPAC, the NRA or the fossil fuel industry. It’s gone on too long and we must be willing to address it.”

Despite the apology, Ilhan’s double-down against AIPAC resulted in top Republicans pushing for her removal. This week, President Donald Trump called for her to resign from Congress and Vice President Mike Pence pushed for her to step down from the House Foreign Affairs Committee after calling her apology “inadequate.”

Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called for the Minnesota lawmaker to apologize for “anti-Semitic tropes,” but Ilhan’s Democratic critics have quieted down since her apology.

Watch above, via CNN.

[image via screengrab]

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 week ago

Democrats continue to flounder after a devastating two weeks that is hardly what they expected after winning back control of the House Of Representatives in the midterm elections and President Trump is now putting on

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 week ago

Two Texas state lawmakers are planning to introduce legislation that would fund President Donald Trump’s border wall along the U.S.-Mexico in the Lone Star state.

Speaking with Breitbart, GOP State Reps. Kyle Biedermann and Briscoe Cain revealed that their measure would fund $2.5 billion of wall construction along the Texas border with Mexico.

URGENT POLL: Does Trump have your vote in 2020?

In order to do so, their bill would appropriate the money from the economic stabilization fund for the state fiscal year ending August 31, 2019.

Biedermann argues that they $2.5 billion will be used “to design, test, construct, and install physical barriers, roads, and technology along the international land border between the State of Texas and Mexico to prevent illegal crossings in all areas.”

Biedermann added that contracts to create the wall would be awarded to Texans and Texas-owned entities, meaning Americans would be given the work.

If passed in Texas, it would allocate more funding than the deal between Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. Congress, which would only give around $1.4 billion for the wall.

Here’s more from the Breitbart report:

While this idea is still novel and untested, given the fact that Republicans control the Texas statehouse and Texas state Senate and Texas’ governor Greg Abbott is a strong ally of President Trump’s, this type of plan could actually work in legally acquiring appropriations for a significant portion of what Trump intends to do along the border.

The plan comes as President Trump heads to El Paso, Texas, on Monday evening for a campaign rally in the border town where former Rep. Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke (D-TX) — the failed 2018 Democrat Senate candidate in Texas, who also is considering a potential 2020 presidential bid — is holding a counter-rally.

It also comes as negotiators on Capitol Hill in Washington, just five days before Friday’s deadline, have reportedly reached an impasse in negotiations over funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other government agencies totaling about a quarter of the federal government. Just a few weeks ago, the longest government shutdown in U.S. history — which started at the end of last year and dragged into this year lasting more than a month — ended after Trump agreed to reopen the government for three weeks to allow negotiators in Congress to attempt to reach a deal.

The Breitbart report goes on to argue that Texas state lawmakers feel as if they have no other choice but to go this route.

With House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democrats hellbent on blocking Trump from building the wall, state lawmakers feel as if they can legally take matters into their own hands and help the president secure the border.

But the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, run by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is dead set against funding his wall in full, and Democrats and Republicans on the hill have not been able to reach an agreeable dollar number over this nearly completed three-week period. The government will shut down again Friday night if no agreement is reached.

Trump used his State of the Union Address last week to make the case for the wall, and he has also used an Oval Office address and the full bully pulpit power of the presidency to fight for extra border security measures including additional physical barriers. Part of the reason why he is heading to El Paso on Monday is to showcase how the border city has seen a decrease in unlawful crossings from Mexico since a barrier was built there.

Trump is expected to make the case for improving and repairing existing walls or barriers along the border and building new barriers wherever they are needed.

If Congress refuses President Trump’s request for a wall and does not provide funding for it, Trump can use other methods — like declaring a national emergency or turning to the states like Texas for help with an idea like Biedermann’s and Cain’s forthcoming plan — to get the wall built.

Many Americans, especially Texans, would approve of this getting done.

[RELATED: Senate Dems Gearing Up To Block Trump’s Wall, Little Do They Know He Has A ‘Plan B’]

News Punch

Published  1 week ago

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told European globalists in Brussels that she has equal powers to President Trump.

Pelosi and a delegation of lawmakers were visiting Brussels to convince European leaders that they had control of America amid uncertainty around transatlantic relations.

Pelosi boasted about her recent standoff over the government shutdown, claiming it to be ‘evidence’ of her power over POTUS.

“We’re not a parliamentary government even though we’re parliamentarians,” Pelosi told reporters at a news conference.

“We have Article 1, the legislative branch, the first branch of government, co-equal to the other branches and we have asserted ourselves in that way.”

Newsweek.com reports: Democratic Representative Gerry Connolly, who was part of Pelosi’s delegation during the visit on Monday and Tuesday, elaborated on Pelosi’s remarks on the power of Congress.

“Is this a reassurance tour? I think it’s a reminder tour, that the United States government is not just one branch,” Connolly said. “And as the speaker said, Article 1, the first article in the Constitution of the United States, deals with the powers of the legislative branch, not the executive branch, and those powers include war and peace and even direction of the armed forces.”

Pelosi added, “And the power of the purse,” referring to the fact that it is up to Congress to authorize budget requests by the president to fund executive agencies.

The House speaker proved her power late last month when she and other congressional Democrats refused to provide $5.7 billion in funding that Trump demanded to build his border wall, eventually forcing him to relent and temporarily reopen government without any of the money.

After a negotiation period, Trump reluctantly signed a bipartisan deal that allocates only $1.375 billion for 55 miles of wall, to prevent another government shutdown. Last Friday, Trump declared a national emergency in an attempt to get the rest of the funding needed for the wall.

Following Trump’s national emergency declaration, Pelosi tweeted that he took the action because she and her colleagues would not give him what he wanted.

“Clearest sign that @realDonaldTrump’s #FakeTrumpEmergency is not legitimate? The President himself says he didn’t need to declare a national emergency–it’s just a faster way to force taxpayers to foot the bill after Congress wouldn’t let him have his way,” she tweeted.

Clearest sign that @realDonaldTrump’s #FakeTrumpEmergency is not legitimate? The President himself says he didn’t need to declare a national emergency – it’s just a faster way to force taxpayers to foot the bill after Congress wouldn’t let him have his way. pic.twitter.com/igvnNk128J

— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) February 15, 2019

In Brussels, the European Union’s unofficial capital, Pelosi also tried to do damage control for trans-Atlantic relations that have been hurt by criticisms from Trump. A European colleague asked Pelosi why the House did not adopt a resolution supporting NATO sooner.

“I said, Because we just got the majority and then we can control, we can manage, what goes onto the floor,” Pelosi said.

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) on Wednesday morning hit back at President Donald Trump’s call for the Minnesota Democrat to resign for tweeting anti-Semitic troupes, accusing the president of trafficking in “hate” his “whole life.”

“Hi @realDonaldTrump- You have trafficked in hate your whole life—against Jews, Muslims, Indigenous, immigrants, black people and more. I learned from people impacted by my words. When will you?” Omar tweeted in response to a video of the president describing her apology for her anti-Semitic remarks as “lame.”

You have trafficked in hate your whole life—against Jews, Muslims, Indigenous, immigrants, black people and more. I learned from people impacted by my words. When will you? https://t.co/EqqTyjkiNE

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) February 13, 2019

Speaking to reporters ahead of a Cabinet meeting at the White House, President Trump called the freshman congresswoman to resign from the House Foreign Affairs Committee or from Congress as a whole. “Anti-Semitism has no place in the United States Congress. And Congressman Omar, it’s terrible what she said and I think she should either resign from Congress or she should certainly resign from the House Foreign Affairs Committee,” the president said. “What she said is so deep-seated in her heart that her lame apology, that’s what it was, it was lame and she didn’t mean a word of it, was just not appropriate.”

“I think she should resign from Congress frankly, but at a minimum, she shouldn’t be on committees, certainly that committee,” he added.

Omar on Monday apologized for tweets suggesting the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) paid Republicans to support Israel, yet still called the organization’s so-called “role” in U.S. politics “problematic.” AIPAC does not make political donations to politicians or endorse candidates.

“Anti-Semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes. My intention is never to offend my constituents or Jewish Americans as a whole,” Omar said in a statement. “We have to always be willing to step back and think through criticism, just as I expect people to hear me when others attack me for my identity. This is why I unequivocally apologize.”

“At the same time, I reaffirm the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics, whether it be AIPAC, the NRA or the fossil fuel industry. It’s gone on too long and we must be willing to address it,” she added.

Omar’s remarks came only after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and other House Democrats Leadership members condemned her the tweets and urged her to apologize. “Congresswoman Omar’s use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel’s supporters is deeply offensive.” the lawmakers said. “We condemn these remarks and we call upon Congresswoman Omar to immediately apologize for these hurtful comments.”

Nonetheless, House Democrat Leadership decided to keep the anti-Israel lawmaker on the highly-influential Foreign Affairs panel.

Daily Wire

Published  1 week ago

All politicians are egomaniacs and narcissists. They’re all searching for love and adulation — even (or especially) from strangers. And they’re all pathological — and prolific — liars.

The Washington Post has been keeping track of President Trump’s lies. As of December 21, Trump had "made 7,645 false or misleading claims over 710 days," the Post wrote. President Obama was a prodigal liar, too — although the Post never bothered to tally up all his lies.

They’re all liars. Every last one of them. Take this lie, told just Monday by Sen. Kamala D. Harris, California Democrat. The 2020 hopeful was trying to be hip and cool, so she said she smoked weed back in college, chilling with friends and listening to Snoop Dogg and Tupac. But she graduated in 1986. Tupac didn’t release his first album until 1991, and Snoop’s first record hit the shelves in 1993.

Then there’s Sen. Elizabeth Warren. For decades, the Massachusetts Democrat and the 2020 candidate claimed she was American Indian, putting the designation on all sorts of employment and government forms. But a DNA test she took to prove it showed she’s 98.4 percent to 99.9 percent white. So, liar.

Politicians sometimes tell completely pointless lies. It’s like the joke by comedian Norm MacDonald: "You ever lie for no reason at all? Just all of sudden, a big lie spills out of your evil head? Like a guy will come up to you, 'Hey, did you ever see that movie with Meryl Streep and a horse?' And you go, 'Yes.' In the back of your head, you’re like, 'What in the hell am I lying about over here? I stand to gain nothing by this lie.'"

Like Sen. Cory Booker, another presidential candidate. The New Jersey Democrat often cited a guy named "T-Bone," a drug dealer, saying he once told him, "If you ever so much as look at me again, I'm going to put a cap in your ass." Turns out he "was a 'composite' of various people Booker knew in Newark," Reason wrote this month.

Politicians lie especially to each other’s faces — even when they hate each other’s guts. "To my good friend from Arkansas, let me say…" one senator will bluster, even though it’s clear he can’t stand the guy. "With all due respect to the gentle lady from Missouri, whom I greatly admire, I must say that …" another will say, even though privately he loathes her.

Trump is changing all that. He doesn’t pretend to like someone he clearly hates, even if he has to work with them on important issues. He calls Warren "Pocahontas." To the Democratic House speaker, he tweeted: "Nancy Pelosi has behaved so irrationally & has gone so far to the left that she has now officially become a Radical Democrat." And he makes no pretense of being able to stomach Senate Minority Leader "Cryin" Chuck Schumer.

Members of his own party — and even his Cabinet — are not immune: "Who should star in a reboot of 'Liar Liar' — Hillary Clinton or Ted Cruz?" he said, referring to the Texas Republican senator whom he defeated in the 2016 primaries. Of his former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Trump tweeted: "The Dems all hated him, wanted him out, thought he was disgusting — UNTIL I FIRED HIM! Immediately he became a wonderful man, a saint like figure in fact. Really sick!"

Trump has even taken aim at one of the most famous actresses in the world. "Meryl Streep, one of the most over-rated actresses in Hollywood, doesn’t know me but attacked last night at the Golden Globes. She is a Hillary flunky who lost big."

The former reality TV show host is making other politicians get real. During Trump’s State of the Union address, Pelosi acted just how she feels: She mockingly applauded Trump — and liberals nationwide loved it.

Newcomer Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is also part of The New Honesty. On Monday, she said Trump is "a man who can’t even read briefings written in full sentences." She deeply detests Trump, and she says so. That is because Trump, who also abhors Ocasio-Cortez, has made no bones about his feelings.

So Trump — the crude and petty and vindictive little man — has done at least this: He has gotten rid of the false camaraderie that has colored so much of politics for eons.

And in the end, that’s really not a bad thing.

* A version of this article ran previously in The Washington Times.

WSJ

Published  1 week ago

Ms. Omar, a freshman lawmaker, apologized on Monday after Democratic and Republican leaders condemned her suggestion that lawmakers’ support for Israel was driven by money from a pro-Israel lobbying group. “Anti-Semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes,” she said on Twitter.

Mr. Trump on Tuesday said Ms. Omar’s comments were “deep-seated in her heart” and called her apology “lame.”

Ms. Omar didn’t immediately respond to Mr. Trump’s call for her resignation. A spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said Mr. Trump’s call was “ridiculous,” noting that Ms. Omar had apologized.

At issue were two tweets, in which Ms. Omar first remarked “It’s all about the Benjamins baby,” referring to $100 bills and U.S. politicians defending Israel, and then named Aipac—a pro-Israel lobbying group—as the organization she said was paying them.

Mr. Trump has faced his own rebukes for comments that were criticized as anti-Semitic, including an image he posted on Twitter during his presidential campaign showing Hillary Clinton against a backdrop of cash, with the words “Most Corrupt Candidate Ever” inside a six-pointed star that looked to some like the Star of David.

The campaign deleted the tweet after a backlash, though at the time Mr. Trump was unapologetic. “You know they took the star down,” Mr. Trump said at a campaign rally. “I said, ‘Too bad, you should have left it up.’ I would have rather defended it.” Mr. Trump called people who were offended by the tweet “sick people.”

Mr. Trump described himself in a 2017 news conference as “the least anti-Semitic person that you’ve ever seen in your entire life.”

The public rebuke of Ms. Omar comes amid a split in the Democratic Party between supporters of Israel’s policies and a newly empowered progressive wing critical of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. In the first few weeks of the new Congress, Ms. Omar and Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, the first Muslim women elected to Congress, have both come under fire over prior statements about Israel, though mostly by Republicans.

—Natalie Andrews contributed to this article.

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) called the border wall proposal hammered out by congressional negotiators a "big victory" for President Trump.

POLITICUSUSA

Published  1 week ago

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders gaggled with reporters Wednesday morning outside the White House, and seems to have fully invested in an alternative reality. This isn't spin, it's propaganda. But as bad as most of her claims were, the top notch claim was "Unlike Nancy Pelosi we actually like to read legislation before we agree to it."

Sean Hannity

Published  1 week ago

Rep. Steve Scalise joined the growing chorus of legislators calling for the removal of Ilhan Omar from the House Foreign Affairs Committee Tuesday; saying she should no longer have access to classified briefings regarding the State of Israel after her anti-Semitic rant.

“Right now, she sits on the Foreign Affairs Committee. She’s able to get classified briefings on foreign policy, especially as it relates to Israel. She’s made statements, anti-Israel, anti-Jewish statements, aligned herself with anti-Semitic people as well,” said Scalise.

“She should be removed from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Nancy Pelosi should remove her immediately,” he added.

Daily Wire

Published  1 week ago

Vice President Mike Pence slammed anti-Semitic Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) on Tuesday night following her anti-Semitic tirade over the weekend, saying that her apology was "inadequate" and she should "face consequences."

".@IlhanMN tweets were a disgrace & her apology was inadequate," Pence tweeted. "Anti-Semitism has no place in the United States Congress, much less the Foreign Affairs Committee. Those who engage in anti-Semitic tropes should not just be denounced, they should face consequences for their words."

Pence's call for action against Omar follows President Donald Trump's call for her to either resign from Congress or at a minimum step down from the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

"Anti-Semitism has no place in the United States Congress," Trump said on Tuesday. "And Congresswoman Omar is, terrible what she said, I think she should either resign from Congress or she should certainly resign from the House Foreign Affairs Committee."

"What she said is so deep-seated in her heart, that her lame apology, and that's what it was, it was lame, and she didn't mean a word of it was just not appropriate," Trump added. "I think she should resign from Congress, frankly."

"But at a minimum, she shouldn't be on committees, certainly that committee," Trump concluded.

Omar, who has a long history of anti-Semitism, was also widely condemned by the leadership of the Democratic Party.

Omar's anti-Semitic statements sparked such an intense reaction that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Majority Whip James E. Clyburn, Assistant Speaker Ben Ray Luján, Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries and Caucus Vice Chair Katherine Clark issued the following statement:

Anti-Semitism must be called out, confronted and condemned whenever it is encountered, without exception.

We are and will always be strong supporters of Israel in Congress because we understand that our support is based on shared values and strategic interests. Legitimate criticism of Israel’s policies is protected by the values of free speech and democratic debate that the United States and Israel share. But Congresswoman Omar’s use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel’s supporters is deeply offensive. We condemn these remarks and we call upon Congresswoman Omar to immediately apologize for these hurtful comments.

As Democrats and as Americans, the entire Congress must be fully engaged in denouncing and rejecting all forms of hatred, racism, prejudice and discrimination wherever they are encountered.

In a statement released on Monday, Omar tried to apologize for promoting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and ended up promoting her anti-Semitic views even more:

Anti-Semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes. My intention is never to offend my constituents or Jewish Americans as a whole. We have to always be willing to step back and think through criticism, just as I expect people to hear me when others attack me for my identity. This is why I unequivocally apologize.

At the same time, I reaffirm the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics, whether it be AIPAC, the NRA or the fossil fuel industry. It's gone on too long and we must be willing to address it.

Omar's apology sparked even more outrage and reporters who tried to follow up with her on were met with snarky and bitter remarks.

This is a breaking news story, refresh the page for updates.

True Pundit

Published  1 week ago

Angel father Dan Ferguson said he’s still waiting on a call from former Democratic Rep. Beto O’Rourke after his daughter Amanda was run over by an illegal immigrant at an El Paso intersection back in November.

“Yeah. Beto, you know, it’s funny because he’s a representative of the El Paso area. He has called out to me,” he said on “Fox & Friends” Monday.

Ferguson called for a crackdown on sanctuary cities and said his daughter was so mangled by the crash, he and his wife were prevented from identifying the body.

“ also needs to look at cutting off all the money for sanctuary cities,” he said. “Because all that does is let these illegal aliens back into our society to commit more crimes. And I know, President Trump has looked into the eyes of Angel dads and Angel moms like me. He knows the pain. He knows the hurt that we’ve been gone through. He knows the suffering that is being caused to the American citizens.”

Ferguson also mentioned Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Nancy Pelosi by name and said if they’d lost family to an illegal immigrant, the border would already be secured.

“My question for the House and Congress is, you know, my daughter was hit and she was so badly hurt that they wouldn’t even let my wife and I identify the body,” he continued.

“Her legs were broken in eight different places. She had five skull fractures. She had 10 broken ribs and a punctured lung. She died at the scene. That’s something I have to live with and my family has to live with every day. If Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer’s daughter or son were hit and killed by illegal alien, I can guarantee you that funding would have been there months ago for this wall and security for our border.”

POLITICUSUSA

Published  1 week ago

Speaker Nancy Pelosi is putting the heat on Trump by bringing the bipartisan border spending deal to the House floor as soon as Wednesday.

Politico reported:

Even as House Democratic leaders prepare to move the massive legislative package to the floor as early as Wednesday night, Trump is still sending mixed messages on his intentions.

“When it is finished and it is filed, then we can move expeditiously. It could be done by then,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters following a Democratic leadership meeting, meaning Wednesday night.

“It’s possible that we could pass it tomorrow,” added House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). “There’s some technical things to have to get done. You have to get [Congressional Budget Office] score. But we’re obviously hopeful that we can get it done as quickly as possible.”

Pelosi Offers Trump A Do or Die Choice

The choice that Nancy Pelosi is offering Trump is simple. He can either take the bipartisan deal that’s on the table, or he can shut down the government again. At his cabinet meeting, Trump claimed that he was going to be adding more things to the bill, but that is not happening. Trump is going to have to take it or leave it, and if he vetoes the border spending bill, the next government shutdown will be all on him.

Senate Republicans are likely to join with Democrats in supporting the bill in overwhelming numbers to send the message to the White House that a veto can be overridden.

Speaker Pelosi has outmaneuvered Trump. The president is getting no money for his wall, and even less money for border security than he could have had before he shut the government down. The offers keep getting worse, as Nancy Pelosi is making sure that Trump gets nothing for all of the pain that he has caused millions of people.

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

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

Since Democrats took control of the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time in nearly a decade, the Democrats have been riding high.

Time

Published  1 week ago

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says if President Donald Trump declares a national emergency at the border he’s making an “end run around Congress.”

Pelosi says there’s no crisis at the border with Mexico that requires a national emergency order.

The Brief Newsletter

Sign up to receive the top stories you need to know right now. View Sample

Sign Up Now

She is not saying if House Democrats would legally challenge the president. But Pelosi says if Trump invokes an emergency declaration it should be met with “great unease and dismay” as an overreach of executive authority.

Trump is prepared to invoke a national emergency to build the U.S.-Mexico wall after Congress refused to provide $5.7 billion he was demanding as part of a budget compromise to avoid a federal shutdown.

Trump indicated he would sign the bill to keep the government running past Friday’s deadline but also declare the emergency.

Contact us at editors@time.com.

LifeNews.com

Published  1 week ago

House Democrats Block Request to Vote on Bill to Stop Infanticide For a Fifth Time

Daily Wire

Published  1 week ago

Ad closed by Report this adWhy this ad? Seen this ad multiple timesAd covered contentNot interested in this adAd was inappropriateWe'll try not to show that ad againAd closed by

Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) came to the defense of anti-Semitic Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) on Tuesday, falsely promoting the idea that Omar is not an anti-Semite and saying that she is "proud" of Omar.

Ocasio-Cortez's defense of Omar came after Omar's latest anti-Semitic incident over the weekend when Omar "displayed her blatant anti-Semitism by tweeting that GOP support for Israel was 'all about the Benjamins,' and followed by accusing AIPAC of paying American politicians to support Israel," The Daily Wire reported.

Ocasio-Cortez, who has a long history of walking lockstep with anti-Semites, waited a couple of days to weigh in on Omar's anti-Semitic comments, which drew widespread condemnation from both sides of the aisle.

Ocasio-Cortez responded by falsely suggesting that President Donald Trump was the one who has a problem with anti-Semitism.

"Unlike this President, Rep. @IlhanMN demonstrated a capacity to acknowledge pain & apologize, use the opportunity to learn abt history of antisemitism,+grow from it while clarifying her stance," Ocasio-Cortez tweeted, later adding: "I’m proud @IlhanMN raised the issue of lobbyist in politics & equally proud of her sensitivity to communities."

Ocasio-Cortez's deflection to the president on the question of anti-Semitism is not the first time that she has used this tactic to try to get the attention off of the Left's problem with anti-Semitism.

In January, Ocasio-Cortez embraced the anti-Semitic Women's March — even after the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and top Democrats pulled their support from the group due to its anti-Semitism — and refused to answer questions about the group's anti-Semitism, opting to blame Trump instead.

"I think that concerns of anti-Semitism with the current administration in the White House are absolutely valid and we need to make sure that we are protecting the Jewish community and all those that feel vulnerable in this moment," Ocasio-Cortez said.

Ocasio-Cortez's decision to back Omar and say she is "proud" of her comes after Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Majority Whip James E. Clyburn, Assistant Speaker Ben Ray Luján, Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries and Caucus Vice Chair Katherine Clark issued the following statement:

Anti-Semitism must be called out, confronted and condemned whenever it is encountered, without exception.

We are and will always be strong supporters of Israel in Congress because we understand that our support is based on shared values and strategic interests. Legitimate criticism of Israel’s policies is protected by the values of free speech and democratic debate that the United States and Israel share. But Congresswoman Omar’s use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel’s supporters is deeply offensive. We condemn these remarks and we call upon Congresswoman Omar to immediately apologize for these hurtful comments.

As Democrats and as Americans, the entire Congress must be fully engaged in denouncing and rejecting all forms of hatred, racism, prejudice and discrimination wherever they are encountered.

In the wake of Omar's latest anti-Semitic incident, Trump called on her to either "resign from Congress" or "resign from the House Foreign Affairs Committee."

"What she said is so deep-seated in her heart, that her lame apology, and that's what it was, it was lame, and she didn't mean a word of it was just not appropriate," Trump continued. "I think she should resign from Congress, frankly."

CNBC

Published  1 week ago

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said Tuesday the tentative government funding deal shows that Democrats caved on President Donald Trump's demand for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office immediately fired back.

McCarthy said Pelosi had insisted she would provide "'no money for a wall,'" but in the compromise deal "that's not the case."

"The Democrats have now agreed to more than 55 miles of new barrier being built," the California Republican added in an interview on CNBC's "Squawk Box."

In response, Pelosi's deputy chief of staff Drew Hammill told CNBC that "there is no wall money in this agreement" and that "Democrats have supported physical barriers in the past."

"This agreement has the same amount of funding for physical barriers that last year's omnibus had," he added.

Congressional negotiators said they reached a tentative deal late Monday to fund the government and avoid another shutdown. A congressional source told CNBC it would put about $1.4 billion toward physical barriers, but not the concrete wall that the president wants.

It's not known whether Trump will accept the deal. Trump's demand for $5.7 billion to build 215 miles of wall along the southern U.S. border led to a funding stalemate in December and a record 35-day partial government shutdown.

On Jan. 25, the president signed legislation to put federal employees back to work. However, Trump threatened to let funding lapse again or declare a national emergency on illegal immigration if Congress didn't craft a deal he likes.

"The president has a few more tools in his toolbox," said McCarthy, without elaborating on what those tools might be.

The tentative funding agreement would also reduce the cap for Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention beds by about 17 percent from the current 49,057 to 40,520, according to the source.

"The Democrats changed course when they said, 'There would be no detention beds,'" McCarthy said. "They backed away on that. Now we are able to have those detention beds again. It's not as high a number as we would have liked."

A senior Democratic aide told CNBC that Democrats never advocated for "no detention beds," adding the reduction in beds in the tentative deal provides a "critical check on the Trump administration's mass deportation agenda."

The White House was not immediately available to respond to CNBC's request for comment.

—CNBC's Jacob Pramuk contributed to this report.

Liberty Freedom | United States | The Washington Pundit

Published  1 week ago

“Hi @realDonaldTrump- You have trafficked in hate your whole life—against Jews, Muslims, Indigenous, immigrants, black people and more. I learned from people impacted by my words. When will you?” Omar tweeted in response to a video of the president describing her apology for her anti-Semitic remarks as “lame.”

Speaking to reporters ahead of a Cabinet meeting at the White House, President Trump called the freshman congresswoman to resign from the House Foreign Affairs Committee or from Congress as a whole. “Anti-Semitism has no place in the United States Congress. And Congressman Omar, it’s terrible what she said and I think she should either resign from Congress or she should certainly resign from the House Foreign Affairs Committee,” the president said. “What she said is so deep-seated in her heart that her lame apology, that’s what it was, it was lame and she didn’t mean a word of it, was just not appropriate.”

“I think she should resign from Congress frankly, but at a minimum, she shouldn’t be on committees, certainly that committee,” he added.

Omar on Monday apologized for tweets suggesting the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) paid Republicans to support Israel, yet still called the organization’s so-called “role” in U.S. politics “problematic.” AIPAC does not make political donations to politicians or endorse candidates.

“Anti-Semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes. My intention is never to offend my constituents or Jewish Americans as a whole,” Omar said in a statement. “We have to always be willing to step back and think through criticism, just as I expect people to hear me when others attack me for my identity. This is why I unequivocally apologize.”

“At the same time, I reaffirm the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics, whether it be AIPAC, the NRA or the fossil fuel industry. It’s gone on too long and we must be willing to address it,” she added.

Omar’s remarks came only after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and other House Democrats Leadership members condemned her the tweets and urged her to apologize. “Congresswoman Omar’s use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel’s supporters is deeply offensive.” the lawmakers said. “We condemn these remarks and we call upon Congresswoman Omar to immediately apologize for these hurtful comments.”

Nonetheless, House Democrat Leadership decided to keep the anti-Israel lawmaker on the highly-influential Foreign Affairs panel.

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., on Thursday theorized that if President Trump can declare a national emergency in order to bypass Congress to fund a border wall, there's no reason that a Democratic president in the future can't employ the same measure to deal with gun violence in the country.

Pelosi made the remarks during a press conference in the Capitol Thursday – the anniversary of the Parkland massacre in Florida that left 17 people dead.

"Let's talk about today: The one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America," Pelosi said. "That's a national emergency. Why don't you declare that emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would. "But a Democratic president can do that."

Pelosi reportedly said she was not calling for Democrats to declare a national emergency.

HOUSE REPUBLICAN WORRIES TRUMP'S EMERGENCY DECLARATION COULD HELP FUTURE DEM PRESIDENT ENACT GREEN NEW DEAL

A source told Fox News late Thursday that Trump will declare a national emergency in order to fund his long-promised border wall that will enable his administration to move $8 billion from various federal agencies to fund the project.

"A Democratic president can declare emergencies, as well," Pelosi said. "So the precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans."

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

Freshman Congresswoman Ilhan Omar is continuing to face criticism over her tweets deemed anti-Semitic – even drawing the rebuke from her party’s leadership – yet her other comments were largely shrugged off.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 week ago

Democrat Stacey Abrams failed in her election to become the governor of Georgia last year, but that's not the only bad news she has received lately. Now her woes continue as her nonprofit was dinged with

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

Labor Unions are voicing skepticism that the "Green New Deal" proposed by Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is workable in practice, signaling that the progressive proposal may be in for even more turbulence following a rocky rollout last week.

True Pundit

Published  1 week ago

If congressional Democrats suffered the way the family of Dan Ferguson, an angel dad, has, funding for a border wall would have been approved months ago, Ferguson told “Fox & Friends” hosts Monday.

Ferguson’s daughter Amanda was killed in a hit-and-run accident in November 2018. Joel Velazquez, 24, is in the U.S. illegally and had been drinking the night he allegedly ran several red lights and hit and killed Amanda, Ferguson said.

Ferguson appeared on Fox News hours before President Donald Trump is expected to hold a rally in El Paso, Texas, where Ferguson lives. He supports Trump’s plan for border security and said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer would too if they lost someone because of an illegal alien.

“I’m 100 percent behind him on his deal on the wall and securing the border,” Ferguson said. “You know, he also needs to look at cutting off all the money for sanctuary cities, because all that does is let these illegal aliens back into our society to commit more crimes.”

“I know President Trump has looked into the eyes of angel dads and angel moms like me. He knows the pain,” he added.

Velazquez was arrested in 2017 for assault. He allegedly punched his neighbor, Paul Schaeffer, after an argument involving marijuana being smoked in front of their apartment, The El Paso Times reports.

Velazquez posted bail and was released. His assault case is expected to go to court in late February. Velazquez is back in jail, this time under an immigration detainer, which allows ICE to arrest Velazquez for being in the U.S. illegally should he post bail, KVIA reports.

“My question for the House in Congress is, you know, my daughter was hit, and she was so badly hurt that they wouldn’t even let my wife and I identify the body,” Ferguson continued. “Her legs were broken in eight different places, she had five skull fractures, she had 10 broken ribs and a punctured lung.”

“She died at the scene. You know, that’s something that I have to live with and my family has to live with every day. If Ms. Pelosi’s or Mr. Schumer’s daughter or son were hit and killed by an illegal alien, I can guarantee you that funding would have been there months ago for this wall and security for our border.”

Raw Story

Published  1 week ago

Conservative columnist for the Washington Post Jennifer Rubin told MSNBC on Tuesday that there was a good reason the Republican Party was attacking young, women Democrats: their usual target, Nancy Pelosi, was beating them at their own game.

Host Craig Melvin, citing reporting by Politico, said that despite the risk of a backlash, the GOP was going after Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar to rally their base, and asked “is this a smart move to shift the focus to these new up-and-comers?”

“I don’t know if it’s going to be work, so I suppose it’s not smart,” replied Rubin. “I would assume that about 1% of America knows who these people are. You and I know who AOC is but most Americans still don’t.”

“What’s more, we’re entering already a presidential primary season and those people are soon going to be seen as the primary figures in the Democratic Party,” she added. “It is quite a testament to Nancy Pelosi that she’s no longer useful to the Republicans as a foil. Probably because she’s beating Trump at his own game.”

Fellow panelist and Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne agreed.

“The idea that the Republicans would use three women is just not a great look for them, three younger women is not a great look for them,” he said, noting that the GOP has relied on “left wing boogiemen, now women” as a rallying cry for decades. “I think the risks they run with these particular members, young and female, are very, very high for them.”

Watch the video below.

The Washington Times

Published  1 week ago

Excerpts from recent editorials in the United States and abroad:

Conservative Tribune

Published  1 week ago

A man facing serious felonies for allegedly assaulting Hispanic members of the U.S. Marine Corps seems to have a history of connections to key Democrats.

Washington Examiner

Published  1 week ago

If Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., really wants to avoid being branded as an anti-Semite, she will cancel her planned speech later this month for a group, which is considered by foreign governments to be a terrorist-financing organization.

Omar is scheduled to speak Feb. 23 in Tampa at what is labeled a Yemen Emergency Dinner sponsored by Islamic Relief USA, or IRUSA. Islamic Relief, which has chapters in 20 nations, has been branded a terror financier by the governments of the United Arab Emirates and Israel. Russian authorities, the Swiss bank UBS, the British bank HSBC, and reports by governmental entities in Germany and Sweden all have determined that Islamic Relief has supported radical Islamist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

Numerous moderate Islamic leaders in the U.S. also have denounced IRUSA for donating “to terrorist sympathizers and enablers, including affiliates of Hamas, a foreign political group with documented evidence of supremacist views and Jew-hatred.”

At the dinner in Tampa, one of the other three featured speakers alongside Omar is IRUSA’s “East Zone Manager,” Yousef Abdallah, who on his social media accounts repeatedly has promoted violent anti-Semitism. For example, Abdallah praised as “beautiful” a story lauding a “resistance hero” whose work helped “kill more than 20 Jews” and “fire[d] rockets at Tel Aviv.”

Much of the reporting on IRUSA and Abdallah, thoroughly documented, comes from the Middle East Forum, a think tank most often associated with respected scholars Daniel Pipes, MEF’s founder, and Michael Rubin. The Clarion Project, led by analyst Ryan Mauro, likewise has denounced Islamic Relief for having “many documented links to terror funding — particularly Hamas — and the Muslim Brotherhood. It also is managed by prominent Islamist extremists.”

So, too, has the Investigative Project on Terrorism, which published a photo of IRUSA’s board chairman Khaled Lamada with members of the Muslim Brotherhood, two of whom have openly supported terrorism.

Yet, Omar is willingly sharing an IRUSA podium with Abdallah, even after being sternly rebuked by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., for her most recent foray into “anti-Semitic tropes.” And that was far from the first time she has engaged in such tropes.

Anti-Semitism is a horrendous evil and a trend again growing, not just in Europe, but in the U.S. as well. It is a scourge that must be fought, and it is one that should have no place in Congress. If Omar will not take even more steps to avoid spreading it and associating officially with those who do, she should be shunned by every one of her House colleagues.

The Federalist

Published  1 week ago

With Beto O’Rourke as a perfect foil, Trump kicked off his 2020 reelection bid by painting Democrats as “outside the mainstream.”

inthesetimes

Published  1 week ago

False charges of anti-Semitism are being used to silence critics of Israel.

twitchy.com

Published  1 week ago

El Chapo's drug money could pay for the wall with billions in change to spare.

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

Jews should stop supporting the Democratic Party in the wake of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel comments by freshmen Democratic House members. Trump and Republicans are now the true friends of Israel and the Jewish people.

The Federalist

Published  1 week ago

This weekend, anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist Rep. Ilhan Omar, a woman who had previously argued that Jews had hypnotized the world for their “evil” deeds, claimed that Americans only supported Israel because of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) “Benjamins”— and then retweeted a person pointing out that she might as well call all Jews “hooked nose.”

Though Nancy Pelosi, who put Omar on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, offered a condemnation of the Minnesota congresswoman’s comments, many progressives jumped immediately to her defense. Some of them implored Omar to stop deploying these ugly tropes because they undermine what is a completely reasonable position towards the Jewish state. (Omar has since apologized, promising to avoid these tropes when peddling her anti-Semitism.)

The problem is that “anti-Zionism,” the predominant justification for violence, murder, and hatred against Jews in Europe and the Middle East, is a growing position on the American left. While Omar embraces the worst caricatures of this ideology, it’s her core contention regarding the Jewish state–not her clumsy “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”-style insults, which are just a manifestation of her underlying position—that are most consequential.

One of the dishonest arguments regarding Omar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib, who we recently found out wrote a piece for a publication of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, is that they are merely being “critical of Israel.” Yet no serious person has ever made the claim that being critical of Israel’s policies is anti-Semitic. Israel has had both left-wing and right-wing governments over the years. And like governments in any liberal democracy, they can be corrupt, misguided, or incompetent. Millions of Israelis are critical of their own nation’s policies every year without any fear of repercussions. Israel isn’t Iran or Turkey, countries that most of Israel’s critics never disparage.

But the best way to gauge if a person is merely being “critical” of Israel’s policies or critical of the existence of the Jewish state is to use Natan Sharansky’s 3-d test: 1) Do they engage in “delegitimization” of the nation’s existence, as every supporter of Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) does? 2) Do they engage in “demonization” of that country, as people who claim Israelis hypnotize the world for evil or go around murdering children for kicks do? 3) Do they engage in “double standards,” like having an obsession with Israel and AIPAC, while ignoring illiberalism found throughout the Islamic world or things like Muslim concentration camps found in China?

The second myth pushed by Omar’s defenders is that Israel dictates American foreign policy with its shekels. The first part of this argument is absurd when one considers that over the past few years the American government passed the Iran deal – which Israel saw as an existential threat– and the American president has embraced the idea of withdrawing troops from Syria. Most of the time, the United States sides with Israel because most of the time Israel’s ideals comport with our own.

Then, of course, there’s a significant difference between contending that you disagree with AIPAC’s positions and contending that AIPAC bribes Americans with lots of Benjamins. For starters, it’s a lie, since AIPAC doesn’t give any money to politicians. And as Emily Zanotti, and others have pointed out, AIPAC,with all its supernatural ability to hypnotize lawmakers, spends around $3.5 million on lobbying for Israel policies in a good year. “It barely even cracks the top 50, is dwarfed by the *beer wholesalers*” Zanotti writes. “In contrast, Planned Parenthood’s PAC spent $20M in 2016.”

Although it might be tough for progressives to understand, many Americans still prefer Israel over Hamas, the PLO, and Iran for reasons other than money. For example, a shared understanding of liberalism, theological reasons, historic ties, political realities, and practical geopolitical reasons, although I concede that contemporary progressives might not embrace these values anymore. For many decades, however, polls showed widespread support for Israel. AIPAC’s success is predicated on that support.

Some of Omar’s defenders also engaged in a little whataboutism by pointing out that Republicans have had their own anti-Semitic problems. I’m sure they do. But I hate to break the news to people: being critical of billionaire activist George Soros, who happens to be Jewish but holds positions on Israel that are generally in line with Omar’s, is not automatically anti-Semitic—or no more than attacking Sheldon Adelson is anti-Semitic. Omar’s Jewish stereotypes were aimed at all defenders of Israel.

It will be interesting to see how the Democratic Party’s presidential hopefuls react to Omar’s comments, which has increasing currency in the activist wing of their party. On this issue, there is a big rift opening between young and old. That does not bode well for the establishment or Jews.

The Daily Signal

Published  1 week ago

The Minnesota Democrat's repulsive remarks sought to place the patriotism of Jewish Americans in doubt.

US Liberty Wire

Published  1 week ago

A furious Nancy Pelosi just responded to the huge news that Trump will go it alone and declare a national emergency to deal with the crisis at the border with a double threat.

First, she basically said the next Democrat president will declare and a national emergency over guns and go after the 2nd amendment.

She also threatened Trump directly saying she may file a legal challenge. Pelosi said:

“If you want to talk about emergencies, that’s a national emergency… If you want to go down that path, then let’s look at what really is a national emergency. But I’m not advocating for any president doing an end run around Congress.”

“It’s not an emergency, what’s happening at the border… I know Republicans have some unease about it… Because if he can declare an emergency on an illusion, just think of what a POTUS w/different values can present to the American people.”

“You want to talk about a national emergency, let’s talk about today-the one year anniversary on another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America. Why don’t you declare THAT emergency, Mr. President. I wish you would.”

“You want to talk about a national emergency? Gun violence is a national emergency. […] A Democratic President could declare that. […] This decision should be met with some dismay from republican leaders, about the door they are opening

From Reuters: The top Democrat in the U.S. Congress said on Thursday she might file a legal challenge if President Donald Trump declares a national emergency to secure funds to build a wall along the U.S. southern border, as the White House has said he would.

“I may,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said when asked by a reporter whether she would file a legal challenge. “We will review our options,” she said, adding that Democrats would response “appropriately.”

“Want to talk about a national emergency? Let’s talk about today” referring to the anniversary of Parkland. “…the epidemic of gun violence in America. That’s a national emergency.”

From ABC:

A few minutes later, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer responded to word that Trump would declare a national emergency, saying, “I hope he won’t. That would be a very wrong thing to do.”

Shortly after Schumer spoke, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders confirmed that Trump would make the moves.

“President Trump will sign the government funding bill, and as he has stated before, he will also take other executive action – including a national emergency – to ensure we stop the national security and humanitarian crisis at the border,” Sanders said in a statement. “The President is once again delivering on his promise to build the wall, protect the border, and secure our great country.”

Speaker Pelosi warns Republicans of precedent set by Pres. Trump declaring a national emergency "on something that he has created as an emergency."

"Just think of what a president with different values can present to the American people." https://t.co/2yvhK91ab6 pic.twitter.com/x56MzcU97s

— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) February 14, 2019

Nancy Pelosi warns Republicans that a future Democratic president could declare gun violence a national emergency and do his/her own end-run around Congress. pic.twitter.com/OLE3vHY7ui

— David Martosko (@dmartosko) February 14, 2019

Frontpage Mag

Published  1 week ago

The anti-Semitism of hijabbed Muslim Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) has apparently gotten to be too much even for the inveterately anti-Israel Democrat Party leadership. “I unequivocally apologize,” Omar tweeted Monday, after party leaders including Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, James E. Clyburn and others publicly castigated her: “Congresswoman Omar’s use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel’s supporters is deeply offensive. We condemn these remarks and we call upon Congresswoman Omar to immediately apologize for these hurtful comments.”

However, Omar’s apology was more of an admission that she had gotten caught than a sign of a genuine change of heart.

Omar wrote:

Anti-Semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes. My intention is never to offend my constituents or Jewish Americans as a whole. We have to always be willing to step back and think through criticism, just as I expect people to hear me when others attack me for my identity. This is why I unequivocally apologize.

At the same time, I reaffirm the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics, whether it be AIPAC, the NRA or the fossil fuel industry. It’s gone on too long and we must be willing to address it.

Omar’s second paragraph nullified her apology. She had claimed that AIPAC was paying American politicians to be pro-Israel; she made it clear in her apology that she still believes that. All her widely criticized anti-Semitic tweets, meanwhile, are still on her Twitter feed.

It all started when far-Left hate propagandist Glenn Greenwald tweeted: “GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy threatens punishment for @IlhanMN and @RashidaTlaib over their criticisms of Israel.” To that, Omar responded: “It’s all about the Benjamins baby.” The Forward’s Opinion editor, Batya Ungar-Sargon, then tweeted: “Would love to know who @IlhanMN thinks is paying American politicians to be pro-Israel, though I think I can guess.” Omar answered: “AIPAC!” And clearly she still believes it.

It isn’t hard to see how Ilhan Omar’s Congressional career will unfold: she will continue to repeat anti-Semitic tropes; she will blame jihad massacres on the US, Israel, and the victims; and she will continue to claim victim status when called out for her hatred. Omar is a far Leftist and a devout, Sharia-adherent Muslim; neither group is distinguished for mavericks or original thinkers. In fact, both are marked by an ideological lockstep that brooks no dissent, disagreement, or fair consideration of opposing ideas. That makes Omar’s future drearily predictable.

And so when considering the sincerity of Omar’s apology, it should be borne in mind that she wouldn’t be where she is today, in the House of Representatives, if her views were not widely shared among the very Democrat leadership that rebuked her Monday.

For it isn’t as if Omar’s anti-Semitic tweets from this week were something new. Before she was elected to Congress, she had denounced what she called “the apartheid Israeli regime,” and claimed that it Israel had “hypnotized the world” to ignore its “evil doings.” Nancy Pelosi either knew this or was criminally negligent when she named Omar to the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The Democrat Party during the Obama years hardened its stance against Israel. Omar was only able to rise in its ranks and gain a plum assignment as a first-term Representative not in spite of her anti-Semitism, but because of it. A January 2018 Pew Research Center poll found that only 27 percent of Democrats sympathized more with the Israelis than with the Palestinians.

This is extraordinary in light of the fact that both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas routinely incite hatred of and violence against Israel in their official media organs. They teach children that it is a good and noble thing to want to grow up and kill Jews. The Democrats have for years ignored this genocidal incitement, and approved of and even participated in the demonization of Israel in the international media and at the United Nations.

And so now the Democrats are appalled at their Muslim Representative’s Jew-hatred, and she is contrite? Do they really expect anyone to fall for this charade? It is noteworthy that while the cowardly Republican House leadership stripped Rep. Steve King (R-IA) of his committee assignments for a misquote, Omar has not been removed from the Foreign Affairs Committee. Nor will she be removed. She is exactly where the Democrat leadership wants her to be.

Photo by Fibonacci Blue

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His new book is The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.

True Pundit

Published  1 week ago

Speaker Of The House Nancy Pelosi (D-ca) And Democratic Party Leaders In The U.s. House Of Representatives Will Allow Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-mn) To Retain Her Committee Seats, Including Her Seat On The House Foreign Affairs Committee, Despite Her Antisemitic Comments Sunday Alleging That Jews Had Bought Congress’s Support For Israel.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said he takes Omar at her word that she didn’t intend to be anti-Semitic when she said lawmakers took pro-Israel stances because of political contributions from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee .

Omar has “unequivocally” apologized for the comments — after Democratic leaders called on her to do so — saying she did not mean offense or to invoke an anti-Semitic trope about Jewish money. At the same time, the Minnesota Democrat affirmed her opposition to lobbyists like AIPAC being involved in politics.

AIPAC does not contribute to candidates. Moreover, Omar’s opposition to “lobbyists” is highly selective: earlier Sunday, prior to the controversy, she retweeted a statement of support from the Muslim Public Affairs Council, a lobbyist group.

In her “apology,” Omar resolved to continue criticizing AIPAC. – READ MORE

The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com

Published  1 week ago

Omar will be speaking alongside a well-known Islamic Relief USA official, Yousef Abdallah, who has openly advocated for violence against Jews and has shared antisemitic sentiments on social media.

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Democratic Party leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives will allow Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) to retain her committee seats, including her seat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, despite her antisemitic comments Sunday alleging that Jews had bought Congress’s support for Israel.

Roll Call reported Monday evening (original links):

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said he takes Omar at her word that she didn’t intend to be anti-Semitic when she said lawmakers took pro-Israel stances because of political contributions from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee [sic].

Omar has “unequivocally” apologized for the comments — after Democratic leaders called on her to do so — saying she did not mean offense or to invoke an anti-Semitic trope about Jewish money. At the same time, the Minnesota Democrat affirmed her opposition to lobbyists like AIPAC being involved in politics.

AIPAC does not contribute to candidates. Moreover, Omar’s opposition to “lobbyists” is highly selective: earlier Sunday, prior to the controversy, she retweeted a statement of support from the Muslim Public Affairs Council, a lobbyist group.

In her “apology,” Omar resolved to continue criticizing AIPAC.

Republican leaders and some Jewish groups had called for Omar to be removed from her committees — as they had removed Rep. Steve King (R-IA) after he appeared to condone white supremacy and white nationalism in a New York Times interview, and even though King denied having done so.

Pelosi’s decision leaves a radical left-wing Democrat with a record of antisemitic statements in a position to affect the future of U.S.-Israel relations, thanks to her position on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

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.

Washington Examiner

Published  1 week ago

Yes, Democrats want to start a new investigation into already-under-investigation Trump-Russia allegations. And yes, they want to investigate Trump associates like Michael Cohen, Roger Stone, and others. But by far the biggest thing Democrats want, now that they have the majority in the House, is to get their hands on the president's tax returns.

Townhall

Published  1 week ago

House Republicans, as well as average Americans, want to see Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) stripped of her position on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The calls for her removal come after Omar made statements alleging lobbying group American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) of buying support for Israel.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi condemned Omar's comments but said nothing about her being removed from the Committee:

In our conversation today, Congresswoman Omar and I agreed that we must use this moment to move forward as we reject anti-Semitism in all forms. https://t.co/UpZA3DNgQs pic.twitter.com/1Z6rH65e3M

— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) February 11, 2019

House Republicans continued to push for Omar's removal.

House Democrat leaders should condemn this anti-Semitism and immediately remove ?@IlhanMN? from the House Foreign Affairs Committee pic.twitter.com/IYAoXEGtld

— Liz Cheney (@Liz_Cheney) February 11, 2019

Good that some Dems have condemned the disgraceful anti-Semitic remarks of Rep. Omar—but their words are empty unless Dem leaders remove her from the Foreign Affairs Committee. No one with her anti-Semitic views should be allowed to represent US foreign policy on that committee.

— Steve Scalise (@SteveScalise) February 11, 2019

Glad the Speaker broke her silence, but that apology won't do. Rep. Omar should be stripped of her committee assignments, including @HouseForeign, & HRes72 should be voted on. Rep. S King apologized as well. Was still stripped of assignments & HRes41 passed nearly unanimously. https://t.co/MFCEpuTRf3

— Lee Zeldin (@RepLeeZeldin) February 11, 2019

Rep. Elliot Engel, the Committee Chair, released a statement but failed to address whether or not Omar was staying on the Committee.

“As I have said, as Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I will ensure support for Israel remains strong and bipartisan and I will shine a light on the evil of anti-Semitism and the danger it poses,” Engel said. “I will make the case to Members on both side of the aisle that our alliance and friendship with Israel are important to our countries’ shared interests, security, and values.”

A Change.org petition was started by Jacob Wohl, demanding Omar be removed.

Here's what the petition says:

Rep. Ilhan Omar was flagged during the campaign for having a proclivity towards making antisemitic remarks, while refusing to condemn terror groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.

Upon being elected to the House of Representatives, Speaker Nancy Pelosi placed Rep. Omar on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which is critical in steering America's foreign policy. Since taking office, Rep. Ilhan Omar's antisemitism has continued, and even escalated.

She blamed Jewish Money for America's pro-Israeli foreign policy and invoked "Benjamin's Baby" as an antisemitic trope aimed at Jared Kushner.

Enough is enough! It's time for Rep. Ilhan Omar to be removed from the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

At the time of publishing, over 27,000 people have signed the petition.

dailycaller

Published  1 week ago

Activist and Women’s March co-chair Linda Sarsour is standing with Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, even after Omar used an apparently anti-Semitic trope to criticize Israel on Sunday Night.

In a Monday Facebook post, Sarsour decried what she and Omar believe is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC’s) “influence” on American politics. (RELATED: Linda Sarsour Is Too Radical For The Women’s March)

“AIPAC connects donors to campaigns and elected officials,” Sarsour said. “Trying to argue that critiquing the role of AIPAC which let’s be clear is not a Jewish organization, many of its leaders and members are Christian Zionists — is anti-Semitic is ludicrous.”

Sarsour and Omar have both come under fire for anti-Semitic statements made in the past, and both support the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS), a movement aimed at boycotting Israeli goods and products.

A social media firestorm ensued on Sunday night, after Omar responded to a tweet from prominent Israel critic Glenn Greenwald, claiming that U.S. support for Israel is “All about the Benjamins baby.”

After being widely condemned on both sides of the aisle and meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Monday, Omar said that she was “listening and learning,” but still stood by her critiques of AIPAC.

Before she was a candidate for office, Omar previously accused Israel of having “hypnotized the world,” a statement she has stood by since becoming a member of Congress.

Follow William Davis on Twitter

chicagotribune.com

Published  1 week ago

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insisted that freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar apologize for tweets saying that members of Congress are being paid to support Israel.

LifeNews.com

Published  1 week ago

House Democrats Block Request to Vote on Bill to Stop Infanticide For a Fourth Time

IJR - Independent Journal Review

Published  1 week ago

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) claimed she had no idea about the national controversy surrounding a proposed bill in Virginia's General Assembly that would allow full term abortions.

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

WASHINGTON, DC — Legal immigrant Agnes Gibboney asked where was the protection for her son killed by an illegal alien as she stood in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office Wednesday.

Gibboney was one of many angel families turned away at Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office Wednesday despite their requests for meetings that were made ahead of their visit to her office.

“My parents legally immigrated here,” said angel mom Agnes Gibboney. “My parents wanted a good, safe place for my family and look and the safe place my only son, my first born was murdered.”

“Where is the protection?…Where is the sanctuary for my son?” Gibboney asked. “Who is to say that after this guy gets out next year, he’s not going to come after me or after any of my family? Or kill somebody else’s child?”

“I wouldn’t want to see that. I wouldn’t want his own family go through the hell I’ve been living with for almost 17 years,” she went on. “This is not fair.”

“This country, I took an oath when I became a citizen. Nancy Pelosi took an oath when she took office. She’s breaking her oath. She oughta be arrested,” said Gibboney.

Capitol Hill Police showed up with a commanding presence while angel families were gathered in Pelosi’s office. Two of the officers entered the front office at one point, while several others stood at the ready outside the office where more angel families and supporters stood. Officers remained until angel families eventually departed the office.

Angel families held a press conference Wednesday with current and former elected officials, former heads of federal immigration law enforcement agencies, and other pro-border security groups. The families, who have had loved ones killed by illegal aliens, walked from their Capitol Hill event to Pelosi’s office. Several had requested meetings ahead of visiting Pelosi’s office, but received no response. Aides manning the front desks when angel families arrived would not give a timeline for when families could even meet with one of Pelosi’s staff.

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

We have news for you, breaking news, that for whatever reason is being downplayed or ignored by other media outlets, but we think you want to know about it. Five simple words describe it, there was no Russian collusion.

gellerreport

Published  1 week ago

She can't read, she can't pronounce the names of countries but she can spew poison, hate and anti-American propaganda.

The Washington Times

Published  1 week ago

Just hours after apologizing for making comments deemed anti-Semitic, Rep. Ilhan Omar retweeted a thread defending her claim that campaign contributions from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee buy support for the group’s positions.

Ms. Omar praised the writer, Ady Barkan, who told of being a staffer on a long-shot congressional campaign in 2006 when the candidate agreed to take stances on two issues in exchange for a maximum contribution from AIPAC.

“Your courage can’t be matched. I am often in tears thinking about how you won’t be with us in this fight and how I am going to miss your presence and courage. In solidarity my friend, in solidarity,” Ms. Omar wrote to Ady Barkan.

SEE ALSO: Top Democrats force Ilhan Omar to apologize for Jewish money tweets

.@AdyBarkan your courage can’t be matched. I am often in tears thinking about how you won’t be with us in this fight and how I am going to miss your presence and courage. In solidarity my friend, in solidarity ✊🏽 https://t.co/wt5YAHA2rR

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) February 11, 2019

Under pressure from Democratic leaders, Ms. Omar earlier in the day apologized for suggesting over the weekend that support for Israel was “all about the Benjamins baby,” and specifically calling out AIPAC.

She said she had been educated by colleagues that such a claim was offensive and anti-Semitic, playing into a trope that Jewish money controlled politics.

But she said she remained convinced that AIPAC’s donations, like any other lobbying group’s, were poisonous to politics.

Mr. Barkan offered his story on Twitter Monday to back her up.

He claimed that in 2006, as part of a “long-shot Democratic Congressional race in deep red Ohio,” the candidate, whom he named only as “Vic” and described as a “hippie doctor … opposed to the Israeli occupation of Palestine,” took the maximum amount the law allowed for a political action committee to donate, likely $5,000 at a time when the campaign was desperate.

A thread on @IlhanMN, anti-semitism, and my personal experience with @AIPAC’s money.

In 2006, I was the first real staffer on a long-shot Democratic Congressional race in deep red Ohio. My boss was a hippie doctor with a lefty perspective on international affairs… (Continued)

— Ady Barkan🔥🌹 (@AdyBarkan) February 11, 2019

The Cincinnati AIPAC affiliate, Mr. Barkan said, told the candidate the Jewish group “would also like to see Vic take a public stance on two issues that, I thought, were relatively obscure: an Iran sanctions bill and something else I can’t recall, perhaps about continuing arms sales to Israel.”

He added that “we were desperate for cash and so we put online a statement about how Vic supported a two-state peace agreement and AIPAC’s two pet issues of the cycle. It was definitely about the Benjamins. Never would have done it otherwise,” deliberately using the same rap-phrase hit Ms. Omar had earlier used and which she supposedly apologized for earlier Monday as an anti-Semitic trope about the Jews secretly controlling politicians through their supposed control of banking and finance.

“But money is the lubricant that makes the whole machine run. @IlhanMN is right to point this out,” he wrote.

Corroborating Mr. Barkan’s account, a first-time candidate and doctor named Victoria Wells Wulsin won the 2006 Democratic primary in Ohio’s 2nd Congressional District, which hugs the Cincinnati suburbs and the Ohio River east of the city. She lost the general election by less than 3,000 votes.

Mr. Barkan in the same thread then went on to denounce House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who demanded Ms. Omar’s apology Monday.

“I am deeply disappointed in @SpeakerPelosi for her failure today. When AIPAC and its army try to silence criticism of the immoral, illegal, inhumane occupation by screaming about anti-semitism and claiming that nobody may ever talk about how the Israel lobby uses money to build power, don’t fall for their bull—t,” he wrote.

America First with Sebastian Gorka

Published  1 week ago

For years, the Democratic Party has made it their mission to smear Republicans of all walks of life as being nothing more than bigots, haters, misogynists, and anti-Semites. Of course, this is not true. But, unfortunately, the libel has stuck in the minds of many people. Republicans have long accused their Democratic interlocutors of being the real bigots and anti-Semites. Since the 2018 Midterm election, which saw the elevation of the most radical “democratic socialists” into office, these claims have been validated. In particular, the new darlings of the “Fake News” Industrial Complex–Democratic freshmen Representatives Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to name just a few–are virulent anti-Semites.

By now, we’ve all heard about the vicious tweets Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) issued over the last six years regarding Israel and the (according to her) malign influence of Jewish groups in American politics. When elected, Representative Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) stood proudly in front of her congressional office’s official world map and was photographed smiling as she placed a Post-It Note right over Israel which had written in bold red ink the word, “PALESTINE.” For her part, Cortez has aligned herself with radical anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli groups and made anti-Israeli statements throughout her strange rise to stardom in the Democratic Party.

All three of these members are also proud supporters of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction (BDS) movement which seeks to have the United States cut off and punish a fellow democratic state which is also under constant threat from radical Islamic terror–Israel–in order to empower the very same terrorists both the United States and Israel are waging war against. Despite the fact that she has been consistently, publicly called out for her extreme position on the tiny, free nation of Israel, Ilhan Omar has doubled-down on her previous anti-Semitic stances. As the United States Congress prepares to make its annual trip to Israel (courtesy of the bipartisan pro-Israel group, AIPAC), Ilhan Omar tweeted an Anti-Semitic statement out to Republican House Minority Leader, Kevin McCarthy of California, saying that the trip was “all about the Benjamins” for McCarthy and his fellow travelers to the Holy Land.

A pernicious, age-old anti-Semitic smear that has been bandied about Jewish people is that they use their vast sums of wealth to buy the loyalty of non-Jews, in order to negatively impact whatever country they are living in. Ilhan Omar has long sullied herself and the Democratic Party by proliferating such racist tropes on the internet. What’s shocking is that she continues doing so, despite being in a high elected office; despite the fact that she’s a member of the prestigious House Foreign Affairs Committee, who routinely receives classified intelligence on the threats that Israel is facing; and that she is now–as a freshman Congresswoman–going after the highest official of the opposing party in the House in such a visceral way.

Democrats not only get treated differently by their fellow officeholders for being disrespectful, they are also held to a different standard by the media. Omar is upset that a legal, pro-Jewish group is taking a bipartisan group of American lawmakers to Israel, in order for them to see that which free Jewish people have built in a land lacking major natural resources, while being surrounded on all sides by countries that want to eradicate this small, pro-American democracy.

In response to Ilhan Omar’s egregious tweets about AIPAC and Israel, Omar’s own party leaders–led by the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), took to the presses to denounce her blatant Anti-Semitism. Although, Representative Omar has yet to apologize for her remarks. And, for all of the consternation from the Democratic Party’s leadership, they have yet to remove Congresswoman Omar from her prestigious committee assignments or take any real action to discipline her for her obscene Anti-Semitic comments.

The Left defends Omar saying that she is merely stating the obvious about a lobbying group (AIPAC). Omar attempts to castigate Kevin McCarthy and other lawmakers who are taking the trip as their being influenced by AIPAC (the implication being that she is not influenced by outside sources and therefore she must be above such factors). But, few acknowledge that pro-Palestinian and pro-Islamic groups have major influences over American politics as well. The idea that the pro-gun groups, pro-Social Security groups, and pro-Palestinian groups should be allowed to continue lobbying the government, but pro-Israel and pro-Jewish groups, such as AIPAC, should not is anti-Semitic.

Ilhan Omar has held herself up as the “Democrat of the future.” In many respects, she is. Omar is relatively young, she has little experience, it’s not clear what, exactly made her qualified to gain high office; she is an avowed socialist, and she disdains the Jewish people and denies their right to lobby the American government. The Democratic Party has always held extreme views on the major issues, but, in the past, they were considered a safe place for American Jews. With the rise of the Democratic House Freshman Class of 2018, this false narrative about the DNC is shattered.

David Harris Jr

Published  1 week ago

Ilhan Omar has come under fire in recent days due to an increasing outcry against her anti-Semitic rhetoric and open disdain for any and all things related to Israel and Jews. The Zionist Organization of America, as well as an increasing number of Democrats, are stating their opposition to her being placed in important House committees due to her anti-Semitic position.

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), America’s oldest pro-Israel group, issued a statement Monday morning denouncing the antisemitic statements of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and calling for her to be removed from her committee assignments in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) appointed the first-term Omar to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, among other assignments, last month.

Omar tweeted Sunday that Congress was paid to defend Israel — by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), among others. Jewish leaders, and some Democrats, were outraged.

ZOA president Morton Klein said in Monday’s statement: “These tweets below from Rep. Ilhan Omar, along with several comments that she has made over the years are pure, unadulterated anti-Semitism.

“The Zionist Organization of America calls on House Democrat leadership to (i) immediately remove Rep. Omar from her committee assignments; and (ii) call an immediate vote on Rep. Lee Zeldin’s H.Res 72, Rejecting anti-Israel and anti-Semitic hatred in the United States and around the world.”

H. Res. 72 mentions Rep. Omar by name, referring to an earlier statement she made: “Whereas, on November 16, 2012, Representative Ilhan Omar, who also supports the BDS movement, tweeted, Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”

Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel. #Gaza #Palestine #Israel

(Omar has acknowledged that the tweet is offensive but has refused to apologize or delete it.)

Others also called for Omar to be removed from her committees, including House Republican Conference Chair Liz Cheney (R-WY) and Muslim reformer Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser:

House Democrat leaders should condemn this anti-Semitism and immediately remove ⁦@IlhanMN⁩ from the House Foreign Affairs Committee pic.twitter.com/IYAoXEGtld

As an American Muslim, I plead that this is only a good first step to be followed by a swift sanction against @IlhanMN for bigotry unfit for the US Congress with removal from all committees. Ignoring this would bring the "bigotry of low expectations" to a new low for Muslims. https://t.co/szawtKBQlV

— M. Zuhdi Jasser زهدي جاسر (@DrZuhdiJasser) February 11, 2019

The precedent for censuring a representative and removing him or her from committees was set last month when the Republican leadership and the Democrat-controlled House acted against Rep. Steve King (R-IA) for comments he made to the New York Times in which he appeared to accept white supremacy and white nationalism.

The Democrats who agree with Ms. Omar may find they’ve kicked a sleeping dog one time too many by censuring Rep. King.

To try Amazing and All Natural supplements that our founder David J Harris Jr had developed, click here!

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

Conservative Tribune

Published  1 week ago

Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley argued that Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar's anti-Semitic sentiments 'cannot be tolerated' in Congress.

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

In an effort to get what they want, Big Tech companies have reached a level of hypocrisy that beggars belief.

The same companies that shamelessly censor conservatives and tilt public discourse in the left’s favor have suddenly decided they’re into “free expression.”

House Democrats recently rewarded their Big Tech backers by holding a hearing titled “Preserving an Open Internet for Consumers, Small Businesses, and Free Speech.”

FACEBOOK DOESN'T REALLY BELIEVE IN FREE SPEECH. WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN (AND ACTIVELY PRACTICE) IS CENSORSHIP

No, Twitter, Google, and Facebook haven’t suddenly decided to stop working with left-wing groups to stigmatize and silence their political enemies, and the Democrats certainly weren’t there to address Big Tech’s growing list of privacy and bias scandals. The whole point of the hearing was to help these monopolies present themselves as defenders of free speech and competition while they advocate for a return to the “net neutrality” policies that help their bottom line.

Although there were no representatives from the “big three” tech companies present at the hearing, all three have been vociferous advocates of net neutrality, and that perspective was amply represented.

Back in 2017, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) repealed these burdensome Obama-era regulations. Both CNN and socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders told us that meant the “end of the internet as we know it.” Nancy Pelosi called it a “Trump assault” that “set into motion the destruction of the free and open Internet.”

Every Big Tech gatekeeper from Amazon to YouTube put their differences aside and used their combined platforms to whip consumers into a frenzy to “save net neutrality.” Some people literally took to the streets.

A few people took it way too far. As The Boston Globe’s Jeff Jacoby wrote, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai ”was showered with racist insults (Pai is Indian-American) and death threats -- some of them serious enough to compel Pai to cancel major public appearances.” Signs posted near Pai’s home invoked his young children by name, and charged that their “‘Dad murdered democracy in cold blood.’”

“Net neutrality” is a fake controversy, ginned up to give cover for certain tech giants wanting to save some money at the expense of some other, slightly less massive companies.

All this was over a complicated regulation that most of the protesters couldn't even explain beyond the catchy “net neutrality” moniker.

Obviously, “the Internet as we knew it” didn’t end. Speedy high-speed browsing was not replaced by endless pinwheel loading icons. Not a single website is even claiming they were blocked by a vindictive Internet service provider. In fact, Internet speeds are estimated to have increased by 40 percent since the end of so-called “net neutrality.”

The Internet works just fine. “Net neutrality” is a fake controversy, ginned up to give cover for certain tech giants wanting to save some money at the expense of some other, slightly less massive companies.

For Silicon Valley lobbyists working for companies like Twitter to claim it’s all in the name of “free speech” is rich. Twitter had the nerve to beg the federal courts to overturn the FCC’s decision and put Barack Obama’s tech policy back in place, arguing it would protect, “innovation, consumer choice, and free expression.”

This is the same company that is suspending conservatives and journalists right now because they dare to tweet the words “learn to code.”

For those who don’t know, “learn to code” is a joke poking fun at liberal journalists who mocked blue-collar Americans who’d lost jobs to globalization. For years, these self-appointed coastal tastemakers blithely assured working-class Americans in the heartland that they had nothing to complain about. They could just become computer programmers.

When the bottom dropped out on left-wing, online click-bait last month, hundreds of Buzzfeed, VICE, and HuffPo workers were laid off. Fittingly, people told them it was no big deal, they could “learn to code” -- just like the coal miners and the other laid-off workers.

In a shocking indication of just how deep liberal journalists’ self-important victim complex goes, they tried to claim it was all a “hate” campaign aimed at “harassing” them. They tattled to Big Tech to come save them and Twitter quickly obliged by suspending accounts that engaged in the light-hearted trolling.

Sorry, Twitter, but the “free speech” schtick just isn’t credible when you’re simultaneously suspending people for a joke that made a few liberal journalists feel badly. The same goes for Facebook, Google and every other Big Tech corporation trying to convince the American people that they support free expression even as they systematically stifle the viewpoints held by half the country.

Despite having the political cover from their liberal soulmates who now control the U.S. House, Big Tech companies can’t disguise their gross hypocrisy.

WayneDupree.com

Published  1 week ago

There it is — and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (and other leaders) made her do it

The Black Sphere

Published  1 week ago

DC is subtle at times. But the subtlety of Pelosi in cleaning up her latest mess has all the subtlety of speaking through a bullhorn at a cocktail party.

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

Before my election to the U.S. Senate last year, I spent 37 years building a business in my hometown of Jasper, Indiana. Since taking office, I’ve found one thing abundantly clear: Main Street works and Washington is completely dysfunctional.

On Friday, the government could shut down again because Congress can’t find a solution to address the humanitarian and security crisis on our southern border. That’s why this week I’m introducing my End Pensions in Congress (EPIC) Act.

This legislation is similar to my, “No Budget, No Pay” proposal which would bar Congress from getting paid if they fail to pass a budget on time. It’s absurd that Congress continues to reward itself for its inaction, which would never fly in the private sector.

REPORTER’S NOTEBOOK: WILL STALLED BORDER SECURITY TALKS LEAD TO THE NEXT GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN?

As pensions continue to be phased out in favor of 401(k) and other savings plans for American workers, hundreds of congressmen and senators still receive an annual taxpayer-funded pension.

For example, career politician Nancy Pelosi has been in Congress for 33 years and if she were to retire today, she would qualify for a six-figure taxpayer-funded pension paid each year. These generous congressional perks incentivize political survival over bold leadership and it’s time we end this congressional benefit for everyone.

Nancy Pelosi has been in Congress for 33 years and if she were to retire today, she would qualify for a six-figure taxpayer-funded pension paid each year. These generous congressional perks incentivize political survival over bold leadership and it’s time we end this congressional benefit for everyone.

To make Washington work more like the Heartland of America, congressmen and senators should rely on their Thrift Savings Plan -- the government equivalent of a private sector 401(k).

Additionally, I will uphold my promise to forgo my congressional pension and if Washington bureaucrats force me to accept a pension because of their interpretation of the law, I pledge to follow President Trump’s lead and donate every penny of my pension on a quarterly basis to charities across Indiana.

Our job in Congress is to serve the American people, and not enrich ourselves with special taxpayer-funded benefits. By ending congressional taxpayer-funded pensions, we will take one more step toward draining the swamp in Washington.

Mike Braun is an entrepreneur who created hundreds of American jobs and is a U.S. Senator from Indiana.

Zero Hedge

Published  1 week ago

"I think she should either resign from congress or she should certainly resign from the House Foreign Affairs Committee..."

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

In an unprecedented rebuke under the new Congress, House Democratic leaders on Monday roundly condemned Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., for statements about supporters of Israel that were widely viewed as anti-Semitic and called on her to apologize. 

The Washington Times

Published  1 week ago

Just hours after apologizing for making comments deemed anti-Semitic, Rep. Ilhan Omar retweeted a thread defending her claim that campaign contributions from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee buys support for the group’s positions.

Ms. Omar praised the writer, Ady Barkan, who told of being a staffer on a long-shot congressional campaign in 2006 when the candidate agreed to take stances on two issues in exchange for a maximum contribution from AIPAC.

“Your courage can’t be matched. I am often in tears thinking about how you won’t be with us in this fight and how I am going to miss your presence and courage. In solidarity my friend, in solidarity,” Ms. Omar wrote to Ady Barkan.

.@AdyBarkan your courage can’t be matched. I am often in tears thinking about how you won’t be with us in this fight and how I am going to miss your presence and courage. In solidarity my friend, in solidarity ✊🏽 https://t.co/wt5YAHA2rR

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) February 11, 2019

Under pressure from Democratic leaders, Ms. Omar earlier in the day apologized for suggesting over the weekend that support for Israel was “all about the Benjamins baby,” and specifically calling out AIPAC.

She said she had been educated by colleagues that such a claim was offensive and anti-Semitic, playing into a trope that Jewish money controlled politics.

But she said she remained convinced that AIPAC’s donations, like any other lobbying group’s, were poisonous to politics.

Mr. Barkan offered his story on Twitter Monday to back her up.

He claimed that in 2006, as part of a “long-shot Democratic Congressional race in deep red Ohio,” the candidate, whom he named only as “Vic” and described as a “hippie doctor … opposed to the Israeli occupation of Palestine,” took the maximum amount the law allowed for a political action committee to donate, likely $5,000 at a time when the campaign was desperate.

A thread on @IlhanMN, anti-semitism, and my personal experience with @AIPAC’s money.

In 2006, I was the first real staffer on a long-shot Democratic Congressional race in deep red Ohio. My boss was a hippie doctor with a lefty perspective on international affairs… (Continued)

— Ady Barkan🔥🌹 (@AdyBarkan) February 11, 2019

The Cincinnati AIPAC affiliate, Mr. Barkan said, told the candidate the Jewish group “would also like to see Vic take a public stance on two issues that, I thought, were relatively obscure: an Iran sanctions bill and something else I can’t recall, perhaps about continuing arms sales to Israel.”

He added that “we were desperate for cash and so we put online a statement about how Vic supported a two-state peace agreement and AIPAC’s two pet issues of the cycle. It was definitely about the Benjamins. Never would have done it otherwise,” deliberately using the same rap-phrase hit Ms. Omar had earlier used and which she’s supposedly apologized for earlier Monday as an anti-Semitic trope about the Jews secretly controlling politicians through their supposed control of banking and finance.

“But money is the lubricant that makes the whole machine run. @IlhanMN is right to point this out,” he wrote.

Mr. Barkan in the same thread then went on to denounce House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who demanded Ms. Omar’s apology Monday.

“I am deeply disappointed in @SpeakerPelosi for her failure today. When AIPAC and its army try to silence criticism of the immoral, illegal, inhumane occupation by screaming about anti-semitism and claiming that nobody may ever talk about how the Israel lobby uses money to build power, don’t fall for their bull—t,” he wrote.

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

Jihad Watch

Published  1 week ago

Omar apologized as a means to lighten the pressure from an onslaught of criticisms she didn’t expect, even from her own camp, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called on her to apologize. But it is noteworthy that she was not dropped from the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Omar has “suggested that Jewish money was behind American elected officials’ support for Israel,” specifically the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. “Members of the American Jewish community, including from the left, criticized Omar’s comments….as blatantly anti-Semitic.”

Omar is also vehemently against two anti-BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) bills “that are being pushed in Congress,” and has referenced Israel as the “apartheid Israeli regime.”

BDS is intended to delegitimize the Jewish state and erode it economically. Ilhan Omar once stated that: “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.” When called out publicly for her words, she disingenuously apologized as expected. But she suffered no consequences, which is in itself telling.

“Congresswoman Ilhan Omar suggests Jewish money behind US support of Israel,” by Eric Cortellessa, The Times of Israel, February 11, 2019:

WASHINGTON — Newly elected Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar suggested on Sunday that Jewish money was behind American elected officials’ support for Israel, sparking widespread condemnation and fresh allegations of anti-Semitism.

Omar, one of the first Muslim women elected to Congress, was responding on Twitter to Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCathy’s vow to “take action” against her and Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib, both of whom support the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign.

“It’s all about the Benjamins baby,” Omar tweeted, reacting to another tweet from the prominent journalist Glenn Greenwald, who said it was “stunning how much time US political leaders spend defending a foreign nation even if it means attacking free speech rights of Americans,” referring to McCarthy’s pledge.

Benjamins are a slang term for $100 bills, which feature US founding father Benjamin Franklin.

When one journalist followed up by saying she wondered who Omar thought was paying American politicians to be pro-Israel, Omar responded: “AIPAC!,” referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

While the pro-Israel lobby wields considerable influence in Washington, it does not contribute to campaigns, nor does it make endorsements.

Omar, a Somali-born refugee from Ethiopia, was recently appointed to the powerful House Foreign Affairs Committee. In recent weeks, Omar and others have been vociferous critics of two anti-BDS bills that are being pushed in Congress….

Townhall

Published  1 week ago

Liberals often proclaim themselves to be champions of female empowerment, but their disgusting treatment of women who hold different political views suggests otherwise.

This month, CulturalDC is presenting a work by American conceptual artist Jennifer Rubell titled, “Ivanka Vacuuming.”

According to the organization’s website, the interactive artwork features “a woman bearing a striking resemblance to that Ivanka [Trump], cleaning a plush pink carpet” in front of “a giant pile of crumbs.”

“The public is invited to throw crumbs onto the carpet, watching as Ivanka elegantly vacuums up the mess, her smile never wavering,” the website explains. “This process repeats itself for the entire duration of the performance.”

Clearly, this “crumby” art display is not intended to be a flattering portrayal of the President’s daughter or her accomplishments in business and government. Rather, the whole thing is designed to diminish Ivanka Trump’s stature by allowing viewers to pretend they are humiliating the First Daughter. Rubell even admitting that throwing crumbs for the fake Ivanka to clean up is a “pleasurable” exercise because “it makes us feel powerful.”

View Cartoon

“Here is what’s complicated: we enjoy throwing the crumbs for Ivanka to vacuum. That is the icky truth at the center of the work,” she explains. “It’s funny, it’s pleasurable, it makes us feel powerful, and we want to do it more. We like having the power to elicit a specific and certain response. Also, we know she’ll keep vacuuming whether we do it or not, so it’s not really our fault, right?”

One thing Rubell may have neglected to consider is the irony of using “crumbs” to demean Ivanka. After all, “crumbs” is exactly the word Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi infamously used to describe the thousand-dollar bonuses that workers received following President Trump’s historic tax cuts.

Imagine if Rubell or any other liberal artist decided to portray Michelle Obama or one of President Obama’s daughters in the same dehumanizing light. Would that type of expression be lauded by the art community?

The regressive left complains incessantly about poverty, tolerance and victimhood, so one might think that liberal elitists would prefer to applaud the great strides Ivanka has made for women in the workplace, or, alternately, pay tribute to the humanitarian work that First Lady Melania Trump has done with children in Africa, or highlight her anti-bullying campaign here at home.

Since Ivanka is President Trump’s daughter, however, none of that matters to perpetually aggrieved liberals, among whom the Trump surname inspires only extreme outrage.

This is the same hypocrisy that has afflicted the left since Donald Trump first announced his candidacy for President. Liberals decry bullying in general terms, but applaud it when the bullies target the Trump family or other conservatives. They preach against hate, but actively encourage hatred of the President and his supporters. They claim to detest violence, but glorify people who condone and encourage it, such as Kathy Griffin when she held the bloody mock head of our President in a photo, and Madonna when she said she has “thought many times about blowing up the White House.”

Liberals also say women should be celebrated and not shamed — yet they ridicule a dedicated daughter, wife, and mother who has become a role model for millions of girls around the country.

Throwing crumbs at Ivanka Trump is not female empowerment — it’s a disgraceful gesture of hypocrisy that glorifies sexism, bigotry, and hatred for women who happen to be conservative.

Washington Examiner

Published  1 week ago

Richard Vogel/AP

Angered with efforts by House and Senate Democrats to cut funding for President Trump’s border wall and ICE facilities that hold criminal illegal immigrants, dozens of U.S. sheriffs are storming Capitol Hill Monday to more money to enforce immigration.

“We are at wits end on this,” said Bristol County, Mass. Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson. “This really is a catastrophe,” he said of the anti-Trump proposal backed by Democrats including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Hodgson is one of 60 key sheriffs meeting with the House Freedom Caucus on the steps of the U.S. Capitol today before hitting individual House and Senate offices to lobby for wall and ICE funding. He spoke to Secrets from the bus transporting him and sheriffs from Arizona, Texas, Massachusetts and Ohio to the Hill.

Over the weekend, Secrets reported that two national sheriffs groups, the National Sheriffs’ Association and the Major County Sheriffs of America, delivered letters to House and Senate immigration negotiators to warn against Democratic efforts to put a cap on the number of criminal illegal immigrants that can be held by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The groups said that about 8,300 criminal aliens would have to be immediately released if the cap went into effect. They also said that about 90 percent of all illegal immigrants held by ICE in the nation’s “interior,” versus border facilities, have criminal records.

The issue is one that has stalled negotiations, threatening a second government shutdown later this week.

Both sheriff groups are meeting in Washington this week.

Hodgson said that his jail holds some 200 criminal illegal immigrants and he bluntly said that if any were to be freed, they would go out and commit more crimes.

“We’d have to release these people to go out and commit more crimes,” he said.

He also charged that threats to ICE funding, made by lawmakers including Ocasio-Cortez, and cuts to the cap on how many criminal illegal immigrants can be held, is a bid by Democrats to please their liberal base of supporters.

“They put our people at risk just to take care of their political agenda,” said Hodgson, a leading spokesman among the nation’s 3,000 sheriffs for immigration enforcement.

A similar charge was made by Republicans. National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Bob Salara emailed today, "House Democrats have become so deranged by their hatred of President Trump that they've found ANOTHER reason to shut down the government. This time, three weeks after voting for a funding bill that placed no restrictions on detaining criminal illegals, they're demanding a cap on the number of criminals ICE is allowed to detain for deportation."

Hodgson expressed dismay that ICE would be required to stop arresting criminal illegal immigrants once a cap of 16,500 was met. He said that no other class of criminals is subject to an arrest cap, and that it endangers the country.

Critics on Capitol Hill of ICE, he said, “ought to be ashamed of themselves. And that’s why we are mobilizing.”

dailycaller

Published  1 week ago

Multiple members of the Hard Left have been in the news recently for making comments against the religions of Judaism and Christianity.

Minnesota Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar has faced backlash for anti-Semitic tweets and accusing a pro-Israel lobbying group for buying Congressional support. The tweets were met with condemnation from top Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. (RELATED: House Democratic Leadership Denounce Rep. Omar’s Comments On AIPAC)

In addition, Michigan Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib has been tied to the group “Palestinian American Congress” who has been know to demonize Jews. Also, the group’s founder and key fundraiser for Tlaib, Maher Abdel-qader, has shared anti-semitic videos. (RELATED: Rashida Tlaib’s Ties To Anti-Semitism Run Deeper Than Previously Known)

Moving away from government officials, the leaders of the left-wing activist group the Women’s March reportedly have connections to the Nation of Islam and believe in some conspiratorial anti-Semitic tropes.

The Left has also been harsh on Christianity, which can be seen through the media’s liberal narrative and condemnations of the Covington school students in the viral Twitter video last month.

Additionally, liberal organizations and outlets have bashed second lady Karen Pence for teaching at a Private Christian school in Virginia. The school maintains biblical teachings on sexuality and gender, which led to some left organizations to label Pence of bigotry. (RELATED: Liberal Groups Bash Karen Pence For Teaching At Christian School)

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

President Donald Trump has called on freshman Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar to resign over her controversial Israel comments.

“Anti-Semitism has no place in the United States Congress,” Trump told reporters during a Cabinet meeting.

“I think she should either resign from Congress or she should certainly resign from the foreign affairs committee.”

The call for Omar’s resignation came after Trump said Monday the Minnesota Democrat “should be ashamed of herself”.

Omar apologized Monday for comments in which she implied that a prominent pro-Israel lobby compensated lawmakers for their support of the Jewish state, but insisted on what she called "the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics."

She drew condemnation from members of both parties after she tweeted Sunday evening that AIPAC has been paying members of Congress to support Israel. On Monday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called on Omar to apologize, saying that "her use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel's supporters is deeply offensive."

REPUBLICAN REP. LEE ZELDIN DISMISSES ILHAN OMAR'S 'SORRY NOT SORRY' APOLOGY, BLASTS 'ANTI-ISRAEL' HATE

Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said it was "shocking to hear a Member of Congress invoke the anti-Semitic trope of 'Jewish money.'" Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., called the comments "deeply disappointing and disturbing."

However, the apology is not enough for some lawmakers, with Lee Zeldin, a Jewish Republican from New York, describing it as a ‘sorry not sorry’ apology.

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

Dan Shapiro, Obama's ambassador to Israel from 2011 to 2017, called on fellow Democrats to denounce the antisemitic views of Ilhan Omar.

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

Two Texas statehouse members will soon introduce legislation funding President Donald Trump’s planned border wall along the U.S. border with Mexico — specifically the Texas border — Breitbart News has learned.

State Reps. Kyle Biedermann and Briscoe Cain intend to introduce legislation soon that would fund $2.5 billion of wall construction along the Texas border with Mexico, appropriating it from the economic stabilization fund for the state fiscal year ending August 31, 2019. The funds would be used, Biedermann tells Breitbart News, “to design, test, construct, and install physical barriers, roads, and technology along the international land border between the State of Texas and Mexico to prevent illegal crossings in all areas.”

Preference for the contracts and awarding of bids, Biedermann added, “for all phases of construction” would be given to Texans and Texas-owned entities.

While this idea is still novel and untested, given the fact that Republicans control the Texas statehouse and Texas state Senate and Texas’ governor Greg Abbott is a strong ally of President Trump’s, this type of plan could actually work in legally acquiring appropriations for a significant portion of what Trump intends to do along the border.

The plan comes as President Trump heads to El Paso, Texas, on Monday evening for a campaign rally in the border town where former Rep. Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke (D-TX) — the failed 2018 Democrat Senate candidate in Texas, who also is considering a potential 2020 presidential bid — is holding a counter-rally.

It also comes as negotiators on Capitol Hill in Washington, just five days before Friday’s deadline, have reportedly reached an impasse in negotiations over funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other government agencies totaling about a quarter of the federal government. Just a few weeks ago, the longest government shutdown in U.S. history — which started at the end of last year and dragged into this year lasting more than a month — ended after Trump agreed to reopen the government for three weeks to allow negotiators in Congress to attempt to reach a deal.

But the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, run by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is dead set against funding his wall in full, and Democrats and Republicans on the hill have not been able to reach an agreeable dollar number over this nearly completed three-week period. The government will shut down again Friday night if no agreement is reached.

Trump used his State of the Union Address last week to make the case for the wall, and he has also used an Oval Office address and the full bully pulpit power of the presidency to fight for extra border security measures including additional physical barriers. Part of the reason why he is heading to El Paso on Monday is to showcase how the border city has seen a decrease in unlawful crossings from Mexico since a barrier was built there.

Trump is expected to make the case for improving and repairing existing walls or barriers along the border and building new barriers wherever they are needed.

If Congress refuses President Trump’s request for a wall and does not provide funding for it, Trump can use other methods — like declaring a national emergency or turning to the states like Texas for help with an idea like Biedermann’s and Cain’s forthcoming plan — to get the wall built.

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

Jewish leaders criticized Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) over tweets in which she alleged, falsely, that Congress supports Israel because of money.

The Federalist

Published  1 week ago

The new wave of freshman Democrats is beginning to criticize our nation’s historically strong ties with Israel. The party might soon be split.

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

Republicans have found their platform for 2020, and they have Democrats to thank. After a month in which a partial government shutdown battered President Trump’s approval ratings, a string of self-inflicted wounds by Democrats has abruptly shifted the political landscape, resuscitating discouraged Republicans and also setting the debate for 2020.

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

President Donald Trump weighed in again Tuesday on the controversy surrounding antisemitic remarks by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), who apologized Monday at the behest of Democratic leaders but kept her committee posts.

Trump told a Cabinet meeting open to reporters: “I think [Omar] should either resign from Congress or she should certainly resign from the House Foreign Affairs Committee.” He also cast doubt on the sincerity of her apology.

His full remarks, via pool report, were as follows:

Anti-Semitism has no place in the United States Congress. And Congressman Omar, it’s terrible what she said and I think she should either resign from Congress or she should certainly resign from the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

What she said is so deep-seeded in her heart that her lame apology, that’s what it was, it was lame and she didn’t mean a word of it, was just not appropriate.

I think she should resign from Congress frankly, but at a minimum she shouldn’t be on committees, certainly that committee.

Omar apologized but vowed to continue criticizing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the pro-Israel lobbying organization that she falsely accused of paying members of Congress to support Israel.

Omar’s offending tweets — from this and another occasion — remain live.

It’s all about the Benjamins baby https://t.co/KatcXJnZLV

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) February 10, 2019

Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel. #Gaza #Palestine #Israel

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) November 16, 2012

In denouncing Omar’s comments as antisemitic, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) — who appointed Omar to the House Foreign Affairs Committee last month — claimed that she and fellow Democrats “are and will always be strong supporters of Israel.”

Republicans stripped Rep. Steve King (R-IA) of his committee seats last month after he appeared to support white supremacy and white nationalism in a New York Times interview, though he said his words were taken out of context.

Omar supports the “boycott, divestment, sanctions” (BDS) movement against Israel, which many critics consider antisemitic because it singles out Israel.

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.

This article has been updated to include the president’s full remarks.

WayneDupree.com

Published  1 week ago

Initially, in October 2018, Sen. Mitch McConnell “told the Washington Examiner the Senate wouldn’t stick to the $1.6 billion wall funding included in the Senate’s 2019 Homeland Security Appropriations measure.”

America, Democrats, lose nothing in this deal, nothing and by the way, they are also demanding fewer deportations and smaller holding facilities. Either the Republicans are stupid, or they can’t negotiate worth a damn.

Let me reiterate; it seems this agreement that both sides have come up with is “less” than the initial lowball number. How will Trump followers support this? Rep. Nancy Pelosi said Pres. Trump wouldn’t get a dollar, will this suffice?

BREAKING: Lawmakers say they have reached an “agreement in principle” to avoid government shutdown.

Top lawmakers say they have reached a deal to fund the government through the fall, a deal that would resolve ongoing disputes over immigrati