Stories about
Bill Clinton

William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III; August 19, 1946) is an American politician who served as the 42nd President of the United States from 1993 to 2001. Prior to the presidency, he was the Governor of Arkansas from 1979 to 1981, and again from 1983 to 1992. A member of the Democratic Party, Clinton was ideologically a New Democrat and many of his policies reflected a centrist "Third Way" political philosophy.

Washington Examiner

Published  9 hours ago

The Trump administration posted a final rule Friday that would require family planning clinics to be housed in separate buildings from abortion clinics, a move that would cut off Planned Parenthood from some federal funding.

The rule applies to a $286 million-a-year grant, known as Title X, that pays for birth control, testing of sexually transmitted diseases, and cancer screenings for 4 million low-income people. It requires the "physical and financial" separation of family planning services and abortion.

Federal funds are not permitted to go toward abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, or if a woman's pregnancy threatens her life. Abortion foes, however, have long fought for rules along the lines of the one advanced Friday because they say allocating federal funds toward clinics such as Planned Parenthood frees up additional funds to provide abortions. The organization receives between $50 million and $60 million from Title X.

Planned Parenthood said the requirements would cause its facilities to build separate entrances and exits, construct new health centers, or hire a second staff of doctors, nurses, and administrative staff.

"None of these requirements contribute to the health of patients," the organization said in a statement.

The rule is likely to be challenged in federal court.

Planned Parenthood, which covers roughly 40 percent of people who use Title X to get medical services, has drawn criticism from the Trump administration because it provides abortions. Republicans in Congress have failed to cut off funding from Planned Parenthood, leaving anti-abortion groups to rely on the White House to advance their causes.

The rule does not defund all of Planned Parenthood, as some Republicans have called for, because the organization gets other government funding. Separately from government funding, it receives donations as well as reimbursement for services by insurers. The rule would, however, either force facilities to make major changes or forgo tens of millions of dollars.

The rule would also block providers from referring for abortions for the purpose of family planning or promoting the practice if they are receiving Title X grants. Critics have often referred to it as a "gag rule."

“Imagine if the Trump administration prevented doctors from talking to our patients with diabetes about insulin," Dr. Leana Wen, Planned Parenthood's president, said in a statement. "It would never happen. Reproductive health care should be no different. Reproductive health care is healthcare and healthcare is a basic human right."

The Trump administration has denied that the proposal would prevent doctors from counseling women about abortion.

One of the main purposes of the proposal is to shift federal funds from Planned Parenthood and other organizations that provide abortions to community and rural health centers, or otherwise pressure Planned Parenthood and other facilities to stop providing abortions.

The Family Research Council, an organization that opposes abortion, praised the rule and said Trump has "been persistent in fulfilling his pro-life campaign promises."

"Planned Parenthood and other abortion centers will now have to choose between dropping their abortion services from any location that gets Title X dollars and moving those abortion operations offsite," Tony Perkins, the group's president, said in a statement. "Either way, this will loosen the group's hold on tens of millions of tax dollars."

The rule is similar to a 1988 policy instituted by former President Ronald Reagan, which required family planning services to have a "physical separation" and "separate personnel" from abortion providers.

Planned Parenthood and other groups challenged the Reagan-era rule in court. The Supreme Court allowed the policy to move forward, but it was never carried out completely. Then-President Bill Clinton rolled back the rules in 1994.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  9 hours ago

The Trump Admin moved to cut off some funding for the baby butchers at Planned Parenthood on Friday.

The Trump White House posted a final rule Friday that would require family planning centers to be in a separate building from abortion centers, a move that would effectively cut off some federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

The Washington Examiner reported:

The rule applies to a $286 million-a-year grant, known as Title X, that pays for birth control, testing of sexually transmitted diseases, and cancer screenings for 4 million low-income people. It requires the “physical and financial” separation of family planning services and abortion.

Federal funds are not permitted to go toward abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, or if a woman’s pregnancy threatens her life. Abortion foes, however, have long fought for rules along the lines of the one advanced Friday because they say allocating federal funds toward clinics such as Planned Parenthood frees up additional funds to provide abortions. The organization receives between $50 million and $60 million from Title X.

The rule will no doubt get challenged in a federal court.

It is important to note that this rule would not defund all of Planned Parenthood because they get other government funding as well.

This rule will however make a dent and force Planned Parenthood to rebuild facilities or forgo millions of dollars in government funding.

The rule would also block providers from referring for abortions for the purpose of family planning or promoting the practice if they are receiving Title X grants. Because of this, critics have often referred to it as a “gag rule,” reported The Examiner.

Ronald Reagan instituted a similar policy in 1988 with the backing of the Supreme Court, however, Bill Clinton rolled it back shortly after he began his first term as president.

Fox News

Published  1 day ago

A federal judge in Florida ruled Thursday that prosecutors -- including current Secretary of Labor Alex Acosta -- violated federal law when they reached a plea agreement in 2007 with financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and did not inform his dozens of victims.

In a 33-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra wrote that prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida "mislead" Epstein's victims after negotiating the plea agreement by telling them "to be 'patient' while the investigation proceeded" and leading them to believe "that federal prosecution was still a possibility." However, Marra stopped short of short of invalidating the agreement, but asked prosecutors and victims' lawyers to recommend in 15 days how to move forward.

The judge wrote that evidence showed that Epstein "sexually abused more than 30 minor girls" between 1999 and 2007 "at his mansion in Palm Beach, Florida, and elsewhere in the United States and overseas." Epstein, Marra added, "used paid employees to find and bring minor girls to him [and] worked in concert with others to obtain minors not only for his own sexual gratification, but also for the sexual gratification of others."


Marra cited a letter to Acosta, then the U.S. Attorney in Miami, from Epstein attorney Jay Lefkowitz following an October 2007 breakfast meeting in which Lefkowitz wrote: "I ... want to thank you for the commitment you made to me during our October 12 meeting in which you . . . assured me that your Office would not . . . contact any of the identified individuals, potential witnesses, or potential civil claimants and their respective counsel in this matter."

Marra's ruling cites a statement by Marie Villafaña, then as now an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, that "[f]rom the time the FBI began investigating Epstein until September 24, 2007—when the [plea agreement] was concluded—the Office never conferred with the victims about [an agreement] or told the victims that such an agreement was under consideration."

Two of Epstein's victims, identified only as Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2, filed suit against prosecutors in 2008, soon after they were notified of the federal plea deal and approximately one year after the agreement was concluded. In January of that year, the judge noted, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2 and other victims received letters from the FBI notifying them that their case "is currently under investigation." Jane Doe 1 met with FBI agents and an unidentified assistant U.S. Attorney, where she "provided additional details of Epstein's sexual abuse of her.

"The AUSA did not disclose to Jane Doe 1 at this meeting that they had already negotiated a [non-prosecution agreement] with Epstein," Marra wrote.

Today’s order represents long-overdue vindication for all of the victims of Mr. Epstein and his co-conspirators," the victims' attorney, Brad Edwards, said in a statement. "Unfortunately, this decision also highlights the failure of the United States Government to acknowledge its obvious wrongdoing. Rather than work to correct the injustices done to the victims, the Government spent 10 years defending its own improper conduct. It is time for the Government to work with the victims, and not against them, to hold everyone who committed these crimes accountable. Hopefully, the victims will finally receive the strong and direct apology they deserve for the flagrant depravation of their rights under the Crime Victim’s Rights Act."

In addition to his Palm Beach mansion, Epstein, now 66, allegedly operated his sex ring at a residence in New York City and his private island estate on the 72-acre Virgin Islands home dubbed “Orgy Island.” by some. Court documents obtained by Fox News in 2016 showed former President Bill Clinton took at least 26 trips flying aboard Epstein's private jet, known as the "Lolita Express," and apparently ditched his Secret Service detail on some of the excursions.

Epstein and President Trump also had a friendship, and one of Epstein's accusers told the Miami Herald newspaper that she was 16 years old and working at Mar-a-Lago as a locker room attendant when a female Epstein associate approached her in the summer of 2000 to offer her a job as a masseuse. The accuser, Virginia Roberts, told the Herald that Epstein and the associate sexually abused her and claimed she was "lent out to politicians and academics and royalty."

During his confirmation hearing in 2017, Acosta told lawmakers that the decision to make a deal with Epstein was "broadly held" in the U.S. Attorney's office.

"The grand jury [in Florida] recommended a single count of solicitation not involving minors. That would have resulted in zero jail time, zero registration as a sexual offender and zero restitution for the victims in this case," said Acosta, who added, "It was highly unusual where a U.S. attorney becomes involved in a matter that has already gone to the grand jury at the state level. We decided that Mr. Epstein should plead guilty to two years, register as a sexual offender, and concede liability so the victims should get restitution in this matter."

Fox News' Gregg Re and Kristin Brown and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Daily Intelligencer

Published  1 day ago

In a conspiracy-theory-sodden era, the story of Jeffrey Epstein, a billionaire abuser of underage girls, stands out both for its harrowing veracity and for the impunity it reveals. Epstein molested dozens of girls since at least 2001 and provided other, still-anonymous accomplices with girls to abuse. But Epstein, who once counted Bill Clinton and David Copperfield among his acquaintances, is not in prison, nor is he likely to go to prison at any point in the near future. As the Miami Herald first reported in an exhaustive investigation, Epstein owes his freedom, in part, to the efforts of Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta, who, in his previous role as a U.S. Attorney in Miami, declined to prosecute Epstein under federal sex-trafficking laws. A conviction under these laws could have put him in prison for the rest of his life. Instead, Acosta and his fellow prosecutors worked closely with Epstein’s legal team, which included Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr, to negotiate a non-prosecution agreement that allowed him to plead guilty to two charges of prostitution. He served 13 months in a private wing of the county jail in 2007. Prosecutors then agreed to seal the deal without informing Epstein’s victims that any agreement had been reached at all.

The Justice Department had already opened an investigation into the Epstein prosecution, and on Thursday, Acosta found himself in even deeper trouble. Two of Epstein’s victims had sued over the deal, arguing that prosecutors, including Acosta, violated a federal law that grants victims of crime the right to be notified of potential plea deals and to confer with attorneys for the government. A federal judge has now ruled in their favor, the Herald reported. U.S. District Court Judge Kenneth Marra found that prosecutors, including Acosta, broke the law by keeping the deal from Epstein’s victims. “Particularly problematic was the Government’s decision to conceal the existence of the [agreement] and mislead the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility,” Marra wrote. “When the Government gives information to victims, it cannot be misleading. While the Government spent untold hours negotiating the terms and implications of the [agreement] with Epstein’s attorneys, scant information was shared with victims.’’

It’s not yet clear if Marra’s ruling will necessarily force Acosta from office. According to the Herald, Marra gave victims’ attorneys and the government 15 days to reach some kind of resolution, though the verdict didn’t spell out what that resolution could look like. The Justice Department says on its website that employees who “willfully or wantonly” fail to comply with the law could face suspension or termination, but Acosta no longer works for the department. And until he was implicated in the Epstein deal, Acosta enjoyed a relatively uncontroversial public profile by the standards of the Trump administration. That quietude is at an end, as he no longer faces a scandal but a legal crisis. Even so, his resignation doesn’t quite seem assured. In perhaps any other presidential administration, Marra’s verdict would lead swiftly to an Acosta resignation. Trump’s Cabinet is notably corrupt, however, and while several of its members have indeed resigned when waters became too hot for them to tolerate, there’s no clear, consistent red line that a Trump secretary has to cross before they remove themselves from office. Acosta also doesn’t serve a president renowned for his deep commitment to protecting women and girls from abuse. The same culture of impunity that insulates elite predators like Epstein from justice could keep Acosta in power.

Unless, of course, the secretary chooses a different path. Marra’s verdict can’t rectify old damages, but Acosta could help mend things further by voluntarily removing himself from power. His resignation is now long overdue.

Leave a Comment

Conservative Tribune

Published  1 day ago

Yesterday, a federal judge ruled that prosecutors broke the law while reaching a plea deal with billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. He’s the owner of the infamous “Lolita Express” airplane, and the mysterious “Orgy Island” that features prominently in an endless array of human trafficking accusations and conspiracy theories.

A federal judge in Florida ruled Thursday that prosecutors — including current Secretary of Labor Alex Acosta — violated federal law when they reached a plea agreement in 2007 with financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and did not inform his dozens of victims.

In a 33-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra wrote that prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida “mislead” Epstein’s victims after negotiating the plea agreement by telling them “to be ‘patient’ while the investigation proceeded” and leading them to believe “that federal prosecution was still a possibility.” However, Marra stopped short of short of invalidating the agreement, but asked prosecutors and victims’ lawyers to recommend in 15 days how to move forward.

MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle was discussing the case with guest Philippe Reines. Reines is a longtime Clinton aide.

Ruhle wanted to make it clear that it’s not just Epstein who’s been caught having sex with underage girls. “It’s not just Epstein,” she said. “Many of the people in his ring – whose names were protected – were among the most powerful people on the planet in business, entertainment, and politics.”

TRENDING: VIDEO: Chicago police superintendent is not happy with Jussie Smollett, rips him to shreds

Apparently thinking this was an opening to attack the President, Reines responded: “Well obviously he’s been associated with President Trump. I don’t know how much he might have known along the way.”

The elephant in the room, obviously, is that while Trump did know Epstein, Bill Clinton’s “association” was, as far as we know, much closer than Trump’s. Clinton was a regular passenger on the “Lolita Express,” and appears on the manifest at least 26 times. He even declined secret service protection on five of the flights, allowing him to travel unsupervised. A 15-year-old girl has also accused Clinton of visiting Epstein’s infamous Island.

Trump flew on the plane once, but banned Epstein from his Mar-a-Lago club after Epstein sexually assaulted g a young girl on the premises.

Obviously, Reines is aware of all this. To her credit, Ruhle didn’t let him off the hook. The blowback was instantaneous, and Reines does not handle it well.

Amid his word salad, you’ll hear Reines admit that his initial comment was made due to “habit.” I’d be willing to agree. That’s probably true.

Reines is a leftover from the days when a Clinton – any Clinton – was so powerful that allies could go on MSNBC and say whatever they liked without fear of being challenged. Back then, Bill & Hillary were so beloved by the left that the network would never use the Epstein story to challenge their narrative.

Those days, it seems, are long gone.

The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website.

The Real News Network

Published  2 days ago

The recently named US Special Envoy on Venezuela, Elliott Abrams, is back in the halls of power after a career of supporting dictators, violence and genocide around the world

I Love My Freedom

Published  2 days ago

Empire actor, Jussie Smollett turned himself in Thursday morning for being a suspect in his own hate crime. The actor is facing felony charges and the bond for his release is set at $100,000.

In late January, Smollett claimed to be a victim of a hate crime in Chicago where two male Trump supporters confronted him at 2am where they proceeded to wrap a noose around his neck and poor bleach on his face while shouting homophobic and racist slurs. Over the past three weeks, the Chicago law enforcement has been investigating the situation and have now stated that Smollett paid two friends to stage the attack on him.

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

Some politicians have been very vocal with condemning Smollet while some politicians, mostly on the Left, have stayed completely silent. Then there’s CNN who are actually questioning if Smollett is the one to blame in this situation:

Anchor Don Lemon, who said he identified with Smollett because he is also black and gay, was initially quite tough on the alleged hoaxer during his show Wednesday evening. However, Lemon also questioned if it was Smollett’s “fault” that he lied about the attack during an interview with “Good Morning America.”

“In the court of public opinion, Jussie has lost. He’s lost the fight in the court of public opinion, and that’s where his battle is,” Lemon said. “He lost that because of how — not his fault — people were, I don’t what they were saying to him. Maybe because of his representatives, who knows.”

Seriously? The only person who is to blame for Jussie Smollett’s actions is Smollett himself. The fact that Lemon is trying to defend Smollett is alarming considering the actors actions have created an even wider divide in America.

Lemon wasn’t the only radical Leftist to take to Smollett’s defense. Keith Boykin, a former aide to Bill Clinton, argued that Smollett’s actions fit the “climate” of America today.

It’s important to understand the climate we’re in in this country makes these things believable because of the fact when you have Nazis marching in Charlottesville, when you have hate crimes there on the rise, when you have attacks on black LGBTQ people and particularly black trans people on the rise, it’s understandable to people to think that.

Believable? The only people who actually believed the Smollett accusations in the first place were far Left Democrats who suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome. Nothing about his original story was at all believable. What Trump supporter walks through Chicago at 2am in negative four degree weather in their MAGA hats while carrying bleach and a noose with the intent of assaulting a gay black man? Hint: NOBODY.

Erin Burnett, another radical CNN anchor, not only took the opportunity to defend Smollett, but also took the opportunity to attack Trump.

“[People] are handling responsibly by reevaluating what they’re stating unlike Trump who never reevaluates anything and just completely doubles down on everything,” Boykin said, adding that Trump himself condemned the alleged attack.

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

America is at a very dangerous point in history. The divide in this country seems to be getting worse because of how the media reacts to certain situations. Smollett’s actions were extremely divisive, but the way the media is handling the situation only makes it worse. Instead of defending Smollett and attacking Trump, the media needs to swallow their pride, and completely condemn the attack without relating it back to Trump.

What are your thoughts? Comment below…

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 days ago

Author-Attorney Andrew McCarthy joined Lou Dobbs on Wednesday night to discuss the Mueller witch hunt. On Wednesday CNN reported the Mueller witch hunt was winding down and his report may be released next week. Andrew McCarthy told Lou Dobbs there is a three-in-four chance that Democrats will impeach Trump in the US House. Andrew McCarthy: […]

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 days ago

Guest post by Joe Hoft A 2016 DOJ criminal investigation was suppressed and buried by the DOJ/FBI that involved a major NY Democratic power broker, Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. The investigation revolved around the illegal sale of controlled US Homeland Security technology to Russia and China in the years before the […]

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.

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!!

— 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

Fox News

Published  3 days ago

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


Published  4 days ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Published  5 days ago

'Hindus and Muslims are totally separate nations. There is no doubt at all about this... India has a secular system, which we can under no condition accept'

The Gateway Pundit

Published  5 days ago

Disgraced former Rep. Anthony Weiner has been released from prison and placed in a residential re-entry facility. He had been sentenced to 21 months in prison for sending sexually explicit messages to a minor.

Weiner had been sending graphic and sexually explicit messages to a 15-year-old North Carolina girl in 2017.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons has Weiner listed as being in the custody of a Residential Re-entry Management office in Brooklyn, New York, according to a report from the Associated Press.

The investigation into his chats with the girl led to a laptop being seized from the home Weiner shared with his wife Huma Abedin, a top aide to Hillary Clinton. Two weeks before the election, FBI Director James Comey announced that emails related to the candidate’s private email server may have been found on a laptop used by both Weiner and Abedin, prompting the agency to reopen their probe into the scandal.

In 2011, Weiner tweeted a photo of his crotch, which lead to his resignation from Congress.

During his run for mayor of New York, Weiner’s weiner made headlines once again after porn star Sydney Leathers went to the media with their explicit chats.

During the 2016 election season, the New York Post obtained new graphic chats between Weiner and a “busty brunette,” including a photo of his crotch — taken with his five-year-old son sleeping in the bed in the background.

Weiner’s wife Huma Abedin has worked closely with Clinton since the 1990s, during Bill Clinton’s presidency. She has been a top aide to the former First Lady ever since.

Weiner’s sexual scandals were chronicled in a now-popular documentary called Weiner, in which Abedin’s contempt for him was impossible to miss.

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.

I Love My Freedom

Published  6 days ago

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

The Black Sphere

Published  6 days ago

Anthony Weiner is out of prison. Just in time to declare himself a candidate for president in 2020 in a field that could use some help.


Published  6 days ago

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

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 […]


Published  6 days ago

Published  1 week ago

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

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

President @realDonaldTrump signs the Declaration for a National Emergency to address the national security and humanitarian crisis at the Southern Border.

— Sarah Sanders (@PressSec) February 15, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daily Intelligencer

Published  1 week ago

At worst, President Trump’s claim of emergency powers that would allow him to expand barriers on the southern border is a gross violation of democratic norms. At best, it is a craven ploy to cover his own blundering. Either way, it is a devastating indictment of his capacity to handle his job.

Begin with the worst-case scenario. As a matter of principle, the Constitution establishes a system that requires the House, Senate, and the president to approve new laws. In some cases, expediency requires the president to act unilaterally. Those rare cases are not defined as emergencies because they’re important — lots of policy is important, even life-threatening. The emergencies are cases where the executive needs to act in an especially urgent way, and where congressional involvement may not be practical.

Most of the uses of emergency powers involve foreign policy, an area where Congress has (for better or worse) ceded most of its authority to the president anyway. Presidents have not been able to use emergency powers to simply roll over Congressional opposition. Bill Clinton considered health-care reform an extremely vital problem with literal life-and-death consequences – and he was right – but he never contemplated using some form of emergency powers to impose the reforms he couldn’t get Congress to enact.

Trump has of course tried to portray his power grab as just such an emergency. But illegal immigration is nothing like the kind of sudden crisis that justifies rapid action. It is a decades-long policy dispute, with border crossings now at levels well below that of a decade ago. The closest thing to a crisis is a recent surge in migrants seeking asylum, a process that entails crossing the border legally, and for which a wall is completely irrelevant. What’s more, Trump’s non-solution would take years to complete. The president’s lack of urgency to address the alleged border crisis during his first two years, when he had unified control of government, attests to his disingenuousness.

Lou Dobbs, a Fox Business Channel host who frequently speaks to the president both through the screen and on the phone, expressed the premise of using a emergency order to circumvent democratic debate. “I really believe that the way forward here is for him to declare a national emergency, and simply sweep aside the recalcitrant left in this country,” he said on air last month. “They have obstructed, resisted, and subverted for far too long.” Note, in particular, the chilling authoritarianism of the term “subverted” to describe a policy dispute between co-equal branches of government.

Trump echoed this spirit in his ill-fated national address touting the border wall, when he concluded, “When I took the oath of office, I swore to protect our country and that is what I will always do so help me God.” In fact, the oath of office commits the president to protect the Constitution, not “the country.” The distinction between the two things is substantial. The actual oath binds Trump to a form of government and the rule of law. Trump’s version of it invests in his own office unlimited authority to define security and carry it out as he alone sees fit.

Few Republican officials have echoed this kind of bluntly fascistic rhetoric. Instead, they have responded to the threat much as they have responded to the broader currents of authoritarianism emanating from the Oval Office. First they pushed back quietly, and then finally relented:

McConnell’s statement that he’s “prepared to support the national emergency declaration” plus an angry Chuck Grassley bonus via @atrupar

— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) February 14, 2019

As always, the mere fact Democrats are decrying Trump’s abuses is causing Republicans to rally around them. “We are becoming more unified as the Dems push out there,” a Republican House member tells John Harwood, “Real optimism on our side based upon the extremists on their side.”

If Trump were to succeed, he would distort the effective meaning of the Constitution beyond recognition. That is precisely why his ploy is unlikely to survive the legal challenges. The Supreme Court’s five Republican justices may stretch the Constitution to defeat liberal policies they abhor, like universal health insurance, but they probably don’t care about the wall and have no reason to spend their reputational capital on a decision upholding it.

The anticipation that courts will smack down Trump’s attempted power grab has created some complacency about the brazenness of his attempt. The clever take in Washington is that Trump is claiming emergency powers knowing full well he will probably lose, so he can reopen the government in the meantime without losing face. This is the best-case scenario, and also the most likely scenario.

But it hardly vindicates the president. Trump impulsively engineered a government shutdown out of the mistaken belief that somehow it would give him leverage over Democrats, and without any understanding of the humanitarian fallout. After he quickly realized it wouldn’t, he made almost no effort to negotiate in good faith, even though it certainly would be possible to imagine immigration policies most Democrats and some Republicans would want enough to authorize more border security.

Having deliberately inflicted pain on his own country on a whim, he is defying democratic norms in order to extricate himself from the humiliation of a retreat. That he is likely to lose may mitigate the offense, but doesn’t excuse it. Trump has at minimum proven that he lacks the temperament or basic competence to serve as president of the United States.

Leave a Comment

NBC News

Published  1 week ago

Analysis: The president made his move. Now, the courts will decide who really has the power over the wall.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 week ago

President Trump is expected to declare a State of Emergency at the US southern border on Friday.

Declaring the immigration crisis a national emergency is overdue.

Presidents have declared national emergencies for nearly 50 years.

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

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

The Conservative Tribune reported:

As it turns out, there are currently 31 ongoing national emergencies over which the president wields certain authorities, the first of which has been in existence since 1979 and is one of only two emergencies declared by Carter.

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

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

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

Law & Crime

Published  1 week ago

Clinton did it for the people of Burma. Bush did it for the people of Belarus. Obama did it for the people of Burundi. Trump does it for the people of America. Guess who Democrats object to the use of emergency powers for?

What is the first obligation of the federal government under the Constitution? To secure and provide for the “common defense.” To accomplish this, Congress gives the President plenary authority to declare a national emergency under 50 USC § 1621. If Congress disagrees, it can pass a joint resolution terminating the emergency under 50 USC § 1622. USC §1631 only requires the President to invoke the specific emergency powers he intends to use. Then you have 33 USC § 2293, which says that the emergency “may require use of the Armed Forces.”

One of the main groups of the Armed Services is the Army Civil Engineering Corps, which spends most of its time and personnel building domestic projects needed for the civil defense of the country and the security of the people. Indeed, their mission is to “deliver vital public and military engineering services … to strengthen our Nation’s security.” Those claiming military funds can never be used for domestic construction (e.g., #Wall) apparently missed that the Army Corps of Engineers have been doing domestic construction for decades as their mission is “military engineering services…to strengthen our Nation’s security.”

Congress even passed a law codified and titled “construction authority” in the event of a declaration of “emergency.” Another statute explicitly authorizes the President to “apply the resources of the Department of the Army’s civil works program” including funding originally intended for “construction, operation, maintenance, or repair” of other civil works projects to funding the “construction, operation, maintenance and repair” of other “civil defense projects” or “civil works” needed “to the national defense.” How is building a border wall not a“civil defense project” when border walls have been the foundation of civil defense for literally tens of thousands of years since the beginning of civilization?

Historical precedent also supports the President as much as the express language of the legislative text. The Continental Congress frequently passed emergency acts. As scholars and studies alike affirm, “the granting of emergency powers by Congress is implicit in Article I, section 8 authority to provide for the common Defense.” An emergency merely means “a resulting state that calls for immediate action.” Congressional hearings recognized it as “the existence of conditions of varying nature, intensity and duration” merely sufficient that they are “perceived” to “threaten well-being beyond tolerable limits.” Eminent Constitutional scholars admitted it means an “existing danger to life or well-being beyond that which is accepted as normal.”

George Washington himself used emergency powers. Abraham Lincoln employed it repeatedly. Teddy Roosevelt championed it. FDR employed it more often than anybody. Harry Truman and Richard Nixon both applied it. After Congress codified it in 1976, Jimmy Carter gladly used it. Every President since employed it, including both George W. Bush and Barack Obama more than a dozen times apiece, with over 30 national emergencies still in force, some since 1979. Almost all of them stripped Americans of property or a right to property, restricted cross-border movement of people or property, and employed both American military and policing powers domestically.

Even Trump haters acknowledge the broad discretion of the President’s emergency powers. Even the critical legal blogosphere acknowledged Trump’s broad discretionary authority in using emergency powers. Coequally, Congressional Service studies repeatedly reaffirm the broad Constitutional and Congressionally-provisioned emergency powers of the Presidency. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service acknowledge the long legal history of Presidents using emergency powers. “Federal law provides” for “national emergency powers” which “are not limited to military or war situations” and “are continuously available to the President with little or no qualification.” Indeed: Thirty of the national emergencies declared via the National Emergencies Act since 1976 are technically still in effect.

Equally, plans for physical structures along the border date to World War II. Congressional legislation over the decades “established a mandate” that provided the President “with broad authority to waive all legal requirements that may impede construction of barriers” to secure the border. Even the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service acknowledged “nothing in current statute would appear to bar DHS from installing hundreds of miles of additional physical barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border, even beyond the 700 miles required by law.”

Bill Clinton declared more than a dozen national emergencies, as did Obama. If Burundi & Burma can be protected by the President’s national emergency powers, why can’t the American people?

[Image via LUDOVIC MARIN/AFP/Getty Images]

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.

Conservative Tribune

Published  1 week ago

I think there’s a Democrat strategy for running against Donald Trump that would have had a very good chance of success in 2020: You nominate mild-mannered individual who sounds ideologically like Bill Clinton sounded in 1992. You have him spew bromides like “economic fairness” and “lifting the middle class,” and avoid radical class warfare and…

NBC News

Published  1 week ago

The special counsel operates under rules that severely constrain how much information can be made public.

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is participating in a private conference with other justices Friday after missing several high-court meetings and dates for health reasons.

Ginsburg is working from her chambers Friday, according to a court spokesperson, and will participate in the in-person closed-door conference Friday morning. She had been working from home and participating in the Court's caseload while recovering from surgery.

Ginsburg, 85, has been recuperating in her home in Washington D.C. from a pulmonary lobectomy at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York after two nodules were discovered in the lower lobe of her left lung, the Supreme Court said in a statement last month. The discovery came incidentally during tests after she fractured several ribs during a fall in November.

The court said both nodules removed during the lung surgery were found to be malignant, but scans performed before surgery indicated no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body. No further treatment has been planned.

The Supreme Court returns from a four-week recess on Tuesday, and it is unclear whether Ginsburg will be on the bench.

After sustaining a fall in November, Ginsburg initially missed a non-argument session when justices took the bench for routine business.

Ginsburg has missed several oral arguments due to her health setback. Prior to her last few absences, Ginsburg had never missed an oral argument since being confirmed to the high court in 1993.

Ginsburg has dealt with a series of health concerns in recent years. She broke two ribs in 2012, and previously battled two bouts of cancer, in 1999 and 2009. She also had a stent implanted in her heart to open a blocked artery in 2014.

The Harvard Law School-educated justice was nominated to the Supreme Court by former President Bill Clinton in 1993 to replace retiring Justice Byron R. White. Ginsburg was Clinton’s first Supreme Court pick.

Prior to ascending to the Supreme Court, Ginsburg became the first woman to receive tenure at Columbia University Law School and is also the co-founder of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Women’s Rights Project.

Ginsburg is the oldest member on the Supreme Court, and her retirement has been a topic of great speculation. However, she reportedly hired clerks for the term that extends into 2020, indicating she has no plans to leave soon.

According to a new Fox News Poll, Ginsburg is the best-liked member of the Supreme Court.

Earlier this month, Ginsburg attended a concert called “Notorious RBG in Song” in Washington, D.C. at the National Museum of Women in the Arts. It was her first public appearance since undergoing lung surgery in December.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

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.


Published  1 week ago

Moscow routed millions of dollars to the U.S. expecting the funds would benefit ex-President Bill Clinton’s charitable initiative while his wife, Hillary Clinton, worked to reset relations with Russia, an FBI informant in an Obama administration-era uranium deal stated.

In a written statement to three congressional committees, informant Douglas Campbell said Russian nuclear executives told him that Moscow hired American lobbying firm APCO Worldwide to influence Hillary Clinton, then secretary of state, among others in the Obama administration, The Hill reported on Wednesday.

Campbell said Russian nuclear officials expected APCO to apply its $3 million annual lobbying fee from Moscow toward the Clintons’ Global Initiative. The contract detailed four $750,000 payments over a year’s time.

“APCO was expected to give assistance free of charge to the Clinton Global Initiative as part of their effort to create a favorable environment to ensure the Obama administration made affirmative decisions on everything from Uranium One to the U.S.-Russia Civilian Nuclear Cooperation agreement,” Campbell stated.

The so-called Uranium One deal in 2010 handed Russia control of 20 percent of the U.S.’s uranium supply. Hillary Clinton served on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which unanimously approved the partial sale of the Canadian mining company Uranium One to Russian nuclear giant Rosatom.

FBI agents and the confidential informant made secret recordings, gathered records and intercepted emails dating back to 2009 that showed that Russian officials had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks. However, the Department of Justice did not bring charges until 2014.

In a statement to The Hill, APCO said its activities involving client work for the Clinton Global Initiative and Tenex, a unit of Rosatom, were “totally separate and unconnected in any way” and that “any assertion otherwise is false and unfounded.”

Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Hillary Clinton, told the outlet that Campbell’s statement is being used as a distraction from special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into possible collusion between President Donald Trump’s campaign and the Russians in the 2016 election.

“Just yesterday the committee made clear that this secret informant charade was just that—a charade,” Merrill said Wednesday. “Along with the widely debunked text-message-gate and Nunes’ embarrassing memo episode, we have a trifecta of GOP-manufactured scandals designed to distract from their own president’s problems and the threat to democracy he poses.”


Published  1 week ago

California Senator and left-wing presidential candidate Kamala Harris is lying about the new tax law, which she -- and every Democrat -- voted against in 2017. We recently highlighted new polling showing tax reform's popularity on the rise, presumably as many Americans discover that their tax rates went down in 2018. The very large majority of US taxpayers do not itemize deductions, opting for the straightforward standard deduction. The GOP-passed law doubled the standard deduction, meaning that most people can exempt a much larger chunk of their income from taxation -- $12,000 for individuals, $24,000 for couples, and $18,000 for heads of household. With these more generous numbers in place, an estimated 90 percent of Americans are expected to select the standard deduction this year. Eager to continue their campaign of misinformation and lies against a law that's benefitting the overwhelming majority of citizens, Democrats are seizing on another extremely misleading talking point in order to confuse voters and muddy the waters:

The average tax refund is down about $170 compared to last year. Let’s call the President’s tax cut what it is: a middle-class tax hike to line the pockets of already wealthy corporations and the 1%.

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) February 11, 2019

What's wrong with this tweet? Basically everything. First of all, and least importantly, the sample size on which she's basing her assertion is very small, coming from a tiny sliver of filings from the very beginning of tax season. More importantly, the size of someone's tax refund is not at all reflective of whether they paid more or less in taxes than the previous year. Philip Klein unpacks the dishonesty:

To be clear, the level of people's tax refunds has absolutely nothing to do with their overall tax burden, which will be lower for nearly every taxpayer as a result of the enacted tax changes. Federal taxes get withheld from paychecks throughout the year, and then by the following April, taxpayers file and they have to pay the balance if they under-withheld in the previous year, or they are issued a refund if they overpaid. Thanks to marketing from tax preparation companies promising big refunds, Americans have come to view refunds as some sort of bonus they receive every April. A larger refund just means that they gave an interest free loan to the federal government by overpaying the previous year. That early data, which could change between now and April, show that on average people are receiving lower refunds, is merely a reflection of the fact that money was more accurately deducted from their paychecks throughout the year.

Harris, who may be humiliatingly unprepared to discuss certain policies, is not a stupid woman. She's paid taxes her entire life. She knows exactly what she's claiming, and why it's false. But she's saying it anyway. She's prematurely using very early data that may or may not make a point about withholding rates (most people didn't update their paperwork on this front), and twisting it into "proof" that that new law is a "middle-class tax hike." It is nothing of the sort, as the data has shown. Klein helpfully notes some of the key numbers while fact-checking Harris, whose bogus message is also being amplified by misleading media headlines:

A Tax Policy Center analysis, which Democrats loved to cite for other reasons throughout the tax debate, found that 80 percent of taxpayers would receive a cut in 2018, compared with just 5 percent who would see their taxes increase. The remainder would see virtually no change. In other words, 95 percent of Americans will have either paid lower taxes in 2018, or about the same amount of taxes. Among taxpayers in the middle-fifth income group, 91 percent would pay an average of $1,090 less in taxes.

Again, that information comes via the left-leaning Tax Policy Center. Only five percent of all filers will shoulder a higher tax burden for 2018, the disproportionate majority of whom are wealthy earners living in high-tax blue states. Fully eight in ten Americans got a cut -- including 91 percent of the middle class, the very group Harris claims is being slapped with a tax hike. She's peddling the opposite of the truth (also, be on the lookout for this lie about supposed "middle class tax increases" in the law). Rich Lowry's observation about the 2020 Democratic liar-in-chief sweepstakes is spot on:

Kamala Harris is taking an early lead in the most dishonest Democratic tweeter primary; other candidates will have to work hard to catch up

— Rich Lowry (@RichLowry) February 12, 2019

And he wasn't even referring to her amusing 'truthiness' about her first time smoking pot, a story she told with all the forced glee of someone desperate to signal "I'm not a cop!" to a suspicious left-wing base. The fact that her fable was literally impossible matters not; it was morally true in her mind, no doubt. I'll leave you with this:

BILL CLINTON: I smoked, but I did not inhale

BUSH 43: When I was young & irresponsible, I was young & irresponsible

HARRIS: I remember it clearly. It was a cold snowy morning, the day after the moon landing, & I was in my dorm listening to Kanye. That’s when I did a marijuana

— Sweet Meteor O'Death (@smod4real) February 12, 2019

UPDATE - Harris' lie earns Four Pinocchios from the Washington Post. It's ham-fisted garbage specficially designed to confuse people into thinking they're in worse financial shape than they are.


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.

Published  1 week ago

In a new interview, Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of pro-abortion presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, says she left the Baptist Church at the age of 6 because it has a strongly pro-life position opposing abortions.

Clinton made the comment at a recent fundraiser for Hillary Clinton in an attempt to address evangelicals who question her mother’s faith in God. She said she was upset when teachers in a Sunday School class talked about the wrongness of abortion.

“I find it quite insulting sometimes when people say to my mom, my dad or me . . . that they question our faith,’ said Chelsea. “I was raised in a Methodist church and I left the Baptist church before my dad did, because I didn’t know why they were talking to me about abortion when I was 6 in Sunday school — that’s a true story.”

“My mother is very deeply a person of faith,” Chelsea said. “It is deeply authentic and real for my mother, and it guides so much of her moral compass, but also her life’s work.”

“I recognized that there were many expressions of faith that I don’t agree with and feel [are] quite antithetical to how I read the Bible,” Chelsea said. “But I find it really challenging when people who are self-professed liberals kind of look askance at my family’s history.”

A New York Post columnist quoted her comments from a Democrat who took notes at the event.

Here’s more:

The Southern Baptist Convention added Sanctity of Human Life Sunday — marking the Sunday nearest the anniversary of Roe v. Wade — to the denominational calendar in 1985. An accompanying sanctity of life Sunday school lesson was added to LifeWay Christian Resources curriculum in 1991.

Her father was baptized at age 9 in Park Place Baptist Church in Hot Springs, Ark. He dropped out of church when he got older, but the shock of losing his reelection as governor of Arkansas in 1980 — coupled with the birth of his daughter — drove him back to church.

Bill Clinton joined the 4,000-member Immanuel Baptist Church in Little Rock, Ark., singing in the choir and studying the Bible under tutelage of the congregation’s longtime pastor, W.O. Vaught.


Published  1 week ago

by Joe Emersberger

The Miami Herald (2/8/19) reported, “Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro continues to reject international aid—going so far as to blockade a road that might have been used for its delivery.“

The “Venezuelan leader” reporter Jim Wyss referred to is Venezuela’s elected president. In contrast, Wyss referred to Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s “interim president.”

Guaidó, anointed by Trump and a new Iraq-style Coalition of the Willing, did not even run in Venezuela’s May 2018 presidential election. In fact, shortly before the election, Guaidó was not even mentioned by the opposition-aligned pollster Datanálisis when it published approval ratings of various prominent opposition leaders. Henri Falcón, who actually did run in the election (defying US threats against him) was claimed by the pollster to basically be in a statistical tie for most popular among them. It is remarkable to see the Western media dismiss this election as “fraudulent,” without even attempting to show that it was “stolen“ from Falcón. Perhaps that’s because it so clearly wasn’t stolen.

The constitutional argument that Trump and his accomplices have used to “recognize” Guaidó rests on the preposterous claim that Maduro has “abandoned” the presidency by soundly beating Falcón in the election. Caracas-based journalist Lucas Koerner took apart that argument in more detail.

What about the McClatchy-owned Herald‘s claim that Maduro “continues to reject international aid”? In November 2018, following a public appeal by Maduro, the UN did authorize emergency aid for Venezuela. It was even reported by Reuters (11/26/18), whose headlines have often broadcast the news agency’s contempt for Maduro’s government.

It’s not unusual for Western media to ignore facts they have themselves reported when a major “propaganda blitz” by Washington is underway against a government. For example, it was generally reported accurately in 1998 that UN weapons inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq ahead of air strikes ordered by Bill Clinton, not expelled by Iraq’s government. But by 2002, it became a staple of pro-war propaganda that Iraq had expelled weapons inspectors (Extra! Update, 10/02).

And, incidentally, when a Venezuelan NGO requested aid from the UN-linked Global Fund in 2017, it was turned down. Setting aside how effective foreign aid is at all (the example of Haiti hardly makes a great case for it), it is supposed to be distributed based on relative need, not based on how badly the US government wants somebody overthrown.

But the potential for “aid” to alleviate Venezuela’s crisis is negligible compared to the destructive impact of US economic sanctions. Near the end of Wyss’ article, he cited an estimate from the thoroughly demonized Venezuelan government that US sanctions have cost it $30 billion, with no time period specified for that estimate. Again, this calls to mind the run-up to the Iraq invasion, when completely factual statements that Iraq had no WMDs were attributed to the discredited Iraqi government. Quoting Iraqi denials supposedly balanced the lies spread in the media by US officials like John Bolton, who now leads the charge to overthrow Maduro. Wyss could have cited economists independent of the Maduro government on the impact of US sanctions—like US economist Mark Weisbrot, or the emphatically anti-Maduro Venezuelan economist Francisco Rodríguez.

Illegal US sanctions were first imposed in 2015 under a fraudulent “state of emergency” declared by Obama, and subsequently extended by Trump. The revenue lost to Venezuela’s government due to US economic sanctions since August 2017, when the impact became very easy to quantify, is by now well over $6 billion. That’s enormous in an economy that was only able to import about $11 billion of goods in 2018, and needs about $2 billion per year in medicines. Trump’s “recognition” of Guaidó as “interim president” was the pretext for making the already devastating sanctions much worse. Last month, Francisco Rodríguez revised his projection for the change in Venezuela’s real GDP in 2019, from an 11 percent contraction to 26 percent, after the intensified sanctions were announced.

The $20 million in US “aid” that Wyss is outraged Maduro won’t let in is a rounding error compared to the billions already lost from Trump’s sanctions.

Former US Ambassador to Venezuela William Brownfield, who pressed for more sanctions on Venezuela, dispensed with the standard “humanitarian” cover that US officials have offered for them (Intercept, 2/10/19):

And if we can do something that will bring that end quicker, we probably should do it, but we should do it understanding that it’s going to have an impact on millions and millions of people who are already having great difficulty finding enough to eat, getting themselves cured when they get sick, or finding clothes to put on their children before they go off to school. We don’t get to do this and pretend as though it has no impact there. We have to make the hard decision—the desired outcome justifies this fairly severe punishment.

How does this gruesome candor get missed by reporters like Wyss, and go unreported in his article?

Speaking of “severe punishment,” if the names John Bolton and Elliott Abrams don’t immediately call to mind the punishment they should be receiving for crimes against humanity, it illustrates how well the Western propaganda system functions. Bolton, a prime facilitator of the Iraq War, recently suggested that Maduro could be sent to a US-run torture camp in Cuba. Abrams played a key role in keeping US support flowing to mass murderers and torturers in Central America during the 1980s. Also significant that Abrams, brought in by Trump to help oust Maduro, used “humanitarian aid” as cover to supply weapons to the US-backed Contra terrorists in Nicaragua.

In the Herald article, the use of US “aid” for military purposes is presented as another allegation made by the vilified Venezuelan president: “Maduro has repeatedly said the aid is cover for a military invasion and has ordered his armed forces not to let it in, even as food and medicine shortages sweep the country.”

Calling for international aid and being democratically elected will do as little to protect Maduro’s government from US aggression as being disarmed of WMD did to prevent Iraq from being invaded—unless there is much more pushback from the US public against a lethal propaganda system.


Published  1 week ago

The Democrat Party is now defined my Ilhan Omar, Ralph Northam, Rashida Tlaib, Joy Reid, Dianne Feinstein and Louis Farrakhan.

Blunt Force Truth

Published  1 week ago

Everyone gets joy from different things.

Some people get it from pot, cocaine, angel dust, heroin, meth or the Green New Deal. I get it from watching Willie Brown’s old mistress who sold her virtue for a BMW and higher office, humiliate herself in a bid for the highest office in the land.

Appearing on “The Breakfast Club,” a New York City-based radio show, Harris also said she smoked a joint in college.

“And I inhaled,” she added, joking in reference to President Bill Clinton’s comments on the campaign trail in 1992 that he smoked marijuana but “didn’t inhale it.”

Everyone who seriously believe that Harris’ drug use ended with one joint in college, please call 1-800-BRIDGE.

Like a lot of politicians, Harris is trying to play edgy with the “inhale” line. It’s pathetic in 2019. Obama began his campaign by admitting that he used cocaine. If Harris really wants to appeal to today’s Dems, it’s time to talk about using meth.

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.

Press of Atlantic City

Published  1 week ago

WASHINGTON — Last week, no fewer than six committees of the House of Representatives were investigating potential grounds for impeaching President Donald Trump.

Updating World

Published  1 week ago

The U.S. Department of Justice announced Wednesday, Feb. 6, that it has opened an investigation into a 2007 plea deal that allowed New York billionaire Jeffrey Epstein to serve only 13 months in a …

Dan Bongino

Published  1 week ago

Under President Trump, Americans are more optimistic about their personal finances, and many say they are “better off” than just one year ago, according to a Washington Examiner report of a recent Gallup survey.

A whopping 69 percent of respondents told Gallup they believe their personal finances will improve over the next year. That percentage is just shy of the record high of 71 percent set in 1998 under Bill Clinton.

Fifty percent said they expect to be “better off” than just one year ago–marking the first time that number has been reached since 2007.

The number of Americans saying they are worse off than one year ago has dropped to the lowest level since October 2000.

Ten years ago, as the Great Recession neared its end, the percentage saying their finances had improved from the previous year was at a record low of 23%. More than half the public, 54%, said they were worse off. Now, with unemployment below 1998 levels and the job market growing steadily, the number saying they are worse off than a year ago has dropped to 26%, the lowest level since October 2000.

Trump Train

Published  1 week ago

Photographs show Dr. Christine Blasey Ford with George Soros, Harvey Weinstein, and Bill Clinton.

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford publicly alleged on 16 September 2018 that U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a party when both of them were high schoolers in 1982, she has been the target of a relentless campaign to try to discredit her and cast aspersions on her motivation for coming forward.

One of the most common smears directed at women to discredit them personally in such situations is try to paint them as “loose” and promiscuous. One of the most common ways to discredit them politically is to attempt to link them to the bogeyman of the right, billionaire hedge fund manager and Open Society Foundations founder George Soros.

Predictably, someone dug up and circulated a photograph claimed to be a picture of Christine Blasey Ford posing with George Soros and suggesting some form of relationship between the two:

However, the pictured woman is not Dr. Ford, but rather Lyudmyla Kozlovska, a Ukrainian human rights activist seen below with her husband Bartosz Kramek at an anti-government protest in Warsaw in 2017:

Another pair of photographs were claimed to show Dr. Ford posing with former film producer Harvey Weinstein (against whom multiple allegations of sexual harassment have also been made) and former president Bill Clinton:

But the woman seen in these pictures is actually Kirsten Gillibrand, the junior United States Senator from New York:

As #DemsInPhilly gather to nominate our next Pres. @HillaryClinton, kicked off #DNCinPHL w/former Pres. @BillClinton

— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) July 25, 2016

Someone later clumsily attempted to replace Senator Gillibrand’s face with that of Dr. Ford in the photograph with Bill Clinton:

MintPress News

Published  1 week ago

Ilhan Omar (D-MN) has been the subject of bipartisan bullying since she explicitly called out the number one Israeli lobby group, AIPAC.


Published  1 week ago

President Donald Trump and Senate Republicans have prioritized the judiciary. Now Trump has three vacancies to fill on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers five states including NC and SC.


Published  1 week ago

Attorney General nominee William Barr said in 2017 that he believed there was more basis to investigate failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for her alleged role in the Uranium One agreement than President Donald Trump’s purported collusion with the Russian government in the 2016 election.

Following a call last year by President Trump for the Department of Justice to probe into Clinton’s role in the deal, Barr told the New York Times that there was “nothing inherently wrong” about a president requesting a probe — but cautioned that one shouldn’t be undertaken because the White House wants one. Barr also told the Times: “I have long believed that the predicate for investigating the uranium deal, as well as the foundation, is far stronger than any basis for investigating so-called ‘collusion.’”

“To the extent it is not pursuing these matters, the department is abdicating its responsibility,” he added.

In his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday, Barr was asked about his previous comments regarding Uranium One. “I have no knowledge of Uranium One,” he told lawmakers. “I didn’t particularly think that was necessarily something that should be pursued aggressively. I was trying to make the point that there was a lot out there. I think all that stuff at the time was being looked at by [Utah U.S. Attorney John] Huber.”

Huber, tasked by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is looking into whether the law enforcement officials ignored allegations of Clinton involved in the sale of American uranium rights.

“The point I was trying to make there was that whatever the standard is for launching an investigation, it should be dealt with evenhandedly,” Barr added.

Brought to the forefront by Breitbart News senior editor-at-large Peter Schweizer in his New York Times best-selling book, Clinton Cash, the Uranium One scandal refers to an alleged scheme in which then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave Russia control over more than 20% of America’s uranium supply in exchange for $145 million in pledges benefiting the Clinton family and their foundation.

Rosatom acquired a majority stake in Uranium One in 2010 and bought the remainder of the company in 2013. Because Uranium One had holdings in American uranium mines, which at the time accounted for about 20 percent of America’s licensed uranium mining capacity, Rosatom’s 2010 purchase had to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. Such committee, known as CFIUS, is made up of officials from nine federal agencies, including the State Department. Other agencies represented on the committee include the departments of Treasury, Defense, Commerce, Energy, and Homeland Security and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

In April 2015, The New York Times published an article echoing much of the Schweizer book, including one item that not long after the Russians said they wanted to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, former president Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a speech in Moscow. The speech was paid for by a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin as it promoted Uranium One stock.

Canadian financier Frank Giustra, a top Clinton Foundation donor, sold his company, UrAsia, to Uranium One, which was chaired by Ian Telfer, also a Clinton Foundation donor. Giustra has said he sold his stake in the deal in 2007, while Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were vying for the Democratic presidential nomination.

According to Schweizer, who also serves as president of the Government Accountability Institute, the FBI, headed up by now special counsel Robert Mueller at the time, appears to have ignored evidence of Russian involvement in the uranium market when they approved the deal in 2010. “There was a megatons program that was designed to, in a sense, help the Russian nuclear industry transition from sort of military-based work to civilian work — a lot of detailed corruption that the FBI tracked in the 1990s and 2000s, so going up to the 2010 approval for Uranium One, it’s really impossible for senior FBI officials, including the director at the time — Mueller — to argue that they are just completely shocked that Uranium One and these kickbacks were taking place. It was widely known,” Schweizer told SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight co-hosts Rebecca Mansour and Joel Pollak last February.

The congressional testimony of “Uranium One whistleblower” William Douglas Campbell has led to the convictions of Russian executives tied to Rosatom in 2015 on bribery and money-laundering charges in connection to the Uranium One agreement. “This is a guy who was an FBI witness. It’s known that the Russians were paying him $50,000 a month to do work for them, and some of that work included, according to his job description, setting up meetings with high-level ranking U.S. officials. That’s all not in dispute,” Schweizer said of Campbell. “So this is a guy that certainly was there. The FBI found him credible. He got FBI executives thrown into jail, and they eventually pleaded guilty to a variety of charges, including bribery and kickbacks. So you can’t dismiss, as some Clinton defenders want to, this whistleblower as if he has no credibility because he was there.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


Published  1 week ago

(Natural News) A so-called “faith healer” from Brazil with millions of followers from around the world has reportedly surrendered himself to authorities following a lengthy investigation that exposed him as not only a fraud, but also a sexual predator and murderer who ran a “sex slave farm” where human babies were auctioned off to the highest bidders.

More than 600 women-and-counting have accused Joao Teixeira de Faria, also known as “John of God,” of sexually abusing them during his “healing” sessions – including his own daughter, Dalva Teixeira, who described him to the media as a “monster.”

Things began to unravel for John of God after a Dutch woman accused him on live television of sexually assaulting her. Others quickly followed her lead, revealing even darker things about the “psychic surgeon’s” many alleged malfeasances, including his active participation in baby trafficking and sex slavery of minors.

Brazilian activist Sabrina Bittencourt is the woman who’s being credited with leading law enforcement to draw John of God out of the woodwork prior to his arrest, revealing how young girls were captured and used as pregnancy machines to birth children that were later sold to couples around the world who could not bear children themselves.

DCDL Editor’s Note: Bittencourt was recently found dead in her home. The death was ruled suicide. Read about it here.

“In exchange for food, they were impregnated and their babies sold on the black market,” Bittencourt contends. “Hundreds of girls were enslaved over years, lived on farms in Goias, served as wombs to get pregnant, for their babies to be sold. These girls were murdered after 10 years of giving birth. We have got a number of testimonies.”

Oprah Winfrey, Bill Clinton, Paul Simon, and Naomi Campbell all tied to fake healer John of God

For more than 20 years, reports indicate, people have been flocking to see John of God – including daytime television celebrity Oprah Winfrey, who several years back dedicated an entire episode of her popular talk show to singing the praises of John of God’s alleged healing powers.

Oprah stated back in 2010 after visiting John of God that she nearly fainted during the “blissful” encounter. She also claims to have witnessed John of God cut into the breast of a woman without anesthesia and supposedly remove a tumor – an experience that she says left her feeling “an overwhelming sense of peace.”

Oprah has removed the show, entitled, “Leap of Faith: Meet John of God,” from her archives, and has since offered up a statement of support for those who were victimized by the charlatan that she publicly endorsed just a few years prior.

“I empathize with the women now coming forward and I hope justice is served,” Oprah is quoted as saying.

Other celebrities who are rumored to have been involved with John of God include sexual predator and former President Bill Clinton, as well as singer Paul Simon and supermodel Naomi Campbell.

Meanwhile, authorities are continuing to uncover the dirty details of John of God’s illicit racket, which further included selling “blessed” water and herbal pills that were later exposed as ordinary dietary supplements repackaged.

John of God reportedly made millions from these snake oil pills, as well as from the untold number of human babies he and his cronies sold on the black market for huge sums of cash.

“We have received reports from the adoptive mothers of their children that we sold for between £15,000 and £40,000 in Europe, USA and Australia, as well as testimony from ex-workers and local people who are tired of being complicit with John of God’s gang,” Bittencourt says.

“I ask that the embassies of Holland, USA and Australia demand an impeccable conduct from the Brazilian authorities.”

For more related news, be sure to check out and

Sources for this article include:

A Note From The Publisher: On January 17th I received another 30 day suspension from Facebook for sharing this article. The truth is a violation of community standards. We will keep publishing the truth, but please understand that we just lost a lot of traffic and I need you to help spread the word if we are to keep growing. I can't share anything on Facebook, but YOU can. Please do what you can to help. God Bless You, Dean Garrison

NBC News

Published  1 week ago

Freshman Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota — one of the first two Muslim women elected to Congress last fall — is accused of sending a string of "anti-Semitic" tweets regarding the Israeli lobby in the U.S.

Omar, a proponent of the BDS — Boycott, Divest and Sanctions — movement aimed at putting economic and political pressure on Israel over its treatment of Palestinians, first tweeted Sunday night that money was driving U.S. politicians to defend Israel.

She then tweeted that AIPAC — The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee — was paying politicians to support Israel.

Omar, a Somalian refugee, came under fire from some Democrats.

AIPAC, a non-profit that does not donate directly to candidates but works to promote a staunchly pro-Israel message in Washington, D.C., responded to Omar, tweeting that it is "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," the group's tweet continued. "We will not be deterred in any way by ill-informed and illegitimate attacks on this important work."

Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, tweeted that she would reach out to Omar's office on Monday to discuss "anti-Semitic tropes." Omar tweeted that she would be happy to chat with Clinton.

Omar was originally responding in her earliest tweet to criticism from House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy over her prior comments regarding Israel. McCarthy and other Republicans have called on Democratic leadership to "take action" regarding Omar and fellow Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, another recently elected Muslim woman, over their criticism of Israel. McCarthy compared it to Republicans having taken action regarding the racist remarks made by Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa.


Published  1 week ago

WASHINGTON, DC – Professor Jonathan Turley, a top national legal expert on government prosecutions, commented on Thursday about Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ decision to bring in U.S. Attorney John Huber, calling it "brilliant."

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 weeks ago

BELIEVE ALL WOMEN — OR MAYBE NOT? A second woman, Meridith Watson, accused Virginia Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax of rape on Friday. Ms. Watson’s attorney fired off a letter on Friday to the embattled Virginia Attorney General. The woman, Meredith Watson, claims she was raped by Fairfax in 2000 while they were students at Duke […]


Published  2 weeks ago

'Russian Collusion' by Saul Alinsky - Wayne Allyn Root: Do you know Saul Alinsky? He was the mentor of .02/09/2019 15:18:32PM EST.

Disobedient Media

Published  2 weeks ago

If the Department of Justice refuses to prosecute such crimes as detailed in the Awan scandal and as committed by Snipes, how can the public hope to hold their government accountable for election interference and other forms of corruption?


Published  2 weeks ago

Judges of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday overturned North Carolina’s 2013 elections law that included a provision requiring voters to show ID at the polls.

Conservative News Today

Published  2 weeks ago

It appears that there was plenty of collusion when it comes to allegations of Russian interference, it just doesn’t involve President Donald Trump. In what’s being dismissed as a coincidental crossing of paths, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the new chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, met with Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson last July at […]

Business Insider

Published  2 weeks ago

Candace Owens contended it's wrong to associate the word "nationalism" with Nazi leader Adolf Hitler.


Published  2 weeks ago

The American people should not take personally the chants of “death to America” frequently led by Iran’s mullah dictators, according the nation’s supreme leader.

The Ayatollah Ali Khamenei made the clarification on Friday at a gathering of Iranian Air Force officers marking the 40th anniversary of the nation’s Islamic revolution.

“‘Death to America’ means death to Trump, John Bolton and (Mike) Pompeo. It means death to American rulers,” he said, referring to the national security adviser and the secretary of state along with the president.

“As long as America continues its wickedness, the Iranian nation will not abandon ‘Death to America,'” he said.

Trump pulled out of Iran’s 2015 nuclear deal with world powers last year and re-imposed sanctions on Tehran, dealing a blow to the country’s economy.

Jihad Watch Director Robert Spencer pointed out that Iranian leaders chanted “Death to America” during the presidencies of Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

“But now it only means ‘Death to Trump,'” he said.

Spencer commented that it’s “worth remembering in this context that deception of unbelievers is an Islamic concept based on the Qur’an (3:28), but its theological elaboration as the concept of taqiyya is a specifically Shi’ite enterprise.”

“The Shi’ite Islamic regime in Tehran makes liberal use of deception,” he wrote.

National Review

Published  2 weeks ago

Mueller scours Team Trump for Russian collusion as Dems marinate in it.

the Guardian

Published  2 weeks ago

The former Michigan representative John Dingell, the longest-serving member of Congress in American history, has died. He was 92.

Congresswoman Debbie Dingell says her husband died at his Dearborn home on Thursday.

Dingell was dubbed “Big John” for his imposing 6ft 3in frame and sometimes intimidating manner. The Democrat was a master of legislative deal-making and a staunch advocate for the US auto industry.

John Dingell prepares to say goodbye – and airs his gripes with modern politics

Read more

Among the landmark laws he supported were Medicare, the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act.

Dingell was first elected in 1955, to fill the House seat vacated by his late father. The family tradition continued when his wife, Debbie, was elected to replace him in his Detroit-area district after he retired in 2014.

Bill Clinton once said that presidents come and go, but “John Dingell goes on forever”.

Zero Hedge

Published  2 weeks ago

Did Mueller's FBI commit "professional misconduct" in helping Epstein receive an unreasonably light sentence?

Big League Politics

Published  2 weeks ago

President Donald J. Trump made broadcast history on Tuesday night when his State of the Union Address pulled over 46 million viewers, something rarely achieved in American television.

President Trump’s second State of the Union Address reached nearly 47 million American viewers after the final numbers were tabulated by respected ratings group Nielsen, showing an increase over last year’s State of the Union Address and a massive uptick in viewers from President Barack Obama’s record low final State of the Union Address, which reached a mere 33 million viewers.

President Obama’s low viewership numbers are only mirrored by the final State of the Union Address delivered by President Bill Clinton, as he was embroiled in the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

According to Broadcasting Cable:

It was the biggest audience for a traditional address since 2010, when President Obama spoke to Congress. Bigger audiences saw the president speak in 2017 and 2009, but those speeches were officially called an Address to the Joint Sessions of Congress.

More people watched the State of the Union on Fox News Channel than any other single network. Fox News delivered 11.1 million people.

The broadcast networks had the next most viewers, with 7.1 million viewers on NBC, 6.7 million on CBS, 5.9 million on ABC and 5.9 million on Fox.

President Trump’s 46.8 million viewers surpassed the series finale of several iconic American shows from the 20th century, including The Cosby Show, All In The Family, Frasier, Dallas, Everybody Loves Raymond, and Star Trek: The Next Generation.

The majority of broadcast events to surpass President Trump’s viewership are broadcasts of various football games and several years’ Super Bowl, which is routinely the most watched annual broadcast, thus making President Trump’s State of the Union Address one of the only non-sporting events to capture such a large audience in American broadcast history.


Published  2 weeks ago

2ND UPDATE, 2:43 PM: Whatever the critics or political rivals say about his State of the Union speech, Donald Trump had a good night on Tuesday.

Breaking the tradition of declining viewership that usually afflicts Presidents this deep into their terms, the embattled ex-Celebrity Apprentice host snared an audience of 46.8 million.

Airing on ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, Telemundo, Univision, PBS, CNN, CNNe, FOX Business, FOX News Channel and MSNBC in the 9 – 10 PM ET slot, the third longest SOTU in history topped Trump’s first official address to Congress in 2018 by over 1 million viewers.

In a number that will also be important to the 45th POTUS, the address before the now Democrats’ dominated House of Representatives, the Senate and invited guests also beat Barack Obama’s second SOTU of January 25, 2011 by over 9%. That speech by the 44th POTUS was shown on the 11 outlets of ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, Telemundo, Univision, CNN, Centric, CNBC, FOXNC, and MSNBC.

PREVIOUSLY: UPDATED with early Nielsen numbers: Donald Trump never mentioned the unprecedented government shutdown nor the Democrats’ newly installed majority in the House of Representatives in his second official State of the Union address Tuesday night, but it sure felt like he talked about everything else.

At 82 minutes and with POTUS’ red tie askew, the primetime speech also received some unexpected applause from unexpected areas when white-suited female Democrats and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rose for Trump’s comments about the growing role of women in the workforce and in Congress.

Almost as long as Bill Clinton’s 2000 SOTU and two minutes more than his own 2018 address, last night’s speech saw the former Celebrity Apprentice host hold pretty tight to the teleprompter like last year as he hailed the economy and insisted the state of the union is strong.

What was also strong was the audience at home for a President well known to be obsessed with ratings. Fox News Channel topped all networks covering the speech for a second year in a row, drawing 11.1 million viewers and 2.8 million in the key adults 25-54 news demo from 9-10:30 PM ET in early Nielsen numbers. That topped No. 2 NBC, which drew 7.1M viewers and 2.6 million in the demo. That outpaced fellow broadcast net CBS, which had been leading among the Big 4 in the early metered markets.

Fox News led its cable rivals in primetime (8-11 PM ET) too, with 8.5M viewers and 2.02M adults 25-54; MSNBC was a distant second in viewers, while CNN was second in the demo. During the 9-10:30 time slot, MSNBC delivered 3.8M viewers and 798,000 in the demo, and CNN 3.4M and 1.2 million in the demo.

Coverage of Stacey Abrams’ Democratic response following the address was also paced by Fox News, with 6.4 million viewers and 1.6 million in adults 25-54. MSNBC and CBS followed with 4.7 million viewers apiece, with the latter edging the former in demo viewers (1.4M-1.1M).

With individual rises for all of the Big 4, last night’s SOTU was up overall more than 10% in the early metrics from Trump’s official inaugural address to the House members and the Senate of January 30 last year. It’s a rare feat for any President this deep into his term, the rise also shows that Trump will eclipse not only his own first SOTU and his 2017 address to Congress but also the second SOTU of his predecessor Barack Obama.

Over 11 outlets, the 44th POTUS pulled in 30.9 million for his January 25, 2011 speech – a number Trump looks likely to beat with ease when the final numbers come in later today.

Speaking of final numbers, Trump’s first SOTU last year ended up snaring 45.6 million viewers watching on ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, Univision, PBS, Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, FBN, NBC Universo and Estrella.

With that, as always, we’ll update with more SOTU numbers as we get them.

UPDATE, 8:37 AM: As more and more responses to Donald Trump’s second State of the Union speech trickle in this morning, more ratings are also being delivered.

Now, fast affiliate numbers from Nielsen are almost always subject to significant change in live events like major league sports, Hollywood awards ceremonies and SOTUs. Which means the real solid results, including ratings from the cable newers and the eventual total audience figure, will come later.

However, as it is right now, POTUS seems to have certainly bested himself with what is now the third longest SOTU ever.

Between 9 – 11 PM ET, the address to Congress and subsequent pundit and political response on top rated NBC (1.4/7), Fox (1.1/5), CBS (1.0/5) and ABC (0.9/4) has pulled in around 20.4 million viewers. At least in sets of eyeballs that’s a bop up of 3% over the 2018 State of the Union address, Trump’s first one officially.

Looking back at Trump’s first official SOTU, the two-minute longer 2019 version was up 2.3% overall among adults 18-49 on the Big Four compared to 2018.

As for the rest of the small screen night, NBC’s pre-SOTU offering of Ellen’s Game of Games (1.4/7) slipped 13% in the key demo from last week to a season low. ABC’s American Housewife (0.8/4) and The Kids Are Alright (0.8/4) were pretty much the same as their last originals among the 18-49’s, but the demo season low hitting former rose to a season viewership high of 4.7 million. Not showing Trump’s speech, the CW saw The Flash (0.7/3) speed ahead a tenth from its January 29 show. Follow up Roswell, New Mexico (0.4/1) was also up a tenth from last week.

DC Dirty Laundry

Published  2 weeks ago

This 6-year-old boy needs our help!

MAGA Daily Report

Published  2 weeks ago

This is just stunning and shows you exactly what is wrong with the Democratic party. They are lemmings and you must toe the party line or else.

The sad thing is they demand this fealty even when the party line is wrong, wrong for them and wrong for the country.

But off they go, heading over the cliff unaware of what they do. From The Gateway Pundit:

A video clip from President Trump’s State of the Union address Tuesday night shows Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) appearing to give a profane warning to Sen. Krysten Sinema (D-AZ) for giving Trump a standing ovation during his speech as he spoke about the passage of Right to Try legislation last year.

Sinema was already out of step, having worn a pink dress rather than the white protest message attire worn by Rosen (on Sinema’s right with her arm in a sling) Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and dozens of other Democrat women at Trump’s speech to a Joint Session of Congress.

In the clip, Sinema is seen standing and applauding Trump while all her fellow Democrats near her sit stone-faced and not applauding.

Rosen slowly stands up right next to Sinema and with a sideways glance appears to mutter, “Watch your ass”, at Sinema, then sternly looks away. Sinema acknowledges Rosen with a defiant nod and stays standing. Sinema and Rosen are both freshmen senators having been elected last November.

The line Sinema gave a standing ovation to Trump was, “And to give critically ill patients access to lifesaving cures, we passed, very importantly, Right to Try.”

She's like that out of control new friend in the group that hasn't learned the rules yet.

— MAGA MICHELLE AGGRESSIVELY SMIRKING (@Trump454545) February 6, 2019

There’s so much we agree on as Americans. We must cut red tape for businesses, grow jobs, and work together to bridge manufactured partisan divides. I’ll continue to stand up for #AZ against this unnecessary trade war and keep working with anyone to get results for Arizona.

— Kyrsten Sinema (@SenatorSinema) February 6, 2019

Newt Gingrich echoed the Senator from Arizona writing for Fox:

Every once in a while a speech is so effective and powerful it changes the trajectory of history.

President Trump’s 2019 State of the Union address was that kind of speech.

If you have not seen it, you should watch it online. Reading it will only convey 10 percent of its power. It was the interaction of the president with the members of Congress and the audience in the galleries that was so compelling.

As a former Speaker of the House who had to stand and applaud President Bill Clinton when he said, “The era of big government is over,” I knew exactly what was going on in Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s mind. She had to sit and be pleasant while her major opponent got her own party to repeatedly stand with enthusiastic applause. She had to listen politely to the person she spends every day attacking. The vice president is always a happy and a solid cheerleader. When I was Speaker, Al Gore would sit next to me and enthusiastically applaud everything President Clinton said. Last night, Mike Pence was cheerfully standing and applauding as often as possible. Having the opposition party’s top cheerleader sit next to you just makes the Speaker’s job harder.

Speaker Pelosi at times could not help herself. She would conspicuously pick up the speech text and read it to find out how much longer she had to remain disciplined and pretend to be a good hostess (the president is the guest of the House). When even her most radical new members began standing and applauding, she must have experienced a bit of despair.

I knew the speech would become historic when, even before it ended, I saw a tweet from Jerry Falwell Jr. proclaiming, “Best State of the Union speech in my lifetime delivered by the best @POTUS since George Washington and it’s not even over yet! God bless @realDonaldTrump!”

Fox News

Published  2 weeks ago

Tuesday night the president clearly laid out a vision of compromise, cordiality and working together. He highlighted areas of commonality with Democrats

CNS News

Published  2 weeks ago

Crying "hate" is a lazy way to debate. But in the Beltway, where honest discussion and vigorous deliberation are desperately needed, the rhetorical sloth is so thick you need a Big Foot circular saw to cut it.

Take Minnesota Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar, who thrust a Liberian immigrant, Linda Clark, into the limelight as her State of the Union special guest and poster child. "She has lived here over 18 years," Rep. Omar lamented, "and there's no reason she should be taken from her family." Ahead of the annual address to Congress on Tuesday, Rep. Omar blasted President Donald Trump for "threatening to deport" Clark and "thousands of Liberians for no reason other than hate."

Clark in turn echoed her radical host's heated rhetoric, calling White House efforts to reform the Temporary Protected Status and Deferred Enforced Departure programs "hateful" and castigating Trump "for deliberately targeting people like me."

Sigh. This is why the White House cannot deal in good faith with the unreasonable party of "abolish ICE!" "no walls!" "amnesty for all!" and "deportation equals hate!" The Democrats have weaponized America's grace against itself.

There is a very simple reason that Omar's SOTU guest and hundreds of thousands like her from 10 different countries have been threatened with deportation. They were allowed to enter, stay and work here because of the extraordinary generosity of the United States of America. And now, after decades of our government's largesse, their time is finally up.

The Temporary Protected Status and Deferred Enforced Departure programs were established as part of the Immigration Act of 1990, signed by President George H.W. Bush. (News flash: Bush was a Republican, but the Resistance smear merchants never let such facts get in the way of their hate hyperbole.) The idea was to create an orderly way to deal compassionately with foreigners who could not return to their home countries due to natural disasters, hurricanes, environmental catastrophes, civil war, epidemics and other "extraordinary and temporary conditions."

An estimated 250,000 illegal immigrants from El Salvador first won TPS golden tickets after an earthquake struck the country in January 2001. In addition, 60,000 illegal immigrant Haitians received TPS after earthquakes in their homeland in 2010. An estimated 90,000 illegal immigrant Hondurans and Nicaraguans have been here since 1998 — when Hurricane Mitch hit their homeland. Several hundred Somalis remain in the country with TPS first granted in 1991, along with some 700 Sudanese who first secured TPS benefits in 1997.

TPS designees won three-year renewable passes to live and work here, travel freely and enjoy immunity from detention or deportation. Participants were originally required to provide proof that they arrived here on an eligible date, committed no more than two misdemeanors and no felonies and maintained a continuous presence in the country. But the programs are dangerously rife with unchecked document fraud, including unknown numbers of TPS winners who have used multiple aliases and faked their country of origin to qualify.

And without a fully functioning biometric entry-exit database in place to track temporary foreign visitors, there's no way to track all the TPS enrollees.

As I've reported repeatedly over the past quarter-century, these "temporary" amnesties have become endless, interminable residency plans for unlawful border crossers, visa overstayers and deportation evaders from around the world. They are not, and never were, entitled to be here. Entry into our country is a privilege, not a right. That's not "hateful." It's the stance that every modern, industrialized sovereign nation takes toward noncitizens.

Trump is the first commander in chief to challenge the temporary-in-name-only farce since the creation of the program. At least 3,700 Liberians like Clark have been here since 1991 on TPS because of civil wars that ended 16 years ago. President Bill Clinton first ordered Deferred Enforced Departure (discretionary deportation delays) for this group in 1999, arguing that the country was still unstable. Nineteen years later, after multiple extensions by Presidents Bush and Obama, Trump finally determined that it was safe for these guests to return to their homeland.

But instead of thanks and farewell, the beneficiaries of our country's humanitarian TPS and DED policies like Linda Clark and their Democratic enablers like Rep. Omar are clinging bitterly and hurling invectives at leaders who take our laws and borders seriously. The disgruntled "victims" have an army of ACLU lawyers helping them sue to avoid deportation and a phalanx of open borders journalists to drum up public sympathy for their plights. Next week, they'll be marching on Washington, pounding their drums and shaking their fists as they demand green cards and citizenship.

What other nation in the world has been so foolishly tolerant of so many foreign ingrates and agitators overstaying their welcome? If President Trump can't pull the plug on this interminable charade, no one can. Once again, my old adage will prove true: There is no such thing as a "temporary" amnesty.

Michelle Malkin's email address is

Please support CNSNews today! [a 501(c)(3) non-profit production of the Media Research Center]

Or, book travel through MRC’s Travel Discounts Program! MRC receives a rebate for each booking when you use our special codes.


Fox News

Published  2 weeks ago

Every once in a while a speech is so effective and powerful it changes the trajectory of history. President Trump’s 2019 State of the Union address was that kind of speech.

Published  2 weeks ago

It’s time for ingrates to go

Creators Syndicate

Crying “hate” is a lazy way to debate. But in the Beltway, where honest discussion and vigorous deliberation are desperately needed, the rhetorical sloth is so thick you need a Big Foot circular saw to cut it.

Take Minnesota Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar, who thrust a Liberian immigrant, Linda Clark, into the limelight as her State of the Union special guest and poster child. “She has lived here over 18 years,” Rep. Omar lamented, “and there’s no reason she should be taken from her family.” Ahead of the annual address to Congress on Tuesday, Rep. Omar blasted President Donald Trump for “threatening to deport” Clark and “thousands of Liberians for no reason other than hate.”

Clark in turn echoed her radical host’s heated rhetoric, calling White House efforts to reform the Temporary Protected Status and Deferred Enforced Departure programs “hateful” and castigating Trump “for deliberately targeting people like me.”

Sigh. This is why the White House cannot deal in good faith with the unreasonable party of “abolish ICE!” “no walls!” “amnesty for all!” and “deportation equals hate!” The Democrats have weaponized America’s grace against itself.

There is a very simple reason that Omar’s SOTU guest and hundreds of thousands like her from 10 different countries have been threatened with deportation. They were allowed to enter, stay and work here because of the extraordinary generosity of the United States of America. And now, after decades of our government’s largesse, their time is finally up.

The Temporary Protected Status and Deferred Enforced Departure programs were established as part of the Immigration Act of 1990, signed by President George H.W. Bush. (News flash: Bush was a Republican, but the Resistance smear merchants never let such facts get in the way of their hate hyperbole.) The idea was to create an orderly way to deal compassionately with foreigners who could not return to their home countries due to natural disasters, hurricanes, environmental catastrophes, civil war, epidemics and other “extraordinary and temporary conditions.”

An estimated 250,000 illegal immigrants from El Salvador first won TPS golden tickets after an earthquake struck the country in January 2001. In addition, 60,000 illegal immigrant Haitians received TPS after earthquakes in their homeland in 2010. An estimated 90,000 illegal immigrant Hondurans and Nicaraguans have been here since 1998 — when Hurricane Mitch hit their homeland. Several hundred Somalis remain in the country with TPS first granted in 1991, along with some 700 Sudanese who first secured TPS benefits in 1997.

TPS designees won three-year renewable passes to live and work here, travel freely and enjoy immunity from detention or deportation. Participants were originally required to provide proof that they arrived here on an eligible date, committed no more than two misdemeanors and no felonies and maintained a continuous presence in the country. But the programs are dangerously rife with unchecked document fraud, including unknown numbers of TPS winners who have used multiple aliases and faked their country of origin to qualify.

And without a fully functioning biometric entry-exit database in place to track temporary foreign visitors, there’s no way to track all the TPS enrollees.

As I’ve reported repeatedly over the past quarter-century, these “temporary” amnesties have become endless, interminable residency plans for unlawful border crossers, visa overstayers and deportation evaders from around the world. They are not, and never were, entitled to be here. Entry into our country is a privilege, not a right. That’s not “hateful.” It’s the stance that every modern, industrialized sovereign nation takes toward noncitizens.

Trump is the first commander in chief to challenge the temporary-in-name-only farce since the creation of the program. At least 3,700 Liberians like Clark have been here since 1991 on TPS because of civil wars that ended 16 years ago. President Bill Clinton first ordered Deferred Enforced Departure (discretionary deportation delays) for this group in 1999, arguing that the country was still unstable. Nineteen years later, after multiple extensions by Presidents Bush and Obama, Trump finally determined that it was safe for these guests to return to their homeland.

But instead of thanks and farewell, the beneficiaries of our country’s humanitarian TPS and DED policies like Linda Clark and their Democratic enablers like Rep. Omar are clinging bitterly and hurling invectives at leaders who take our laws and borders seriously. The disgruntled “victims” have an army of ACLU lawyers helping them sue to avoid deportation and a phalanx of open borders journalists to drum up public sympathy for their plights. Next week, they’ll be marching on Washington, pounding their drums and shaking their fists as they demand green cards and citizenship.

What other nation in the world has been so foolishly tolerant of so many foreign ingrates and agitators overstaying their welcome? If President Trump can’t pull the plug on this interminable charade, no one can. Once again, my old adage will prove true: There is no such thing as a “temporary” amnesty.

The Daily Beast

Published  2 weeks ago

Photo Illustration by Lyne Lucien/The Daily Beast

The Department of Justice announced Wednesday that it has opened an investigation into convicted sex offender and billionaire Jeffrey Epstein’s sweetheart plea deal, and whether department lawyers may have “committed professional misconduct” during his prosecution.

Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd revealed that the agency’s Office of Personal Responsibility is conducting the probe in a letter to Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE), who raised “significant concerns” after a bombshell investigative report by The Miami Herald unearthed new details about Epstein’s lenient plea agreement.

“OPR has now opened an investigation into allegations that Department attorneys may have committed professional misconduct in the manner in which the Epstein criminal matter was resolved,’’ Boyd said, noting that the results of the investigation will be shared with Sasse, who is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The Miami Herald report detailed how Epstein—who has been accused of molesting more than 100 underage girls in Palm Beach, Florida—was granted a plea deal by now Secretary of Labor Alex Acosta and other DOJ attorneys.

Sasse’s demand for an investigation was echoed by 14 lawmakers from across the aisle, who wrote a similar letter in December urging the DOJ inspector general to open a probe.

“Jeffrey Epstein is a child rapist and there’s not a single mom or dad in America who shouldn’t be horrified by the fact that he received a pathetically soft sentence,” Sasse said in a press release Wednesday. “The victims of Epstein’s child sex trafficking ring deserve this investigation—and so do the American people and the members of law enforcement who work to put these kinds of monsters behind bars.”

Buckling under the pressure of Epstein’s defense lawyers, including Sexgate prosecutor Ken Starr and celebrity attorney Alan Dershowitz, the 2008 plea deal was secretly constructed by Acosta, then Miami’s top federal prosecutor, and other attorneys unbeknownst to the billionaire’s alleged victims, the Herald investigation found.

The non-prosecution deal effectively buried dozens of allegations of sexual abuse at his Palm Beach mansion, and dismissed claims that the Epstein ran a sex pyramid scheme from his home.

Instead of facing life in prison for the sex-trafficking charges, Epstein, 66, only pleaded guilty to two minor charges of solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors for prostitution.

The politically connected billionaire, who has counted Donald Trump and Bill Clinton among his famous friends, ultimately served 13 months of an 18-month sentence in the private wing of a Palm Beach county jail and was permitted to leave six days a week, for 16 hours each day, for “work release,” as previously reported by The Daily Beast.

The Labor Department did not immediately respond to The Daily Beast’s request for comment.

Virginia Roberts, who was a 16-year-old working at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort when she was allegedly approached by Epstein, told The Daily Beast Wednesday the probe is “wonderful but a little too late.”

“I’m glad that people are finally listening and taking action to the horrible things Jeffrey Epstein did,” Roberts, who alleges Epstein began instructing her on how to perform oral sex before sending her to a private island to have sex with his associates.

“Unfortunately, until we finally get our day in court, the victims have not received justice. We just want to be able to tell our story and find closure.”

Hot Air

Published  2 weeks ago

By now, those of you following the Democratic clown car derby for the 2020 nomination have probably heard about former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown’s admission that he had “dated” Senator Kamala Harris some years ago and “may have” helped advance her career. Aside from the fact that he was married at the time, this probably doesn’t come as a shock to most of you, nor does it sound like a particularly unique story. Such things happen all the time.

See Also: Trump to Bernie, AOC: Let us renew our resolve to never be a socialist country

But even if it didn’t strike me as a particularly newsworthy headline in the larger scheme of things, I don’t fault anyone in the media who decided to cover it. Not everyone was quite so sanguine about the coverage, however. Washington Post style columnist Monica Hesse has decided to take up the banner and decry such stories as incidents of “unique harm we cause” when examining the “love life” of a powerful woman.

Is this just politics as usual? Is this just politics for women? Politics for men and women who knew Willie Brown — whose career was dogged by accusations of patronage?

Plenty of us have, after all, spent an awful lot of time discussing Bill Clinton’s willie and Anthony Weiner’s wiener: it’s not that we don’t talk about the sexual predilections of male candidates.

But we do talk about them in a different way. We talk about men abusing power. We talk about women not even deserving power. The distinction matters, because the conversation isn’t really about sex, it’s about legitimacy. It’s about who we think has earned the right to be successful, and what criteria we’ll invent, and who we’ll apply it to.

“Maybe we should stop accusing women of ‘sleeping their way’ to the top,” Erin Gloria Ryan wrote in the Daily Beast in 2017. “Maybe because men have been the ones sleeping women to the middle and bottom.”

In other words, talking about a male politician’s affairs is fair game because it gives us a chance to ask whether or not they are abusing their power. Stories about the love lives of female candidates, however, do nothing but reinforce gender stereotypes and needlessly tarnish their reputations… or something.

Not for nothing, but shouldn’t the sword swing in both directions equally on such things? Either the private relationships of candidates are valid topics for voters to consider or they aren’t. The media can serve up the stories and the public can digest them or reject them as they choose. When you add in the aspect of marital infidelity you probably broaden the audience for such fare because it brings character into the equation.

Not for nothing, but a quick scan through the WaPo style editor’s story archive shows that she’s never been shy about hitting this subject. Hesse has penned plenty of columns on Bill Clinton. She even delved into the infidelity of Peter Strzok and his “girlfriend.”

Personally, I’m far more alarmed by Kamala Harris’ tax and spending proposals than her decision as a younger woman to enter into an affair with an influential, married politician who was thirty years her senior. Your mileage may vary. The point here is that neither Harris nor Brown are denying that the story is true and Harris is now running for president. That makes the story “news” to at least some degree. (As opposed to fake news.) If voters find that these facts bother them they are free to act on the revelation.

Pushing to squelch such stories simply because the subject lacks a Y chromosome isn’t journalism. It’s simply more proof that too many media figures decry double standards unless the double standard in question works in their favor. And ignoring this story while saying it’s perfectly fine to discuss the sexual relationships of men is indeed a double standard.

Fox News

Published  2 weeks ago

The single biggest political development of recent days has barely made news: Hillary Clinton’s ­political career is over, kaput, ­finished.

AP News

Published  2 weeks ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Facing clear political peril, President Donald Trump will deliver his second State of the Union address at a moment when his bully pulpit is uncertain and his negotiating skills in question after a monthlong government shutdown that exposed fractures in his party and sent his poll numbers tumbling. Trump hopes to use his Tuesday speech to reset his agenda and begin to gear up for his 2020 re-election campaign. But even as the president promises a theme of unity, his performance is likely to draw cheers from one side of the deeply divided Congress and stony silence from the other.

National Review

Published  2 weeks ago

When it comes to sexual-misconduct claims against public officials, the same standard should be applied to everyone. We must reject slogans like #believewomen and instead grant the accused a presumption of innocence. However, that’s not the same thing as saying that accusers have to prove their claims beyond a reasonable doubt. Because we should hold public officials to a high standard of behavior — and because their liberty isn’t at risk — I’ve argued that we should ask a different question: “Is it more likely than not that the allegation is true?”

Applying that standard (and weighing the relevant evidence), I think it’s more likely than not that Bill Clinton is a rapist, Donald Trump is a sexual harasser, and Roy Moore engaged in sexual misconduct with underage teens. I do not believe, however, that Brett Kavanaugh is guilty of the allegations against him. Indeed, Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations are so far from “more likely than not” that competent litigators wouldn’t dream of taking the claims against him to civil court. To this day, those allegations are wholly uncorroborated and riddled with inconsistencies. Ford’s witnesses can’t even place Kavanaugh and Ford together at the party in question — much less in the same bedroom — and Ford’s testimony has been inconsistent on such matters as her age at the time of the attack, the number of witnesses, and even the number of attackers. Moreover, Ford deliberately withheld from the public evidence that was relevant to her claims, including her therapists’ notes and complete polygraph records.

But that hasn’t stopped a host of men and women on the Left from firmly believing that Kavanaugh is guilty, guilty, guilty. I wonder . . . How will these same individuals will view the sexual-misconduct allegations against Virginia’s Democratic lieutenant governor, Justin Fairfax? So far, they seem more solid than the claims against Kavanaugh.

In the Washington Post article linked above, we learn that the Post investigated the accuser’s claims against Fairfax “for several months.” (The Post also knew of Ford’s claims before they leaked). Fairfax and his accuser allegedly had a sexual encounter at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Here’s how the Post describes the claims:

During a conversation, the two realized they had a mutual friend. It was that commonality, she recalled, that put her at ease enough that on the afternoon Fairfax asked her to walk with him to his hotel room to pick up some papers, she thought nothing of joining him.

Fairfax and the woman told different versions of what happened in the hotel room with no one else present. The Washington Post could not find anyone who could corroborate either version. The Post did not find “significant red flags and inconsistencies within the allegations,” as the Fairfax statement incorrectly said.

The woman described a sexual encounter that began with consensual kissing and ended with a forced act that left her crying and shaken. She said Fairfax guided her to the bed, where they continued kissing, and then at one point she realized she could not move her neck. She said Fairfax used his strength to force her to perform oral sex.

The Washington Post, in phone calls to people who knew Fairfax from college, law school and through political circles, found no similar complaints of sexual misconduct against him. Without that, or the ability to corroborate the woman’s account — in part because she had not told anyone what happened — The Washington Post did not run a story.

While some folks are dunking on the Post for running with the Kavanaugh claims, the indictment isn’t entirely fair. The Post ran both claims only after their existence was widely known. It then provided the details it had. I’m much more interested in the coming response to those claims. Yes, a Supreme Court justice is more prominent and powerful than the Virginia lieutenant governor (so there would be more interest in the claims against Kavanaugh), but prominence is irrelevant to veracity, and on that score the claims against Fairfax are already more solid than any claim against Kavanaugh.

The Fairfax accuser came forward far sooner than Ford, she identified the specific time and place of the attack, the accused agreed that he was with the accuser at that time and place, there was an admitted sexual encounter, and — according to the Post — the paper “did not find significant red flags and inconsistencies” in her claims. Indeed, by making that statement, the Washington Post already contested a key Fairfax defense:

Based on the obvious problems and inconsistencies with even the first version of Ford’s claims, I expressed skepticism from the outset. But given that there was reportedly an admitted sexual encounter between the accuser and Fairfax, aren’t there at the very least grounds for serious concern? Based on the available evidence (and without seeing any person tested by cross-examination), it’s far too premature to say that it’s more likely than not that Fairfax is guilty or to demand his resignation. It’s not too premature to wonder, however, whether “believe women” or “believe survivors” will apply with equal ferocity to more credible claims against a promising young Democrat.


Published  2 weeks ago

For decades, researchers and immigration experts alike have warned of the negative impact immigration has on the African-American community.

Published  2 weeks ago

The Democrats are off to a very, very bad start to the New Year.

The Democrats started off 2019 by shutting down the government over House Speaker Nancy Pelosi(D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) refusal secure our nation from unvetted foreign invaders by funding a wall on our southern border. In doing so, the Democrat leadership in Congress revealed their allegiance to illegal aliens (potential voters) over the safety and security of American citizens. They also revealed that they will do anything to stand in the way of Trump taking credit for building a border wall, all but ensuring he’ll be re-elected in 2020.

On Jan 23, the loudmouth Democrat Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (TX) stepped down as chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation and as chair of a congressional subcommittee amid allegations, she retaliated against a former staffer who claimed she was raped by the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation supervisor, Damien Jones.

Only one day after Virginia’s Democrat Governor Ralph Northam publicly announced that he would be okay with babies being killed after they were born, it was discovered that the Democrat governor from Virginia also thinks it’s okay to dress in blackface or wear a KKK hood, Northam’s personal page in his medical school yearbook revealed shocking photos.

Trending: TEXAS REP LETS PELOSI HAVE IT: “Explain to the people…why we’re not securing the border” [Video]

Now, it’s been discovered that Chuck Schumer’s top aide, Matt House is on his way out for having inappropriate relations with junior staffers, the same behavior that got Democrat President Bill Clinton impeached, after he lied to a grand jury about having sex with a young intern in the Oval Office.

According to the Huffington Post -Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s longtime communications director Matt House announced he was leaving just after November’s midterm elections, the news was met with widespread bipartisan praise for House and his reputation for fairness. But some of House’s Senate colleagues were surprised to learn of his departure, given that he did not have a high-profile job lined up and that Democrats could regain control of the Senate in 2020.

House’s departure, however, was not voluntary. HuffPost has learned, through two sources with knowledge of the situation, that House was pushed out for allegedly having inappropriate sexual encounters with junior staffers, ending what was a nearly six-year tenure as communications director for the New York Democrat. The sources spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak to a reporter about the allegations.

Upon learning that he had inappropriate encounters within the office and that it was making some staff uncomfortable, he was asked to leave.

I absolutely loved my time working in the Senate and it was the honor of my life. I deeply regret the mistakes I made on the number of occasions when I had too much to drink, and I apologize to anyone who was affected by my behavior. I have always respected all of my colleagues and I was horrified to learn that I made anyone feel uncomfortable. In the past three months, I’ve stopped drinking and I’ve committed to making myself a better colleague and person.

The Sun

Published  2 weeks ago

AN ACTIVIST whose claims led to the “rape” arrest of a celebrity healer called John of God has taken her own life at her hideaway in Spain. Sex abuse support group Victimas Unidas, whic…

Mail Online

Published  2 weeks ago

Sabrina Bittencourt (pictured), 38, died at her home in Barcelona just days after accusing Brazilian faith healer John of God - real name Joao Teixeira de Faria - of running a 'sex slave farm'.

Daily Commercial

Published  2 weeks ago

Most every election in the past 50 years, Democrats attempt to play the race card. The race card and victim politics is a key part of the election playbook for Democrats throughout America. It is therefore puzzling that one of the biggest Democratic heroes in the U.S. Senate was Robert C. Byrd from West Virginia, who not only was in the Ku Klux Klan but presided over the Council of the Centaurs as Exalted Cyclops when he was in his mid-20s. During the time that Byrd played a leadership role in the Klan, the KKK was both anti-black and anti-Jewish.

Sen. Byrd served in the U.S. Senate from 1958 to 2010 and fought against integration, the 1964 Civil Rights bill and blocked the nomination of a black judge nominee, James E. Shetfield, put forth by former President Jimmy Carter. Yet I cannot find any stinging rebuke from Democrats of Sen. Byrd’s past Klan affiliations and anti-civil rights positions. In fact, Hillary Clinton heaped praise on Sen. Byrd following his death in 2010 stating: “Today our country has lost a true American original, my friend and mentor Robert C. Byrd.” Try to imagine any Republican senator with a Klan background escaping massive, withering criticism from the Democrats and media. Ironically, when Byrd died almost all liberal media outlets glossed over Byrd’s Klan background and anti-civil rights positions. It’s true that later in life he stated that he regretted being part of the Klan, but that was acknowledged towards the end of his political career.

So why are any of Sen. Byrd’s past racial positions relevant to today’s news? Because in the aftermath of the recent march and riots in Charlottesville, VA., there has been a nonstop onslaught by Democrats and liberal media sources desperately trying to link the Charlottesville marchers (KKK, neo-Nazis and white supremacists) with Republicans and President Trump. Personally, I cannot think of many more despicable organizations than the KKK, neo-Nazi’s and white supremacists, but as detestable as they are they still have a right to march (backed by a federal judge) and express their outrageous views without violence initiated either by the marchers or those who came to oppose the marchers. Some, on both sides, came to either march or protest and some came for physical confrontation. Apparently the anti-Klan protestors’ knowledge of history did not include the memories of the Klan leadership of Sen. Byrd or the staunch segregationist views of Democrat Sen. Albert Gore Sr., father of Al Gore Jr. — the vice president under Bill Clinton.

Aging gives a person a greater perspective of history. During the Civil Rights movement, unlike some Democratic governors and mayors, I don’t remember one Republican governor trying to physically stop the integration of their schools. I don’t recall one Republican mayor allowing their local police forces to unleash dogs or fire hoses on peaceful civil rights protest marches. And my knowledge of the Klan clearly showed that the KKK predominantly arose and flourished in areas of our country almost totally dominated by elected Democrats at the local and state level. Even the civil rights legislation passed in 1964 was filibustered by Democratic senators and would not have passed without key Republican support. In fact, President Lyndon Johnson praised Republicans for their “overwhelming majority” of support.

Civil rights leader Andrew Young stated in his book, “An Easy Burden,” “The southern segregationists were all Democrats, and it was black Republicans appointed by Pres. Dwight Eisenhower,” Young acknowledged. “These judges are among the many unsung heroes of the Civil Rights movement.”

For Democrats to try to play the race card against the Republicans blatantly ignores their own extensive KKK history. Selective amnesia by today’s Democrats may work on those too young to have experienced past racial strife and history. I’m not that young and I did see all of this history unfold.

News Punch

Published  2 weeks ago

The woman who outed Bill Clinton’s faith healer as the leader of a child sex ring has been found dead amid a total media blackout.

‘John of God’ is a Brazilian cult leader who appeared on Oprah and boasted Bill Clinton and a number of other celebrities as clients.

Two months ago, he was arrested for mass murder, running a child sex ring and human trafficking.

According to local Brazilian reports, Sabrina Bittencourt, the activist who initially unmasked John of God, turned up dead over the weekend. The story is nowhere in the english-speaking press yet.

From (translated from Spanish):

The death of Bittencourt, who was 38 years old, was confirmed in a note by Maria do Carmo Santos, president of the NGO Victims United.

“The group Victims United reports with regret the death of Sabrina de Campos Bittencourt occurred around 9 pm this Saturday, February 2, in the city of Barcelona, ​​Spain, where he lived. The activist committed suicide and left a farewell letter stating the reasons for taking her own life. We urge everyone not to try to get in touch with any family member, to keep them from asking questions that are painful at this difficult time. Two of Sabrina’s three children still do not know what happened, and her father, Rafael Velasco, is trying to protect them. Sabrina’s fight will never be forgotten and we will continue, with the same force, defending minorities, especially women who are daily victims of machismo. “

Before committing suicide, Bittencourt wrote a farewell post on Facebook: “Marielle I join you. I did what I could, as far as I could. My love will be eternal for all of you. Sorry to not bear it, my children. “

Born into a Mormon family, the activist has been abused since the age of four by members of the family’s church. At 16, she became pregnant with one of the rapists and aborted. Bittencourt dedicated his life to military by victims of abuse and to unmasking religious leaders, among them Prem Baba and John of God .

Last December, the activist gave an interview to Fred Melo Paiva, editor of CartaCapital, in which she recounts her life story and her role in the denunciations of religious leaders who commit abuse. She promised to unmask 13 more leaders this year.

Conservative News Today

Published  2 weeks ago

  President Donald Trump adeptly deflected accusations from CBS on Sunday that his presidency has harmed race relations, telling “Face the Nation” host Margaret Brennan that the impressive economic gains being enjoyed by minorities across the nation point to “something very special” happening. “What has happened is very interesting. The economy is so good right now. You […]


Published  2 weeks ago

Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus have played many rounds of golf together. On Saturday, the two were joined by No. 45 – or by President Trump.

The three played together Saturday at Trump National Jupiter in Florida, according to the White House press pool.

Trump himself tweeted out a photo confirming the pairing.

Woods also played with President Obama while he was in office and Presidents Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush. Tiger has said he’s known Trump for years and the two played together before the president took office.

Tiger and the president were joined by Dustin Johnson for a round in Jupiter in November 2017. At the time, DJ was ranked No. 1 in the world.

The winner of 14 major championships has avoided giving his opinion on Trump’s politics. Last August at the Northern Trust he was asked about Trump’s policies on immigration.

“He’s the President of the United States,” Woods said. “You have to respect the office. No matter who is in the office, you may like, dislike personality or the politics, but we all must respect the office.”

Woods will return to competition in two weeks at the Genesis Open, a tournament he hosts at Riviera Country Club in Los Angeles.

Mail Online

Published  3 weeks ago

Joao Teixeira de Faria, 77, known as John of God, was arrested last month following abuse claims at his spiritual centre in Brazil. He allegedly impregnated girls and then sold their babies.


Published  3 weeks ago

As a prosecutor, she pioneered the fight against online sex harassment. Then she overreached. Is she a savior, or a threat to the First Amendment?


Published  3 weeks ago

The�latest push from Democrats, perhaps emboldened by winning the House last November, is to make abortion

News Punch

Published  3 weeks ago

Police have arrested Bill Clinton's faith healer for running Brazil's largest ever child sex ring.

American Greatness

Published  3 weeks ago

President Bill Clinton in 1996 told Americans abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” That was then. Now the cult of death, pro-abortion movement has taken over the Democratic Party whole-cloth, and the result is the infanticidal law passed in New York on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Now the party line has shifted to abortion on demand, paid for by taxpayers, at any time, even up until moments before birth: witness what just took place in New York state. The Empire State no more; New York is now the Abortion State.

The laws just signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo are as vile as they are expansive. New Yorkers are now legally able to end the life of their unborn child up until the moment of birth. In cases which threaten the health (even the mental health) of the mother or when the unborn child isn’t considered “viable,” a woman now has the right to have lethal injection performed on the child, ending its life just moments before it would enter the world.

And you don’t even need a doctor to conduct this abortion; New Yorkers can have physician assistants and even midwives perform some abortions. New York’s new abortion laws put it in the same class as China, Vietnam, and North Korea, where abortion is available at most any point.

The bad company in which New York now finds itself should speak to the immorality of this law. Just because people pass a law and make something “legal” doesn’t mean an action thereby becomes moral or ethical or right: slavery was legal, too. To hear the cheers on the floor of the New York Senate when the law passed must have been the same sound slave owners made when a new big shipment of fresh slaves came pulling into port or the cheers that echoed through the Reichstag with the passage of the Nuremberg Laws.

New York can legalize evil all day long, but it won’t change the brutal reality that a human child dies with every abortion. “Legality” didn’t justify the Nazis’ atrocities, nor did it legitimize institutionalized racism and slavery in America’s Antebellum South. Neither can it legitimize abortion on demand.

The singular William Wilberforce, when he spoke on the floor of the House of Commons over 200 years ago, pushing for the abolition of the slave trade throughout the British Empire, said, “Policy is not my principle and I am not ashamed to say it. There is a principle above everything that is political and when I reflect on the command which says, ‘Thou shalt do no murder,’ believing that authority to be divine, how can I dare set up my reasonings of my own against it. And when we think of eternity, and of the future consequences of all human conduct, what is there in this life that should make any man contradict the dictates of his conscience, the principle of justice and the laws of religion, and of God?”

There is no justice or rightness or goodness in what New York has done.

Horrifyingly, Vermont legislators are now looking to follow New York’s lead with an abortion bill that would loosen controls on abortion even further. The proposed constitutional amendment in Vermont would ban prosecution of “any individual for inducing, performing, or attempting to induce or perform the individual’s own abortion,” making it functionally impossible to stop someone from performing abortions at any stage of pregnancy for any reason. Moreover, Democrats in the state of Virginia are brazenly proposing legislation to have abortions up until the moment of birth, their governor having suggested in a radio interview that it is no big deal. Rhode Island and New Mexico Democrats are making similar moves.

It’s almost as though Democrats are channeling Mengele and Molech.

There are terms for what they are proposing, including butchery, infanticide, and murder. In a normal society, people who proposed such barbarism would be ostracized and yet Democrats openly celebrate these politicians as heroes and champions. They are not just tolerated, they are embraced by one of the major political parties in the United States.

To add further to the sickness of it it all, some of these same people, no doubt would be horrified by the killings of kittens or puppies or baby sea turtles, yet with a straight face and acting as though it’s perfectly normal they propose killing a human baby right at the moment of birth.

There is nothing normal about any of this and, in a very personal way, this is all quite horrific. There are moments in life you never forget and for me, the moment my daughter was born at 24 weeks is one of those. This little one pound, seven-ounce, 12-inch long baby girl, shortly after she was born, took my forefinger into her hand. Her skin was like tissue paper, her eyes still sealed shut; her little hand, with its perfectly formed fingernails, was so tiny it couldn’t even fit around my finger. I just stood there by her isolated, watching her, torn by grief, wanting to lay down and take her place, praying, hoping: It was clear that this tiny human being wanted to live. Of course, she could not speak these words but she was fighting. After four months in the NICU, she came home to us. She just turned 11 a few months ago.

My daughter’s survival and her beautiful life showed me clearly that the pro-abortion lobby is on the wrong side of literally everything, including science. Now, children like my daughter are born earlier and earlier. Doctors are able to save babies in even more desperate conditions at even earlier weeks of the pregnancy. Eventually, we might see a time when an unborn child is viable at extremely early stages of the pregnancy. At some point, abortion advocates must come to terms with the obvious implications of their actions: they are killing human beings. Period. As slavery is a horrifying blot on our history, for which we paid dearly with hundreds of thousands of lives, so too abortion on demand is to the utter shame of this great nation. The Left will not let us forget the stain of slavery, but what has it learned from it?

In light of what New York has done, and what other states are proposing, it is time for the Senate and House to take up the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act that would ensure that abortions cannot be performed 20 weeks after fertilization. There are literally only seven countries in the entire world that allow these late-term elective abortions: China, North Korea, Vietnam, Canada, the Netherlands, Singapore, and the United States. This should horrify every American with a conscience.

But clearly, it doesn’t.

On the day he signed the bill into law, Cuomo ordered the lights of World Trade Center One changed pink to commemorate the passage of the bill. Cuomo should have had them colored red for the blood on the hands of New York state for all the innocent children who will lose their lives.

Photo credit: BSIP/UIG Via Getty Images

Published  3 weeks ago

Herman Cain, the former pizza company executive who ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, is being considered by President Donald Trump for a seat on the Federal Reserve Board, Bloomberg News reports.

News Punch

Published  3 weeks ago

Police have arrested Bill Clinton's faith healer for running Brazil's largest ever child sex ring.

Tiffany Fitzhenry

Published  3 weeks ago

Big news broke today. I’d call it a bombshell, but it’s more like a nuclear reactor struck by a fleet of cruise missiles: Faith healer with millions of followers ran a “sex slave …

Fox News

Published  3 weeks ago

It's pretty clear that both of the country's political parties are have changed radically over the past few years, and they are changing still.

Donald Trump, of course, has transformed the GOP -- you may have read about it. On the Democratic side, there have been profound changes, too -- ones that don't get as much quite as much attention. A party that for a hundred years stood with America's middle class now represents the nation's richest and its poorest.


And so not surprisingly, the party's position on policy has changed accordingly - a lot. So, just about 20 years ago, Democrats championed free speech. They worried about illegal immigration, loudly. They criticized voluntary foreign wars, and they argued that unrestricted trade hurt American workers.

And by the way, quite a few of them -- Democrats --were pro-life, too. Sen. Harry Reid among them. And that's not surprising if you think about it. Democrats said they cared most about the vulnerable in our society. Even Bill Clinton, who vetoed two partial birth abortion bans, felt the need to say he wanted to keep abortion rare. He said that a lot.

Try that in today's Democratic Party. Lots of luck. Modern Democratic activists celebrate abortion as a positive good. "Shout your abortion," they proclaim. They put it on T-shirts. Abortion isn't bad; we need more of it.

Earlier this month, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed a bill making that possible. It's called the Reproductive Health Act, and the law legalizes abortion right to the moment of birth for virtually any reason. Now, to most people, aborting a child moments before delivery might seem uncomfortably like killing. A lot of pro-choice people feel that way. It's a concern. Well, Cuomo's law addresses that concern. The law declares that children who have not been yet born are not, in fact, human. So, don't worry about it.

Cuomo illuminated the new World Trade Center in lower Manhattan with pink lights to celebrate the bill signing. He described it is a profound moral victory. The national press didn't spend a lot of time covering this. No matter how much you might like Roe v. Wade -- maybe you love it -- there's still something pretty ghoulish about celebrating third-term abortion.

Abortion at the point of dilation. If you're confused about what that means, ask anyone who has given birth. And then think about it for a second. There's a lot going on, obviously. But just think about that for one second. You may be pro-choice -- are you okay with that?

Maybe that's why only tiny of percentage American voters support it -- around 13 percent, a small percentage. Nobody really wants to hear the details about any of this, so nobody asks. And that's why a video of a Virginia Democratic lawmaker called Kathy Tran is remarkable. In it, Tran explains in detail a bill she's introduced that will remove all restrictions on late-term abortion. She was asked, "Well, what would that mean exactly?" And Tran tells the truth. She admits her bill allow a woman to request an abortion even when she's dilating.

So, abortion at the point of dilation. If you're confused about what that means, ask anyone who has given birth. And then think about it for a second. There's a lot going on, obviously. But just think about that for one second. You may be pro-choice -- are you OK with that?

Virginia's governor is OK with that. He's thought about it. Ralph Northam is his name. He has been in office a little over a year. He's often described -- in fact, always described as -- "moderate." And that's pretty amazing, given his reaction to Kathy Tran's late-term abortion bill. On Wednesday, he said the following on third-term abortions: "It's done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that is nonviable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant will be resuscitated, if that's what the mother and family desire, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."

A discussion about killing the infant? The infant. He's direct enough to call the infant what it is - "the infant." But again, he says, "The infant would be delivered and resuscitated if that's what the mother desires."

In other words, the governor of Virginia has just told us in public, on camera, that it's OK to kill a child after the child has been born. That used to be call infanticide, not rhetorically, but literally infanticide - taking the life of a child who is breathing.

The governor seemed to just say that. Did he misspeak? Well, you'd hope. But no, he didn't. Ralph Northam is a physician. He is a pediatric neurologist, in fact. He is not some clueless layman who mangled a neutral talking point.

This is really what he thinks. This is what his party thinks. No one ever says it, but it's true. This is the new, moderate pro-choice position. You should know that.

Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue from "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on January 30, 2019.

Tucker Carlson currently serves as the host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) Tucker Carlson Tonight (weekdays 8PM/ET). He joined the network in 2009 as a contributor.

Published  3 weeks ago

Although the leaders of the U.S., Canada and Mexico signed a trade agreement last November, there is a real chance the approval process will drag on into the next U.S. presidential term, which begins in 2021.

Conservative Tribune

Published  3 weeks ago

President Donald Trump gives guests a unique tour of the White House.

Published  3 weeks ago

The condemnation is coming from all corners of the country in response to a comments from Virginia’s Governor today defending infanticide.

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam not only has defended a new bill in the state legislature that would legalize abortions up to birth – even if the mother is dilated — he defended infanticide during a radio show today.

Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska was one of those who expressed outrage. And in a statement, the pro-life Senator said Democrats have completely shifted their radical abortion position from the days of Bill Clinton.

“This is morally repugnant,” Sasse said. “In just a few years pro-abortion zealots went from ‘safe, legal, and rare’ to ‘keep the newborns comfortable while the doctor debates infanticide.’ I don’t care what party you’re from — if you can’t say that it’s wrong to leave babies to die after birth, get the hell out of public office.”

Sasse is the author of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. The bill would amend existing U.S. law to “prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.”

LifeNews depends on the support of readers like you to combat the pro-abortion media. Please donate now.

“Everybody loves babies and that love has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with just having a heart,” said Sasse. “This legislation is an opportunity for Congress to find consensus built on common sense, compassion, science, and a simple fact: every baby deserves a fighting chance at life. Providing care for newborns is more important than partisan political divides. Every baby has dignity – every baby deserves protection and love.”

Sasse’s bill, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, would protect newborns that survive abortions by requiring appropriate care and admission to a hospital.

The legislation requires that, when an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, health care practitioners must exercise the same degree of professional skill and care to protect the newborn as would be offered to any other child born alive at the same gestational age. It also requires that the living child, after appropriate care has been given, be immediately transported and admitted to a hospital. Currently federal law does not adequately protect a born child who survives an abortion.

Last year, the House of Representatives voted to approved he Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act on a strong margin. However, with Democrats now controlling the House, the legislation is unlikely to get a hearing or vote. All Republicans voted for final passage, but only six Democrats voted in favor of it.


Published  3 weeks ago

Readers of my columns know that I have frequently made the point that America's immigration policies benefit only three groups of people.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  3 weeks ago

Now we know how Hillary Clinton ‘won the popular vote’ in the 2016 presidential election.

On Wednesday, Pennsylvania confirmed that more than 11,000 non-citizens are registered to vote.

The Washington Times reported that a top Pennsylvania lawmaker called the state to immediately expunge the names of 11,198 non-citizens whom the state confirmed are illegally registered to vote.

State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, a Republican and former chairman of a House government oversight panel, said the administration of Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat, belatedly acknowledged the large number of noncitizens in communications over the past two months.

“I believe that we need to take action and have those people removed immediately from the rolls,” Mr. Metcalfe told The Washington Times. “They were never eligible to vote.”

A so-called ‘glitch’ in the ‘motor voter’ process allowed for non-citizens to easily register to vote in Pennsylvania.

Recall, the ‘Motor Voter Act’ was signed by Bill Clinton in 1993 and has expanded exponentially by Democrat lawmakers since it went into effect in 1995.

Just a few days ago, the Texas Attorney General announced a voter fraud alert and confirmed Texas found nearly 100,000 non-citizens registered to vote.

Last Friday, Texas Secretary of State David Whitley issued an advisory on voter registration list maintenance activity and the analysis revealed tens of thousands of non-citizens are not only registered to vote, but they are voting in elections.

The Texas Secretary of State announced Friday: 95,000 individuals identified by DPS as non-U.S. citizens have a matching voter registration record in Texas, approximately 58,000 of whom have voted in one or more Texas elections.

In November, Project Veritas exposed election official admitting “tons” of non-citizens were voting in the midterms in Texas.

Non-citizens voting in US elections is precisely why Democrats want open borders.

“Any illegal vote deprives Americans of their voice,” said the Texas AG Ken Paxton.

This is real voter suppression.

The President is aware of the voter fraud committed by non-citizens and tweeted about it, calling for voter ID.

“58,000 non-citizens voted in Texas, with 95,000 non-citizens registered to vote. These numbers are just the tip of the iceberg. All over the country, especially in California, voter fraud is rampant. Must be stopped. Strong voter ID!” Trump said.

58,000 non-citizens voted in Texas, with 95,000 non-citizens registered to vote. These numbers are just the tip of the iceberg. All over the country, especially in California, voter fraud is rampant. Must be stopped. Strong voter ID! @foxandfriends

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 27, 2019


Published  3 weeks ago

Most folks in the U.S. aren't fans of Donald Trump, either as a person or as the leader of the country, a new poll released on Monday has shown.

The survey from ABC News/Washington Post, conducted by Langer Research Associates, found that just 32 percent of Americans viewed Trump favorably. Fifty-nine percent viewed him unfavorably. Even some of the people typically thought of as Trump's core supporters don't really like him. Twenty-nine percent of evangelicals, 24 percent of "strong conservatives" and 22 percent of Republicans had an unfavorable view of the president, according to the survey.

Trump's 32 percent favorability rating overall is dismal, even for a president who has been unpopular during his entire tenure in office. It is just 2 percentage points higher than the lowest figure registered by former President Bill Clinton, which came amid his sex scandal and impeachment proceedings.

What's more, at that time Clinton's job approval was 64 percent. Trump has never sniffed an approval rating that high. The ABC News/Washington Post survey pegged his approval rating at just 37 percent on Friday.

Trump sparked the longest-ever U.S. government shutdown over his demand for border wall funding, only to reopen the government more than a month later without any funding. The move seemed to do a number on his approval rating. On Monday morning, FiveThirtyEight's approval rating tracker—which aggregates public surveys, adjusting for each poll's quality, recency, sample size and partisan lean—pegged Trump's average approval at just 39.4 percent. A little more than a month ago, that figure hovered around 42 percent.

Trump himself has hinted there's a good chance of another shutdown when the three-week continuing resolution runs out. "I personally think it's less than 50-50," Trump said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal published Sunday.

Democratic lawmakers have signaled they'd be willing to spend on border security, but not on the wall Trump repeatedly promised on the campaign trail.

The poll from ABC News/Washington Post suggested that Americans might not have much faith that Trump will figure out how to fix the problem. Almost half of Americans—48 percent—said they had no confidence "at all" in the president.

Dan Bongino

Published  3 weeks ago

Twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is keeping the door open to the possibility of a 2020 presidential run, according to a CNN reporter.

On CNN yesterday, White House correspondent Jeff Zeleny said “I’m told by three people that as recently as this week, she was telling people that look, given all this news from the indictments, particularly the Roger Stone indictment, she talked to several people, saying ‘look, I’m not closing the doors to this.”

He continued, “It does not mean that there’s a campaign-in-waiting or a plan in the works.”

Zeleny said that most losing presidential candidates “never totally close the doors to running for president…But I think we have to at least leave our mind open to the possibility that she is still talking about it,” he added. “She wants to take on Trump.”

Clinton has fueled speculation of a 2020 presidential run after making public comments about wanting to be commander-in-chief.

In October, when asked if she wanted to run for office again, Clinton replied, “No. I’d like to be president.”

In November, former longtime Clinton advisor Mark Penn predicted the former Secretary of State would reinvent herself as a “liberal firebrand” and run again for president in 2020.

Penn, along with co-writer, New York politician Andrew Stein, write that voters could “expect Hillary 4.0 to come out swinging,” suggesting Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton could have key fundraising roles. “She has decisively to win those Iowa caucus-goers who have never warmed up to her. They will see her now as strong, partisan, left-leaning and all-Democrat — the one with the guts, experience and steely-eyed determination to defeat Mr. Trump.”

Conservative News Today

Published  3 weeks ago

A week after Sen. Kamala Harris announce that she was running for president, on a weekend when the California Democrat held a big rally in her hometown of Oakland, the former mayor of San Francisco, Willie Brown, confessed that Harris was once his mistress.

Brown, 84, also stated that he used his influence to essentially launch her political career.

In a weekly column Brown does for the San Francisco Chronicle that was focused on Harris’ presidential run, he spoke of an extramarital affair he said he had with Harris.

Almost as an afterthought, in a segment titled “Elephant in the Room,” Brown wrote:

I’ve been peppered with calls from the national media about my “relationship” with Kamala Harris, most of which I have not returned.

Yes, we dated. It was more than 20 years ago. Yes, I may have influenced her career by appointing her to two state commissions when I was Assembly speaker.

And I certainly helped with her first race for district attorney in San Francisco. I have also helped the careers of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Gavin Newsom, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and a host of other politicians.

The difference is that Harris is the only one who, after I helped her, sent word that I would be indicted if I “so much as jaywalked” while she was D.A.

That’s politics for ya.

The affair ended in 1995, just before Brown was elected mayor, The Washington Free Beacon reported, but the two remained political allies.

Brown, thirty years her senior, rewarded Harris with two lucrative appointments, earning her over $400,000 in a five year period, according to the online news source, which cited the SF Weekly.

The positions were on the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and the California Medical Assistance Commission.

Harris also received a BMW as a gift from her then-lover, The Free Beacon noted.

In a 2003 interview with SF Weekly, Harris defended her good fortune and the lack of experience she brought to the positions — she was just a few years out of law school.

“Whether you agree or disagree with the system, I did the work,” she said. “I brought a level of life knowledge and common sense to the jobs.”

Turns out, Brown, who Bill Clinton once called the “real Slick Willie,” was quite the player in his day, as seen in a 1996 People magazine profile:

Named one of the world’s 10 sexiest men by Playgirl magazine in 1984, he “has had a succession of girlfriends,” according to James Richardson, a Sacramento Bee reporter whose biography of Brown hits stores next fall. “The measure of his flamboyance is he’ll go to a party with his wife on one arm and his girlfriend on the other.” As for Brown, he only requests that his date “absolutely be the best-dressed woman in the room.”

New Right Network

Published  3 weeks ago

Why Isn’t the Media asking Where’s Ruth?

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg (RGB) rose from feminist lawyer to proudly ascend through the ranks to a seat on the Supreme Court. She was appointed to SCOTUS by Bill Clinton in 1993. RBG planned to step down after Hillary Clinton became Madame President and could name her successor. Millions of people are most thankful that did not occur. RGB was outspoken in her dislike for Donald Trump, to the point of saying she would move to New Zealand if he were elected. That did not come to pass either.

Reportedly, for the first time in 25 years, RBG missed oral arguments in January. This was after a fall in November 2018 when she fractured her ribs. Then, in December, cancerous nodes were removed from her lungs. The 12/21/2018 press release said they would give an update on her condition. No word yet which is why the uproar. She has cancelled public appearances.

Right now there are many questions about SCOTUS Ginsburg’s health. The public wants to know whether she is fit for service. Concerned people are asking. Some just want to know if her SCOTUS seat can be filled. Inquiries are sincere. Many are comically nasty. These are a few of the hashtags being used: #WheresRuth #RGBWhereYouBe #RGBisAWOL #RGBProofofLife #ProofOfLife

James Woods tweets are a favorite:

Shockingly and inexcusably, Fox News put out a death notice on RGB! Talk about FAKE NEWS!

Where is the Justice?

People are asking the President to visit her. Interestingly, there are those who consider that request to have a dark double meaning. No matter what side of the aisle one is on, people have a right to know—where is the Justice?

Whether one likes her, her politics, her decisions or her mode of conduct, is not important. All sane, reasonable people should pray she is healthy and recovered, as we do at NRN. The question remains – Where’s Ruth?

The Truth About Guns

Published  3 weeks ago

Rich, old white guy Michael Bloomberg has a plan to win over Democrat voters skeptical of his privilege and his Wall Street billions. He will have to if he runs for the jackass party’s nomination for President in 2020.

Give him credit though. He plans on winning Dems’ hearts and minds with a campaign against Americans’ God-given, Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms. Well, that and championing global warming nonsense. This, he believes, will bring Democrat voters out to the polls to elect him.

Here in flyover country, I’m looking at between twelve and eighteen inches of global warming in my back yard – and better than three feet near the street. Like most Americans, I’m worried about the government and illegal immigration. Not gun control and global warming.

The diminutive Bloomberg knows America’s basket of deplorables and bitter clingers in flyover country will never support him. So he’s pandering with issues that he feels resonate with increasingly radical urban Democrat voters. And that will help distinguish him from an already crowded field of candidates.

All the while, he ignores how gun control came at steep price for Democrats as they lost control of the U.S. House in 1994. For the first time in decades. Even the far-left Salon grudgingly tells the truth in “Why Democrats dumped gun control“:

…Gun control advocates haven’t won a major victory since Bill Clinton was president…

And speaking of the old skirt-chasing Bill Clinton, Human Events reminds us of what Bill wrote in his memoirs:

Bill Clinton admitted in his memoirs that the gun issue cost Al Gore the White House in 2000 and Sen. John Kerry’s pathetically staged “goose hunt” in Ohio just days before the 2004 presidential election cooked his.

At the same time today, Michael Bloomberg thinks himself the smartest person in the room. And he surrounds himself with people who tell him the same thing. Without a doubt, some of his opponents will point to Bloomberg’s own statements against allowing gun ownership for young, black men – because they can’t be trusted.

Given his while male privilege and billions in the bank, he will run a formidable campaign if he indeed jumps into the race. The question remains, will his privilege and his money sway Democrats who rail against both lately?

Time will tell.

The Federalist

Published  3 weeks ago

There is no question that Trump lost the battle. This is not the final battle in whether the country seeks to uphold rule of law at her border.


Published  4 weeks ago

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s indictment of Roger Stone elucidates what has been apparent to the public for a year, and therefore must have been known to prosecutors and the FBI for much longer: There was no criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian government. That is, the Kremlin’s cyber-espionage efforts to undermine the 2016 election by hacking Democratic email accounts were not coordinated with the Trump campaign.

In the Stone indictment, Mueller offers up 20 pages of heavy-breathing narrative about the Russian theft of tens of thousands of emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, the transmission of the purloined materials to WikiLeaks (portrayed as a witting arm of the Putin regime), and their subsequent media publication in the final weeks of the campaign. But the big wind produces no rain. At the end, we get a couple of pages of process crimes.

Stone is charged with such comparative trifles as concealing from Congress that his communications with an associate were in writing. The seven counts are offenses generated not by an espionage conspiracy but by the investigation of an espionage conspiracy that did not exist.

Not one that “may not have existed.” The Trump-Russia conspiracy did not exist.

This should not be controversial. It should not matter whether you like Donald Trump. It should not matter whether you believe, as I do, that Trump’s ingratiating campaign posture toward Vladimir Putin’s murderous anti-American regime was detestable, and that the Trump orbit’s cajoling of WikiLeaks — a cat’s paw of the GRU, Russia’s largest foreign intelligence agency, that has done immense damage to U.S. intelligence and national security — was reprehensible. It is simply a matter of reading the special counsel’s indictments, of seeing through their ambitious storytelling and grappling with what they actually charge.

It is very simple. If the Trump campaign had been in an espionage conspiracy with Russia to hack Democratic email accounts, why would the campaign have needed Stone to try to figure out what stolen information WikiLeaks had and when it would release that information?

Mind you, it appears that Stone did not know, either. The indictment suggests he was expecting a lollapalooza of a Clinton Foundation exposé that never materialized. Mueller does not make the claim, suggested widely in the media, that Stone had foreknowledge that Podesta’s emails would be disclosed. And, to repeat, Stone is not charged with being in a conspiracy with WikiLeaks.

As Election Day approached, then, the Trump campaign did not know what Russia had hacked and, indeed, had no more reason than the rest of us news consumers to suspect that Russia was behind the hacking of Democrats. It knew WikiLeaks might have emails that were somehow related to Mrs. Clinton because Julian Assange had said so quite publicly in June 2016. But the campaign did not know whose emails these were, or that WikiLeaks — which has many sources of stolen communications — necessarily got them from Russia. People in and around the Trump campaign had a dialogue with Stone about what WikiLeaks might be planning, but Stone was just speculating; though he had sources with better access to WikiLeaks than he had, they, too, were unsure.

Indications of the Trump campaign’s lack of knowledge about, much less involvement in, Russia’s operations are not new. They are completely consistent with the two indictments Mueller has filed against Russian enterprises: the “troll farm” case, charged in February 2018, and the hacking case, charged five months later. While the Russians never have been particularly effective at meddling in U.S. elections, their intelligence apparatus has been at it for the better part of a century. Peddling propaganda and, in modern times, hacking are not activities they need help with — not from Trump’s campaign or anyone else’s.

Democrats speculate that Putin wanted Trump to win. Most of us on the other side counter that he wanted to sow discord into American society regardless of who won. In either event, Putin’s desires do not make Trump complicit in Putin’s violations of American law — even if most of us can agree that Trump’s courting of Putin’s favor was nauseating (as were the Obama/Clinton “Russian Reset,” the Uranium One deal, Bill Clinton’s collection of a tidy $500,000 for a quickie Moscow speech, Barack Obama’s hot-mic promise of “flexibility” on Russian demands once the 2012 election was over, and so on).

There is abundant evidence of bipartisan American naiveté and policy foolishness regarding Putin’s regime. There is no proof of a criminal conspiracy between Trump and the Putin regime. To the contrary, Mueller continues to pile up proof in the opposite direction.

This being the case, there are three questions I’d suggest to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who now chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee and has done yeoman’s work investigating Obama-era politicization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process.

In all four of the warrants the Justice Department and FBI sought to monitor Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, the purportedly “verified” applications outlined Russia’s hacking operations and then, following a passage that has been deleted from the publicly released application, informed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) that “the FBI believes the Russian government’s efforts are being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with [Donald Trump’s] campaign.” This representation echoed then-FBI Director James Comey’s March 2017 House Intelligence Committee testimony that the FBI believed there was a basis to investigate “whether there was any coordination between the [Trump] campaign and Russia’s efforts.”

So here are the questions that Chairman Graham might consider putting to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (who approved the last FISA warrant application on Page):

Do the Justice Department and the FBI still stand behind their representation to the FISC and their highly irregular, publicly announced suspicion that the Trump campaign coordinated in Russia’s cyber operations against the 2016 election?

If they do not continue to stand behind their representation to the court and public announcement to the committee, have they corrected the record with the FISC or the House Intelligence Committee (there not having been any public retraction)?

If they do stand behind their representation, how do they square that position with the indictments filed by Mueller, which have charged no Trump-Russia conspiracy, and which indicate there was no Trump-Russia conspiracy?

Many would say such questions can await Mueller’s final report. But even if the special counsel’s investigation is winding down, the indictment of Stone eventually could lead to a trial, and there is an active grand jury, so additional indictments are possible. The Mueller probe could go on for months. Americans are entitled to know now if the president and his campaign are suspected of being clandestine agents of Russia.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at National Review Institute, a contributing editor at National Review, and a Fox News contributor.

The Washington Times

Published  4 weeks ago

What does a president have to do to get a fair shake from the press?

Conservative News Today

Published  4 weeks ago

Former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino schooled Bishop Talbert Swan for trashing the MAGA hat-wearing teens from Covington Catholic High School as racists who deserve to have their lives destroyed.

“It’s like we live in a post-fact, bizarro-world universe,” Bongino said on Fox News‘ Laura Ingraham show. “You have a kid standing there with a MAGA hat… motionless, with a smile on his face, while an adult confronts the kid…What did these kids do wrong?”

Bongino was responding to Bishop Swan’s claims that Covington high school student Nick Sandmann bullying leftist Native American activist Nathan Phillips.

Media Caught Pushing Fake News Again

Unedited videos clearly show that Phillips approached the teenager ― not the other way around. Moreover, Nick did not utter any racist slurs while the Native American loudly banged his drum inches from Sandmann’s face.

Keep in mind that the media initially ran with the fake news that Sandmann was the aggressor. They backpedaled once an unedited video proved their false narrative wrong.

Bishop Swan insists that the Covington Catholic High School students had bullied and harassed Nathan Phillips.

Host Laura Ingraham chimed in:

“You are a man of the cloth. I know you don’t advocate violence.

And you agree ― I would imagine ― that standing there, even wearing a piece of clothing that people find objectionable, is not grounds threatening to kill them, to burn them, and destroy the lives.”

Swan retorted: “We completely agree that there is no excuse for anybody threatening to kill or burn or harm anyone…But I also condemn the type of behavior that I saw from those young men.”

The bishop also blasted the MAGA hat as a symbol of racism tantamount to the Ku Klux Klan hood. Swan huffed:

“It’s a piece of clothing that represents Donald Trump and everything that comes along with that. Donald Trump is an unrepentant racist.

The MAGA hat, to many, is representative of a Klan hood or other racist symbols.”

Bongino: ‘Dumbest Thing I Ever Heard’

Dan Bongino reacted by expressing disbelief at the emotional drivel being spouted by a supposed religious person.

“That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard in seven years of doing cable news that ‘Make America Great Again’ ― by the way, a slogan used by Bill Clinton at times too ― is racist? Are you serious?

So Donald Trump ― who gives you back more of your money, fought for school choice, has black unemployment at the lowest in modern American history ― if he’s a racist, then he’s the worst racist in American history.”

Trump urges Chuck Schumer to man up and stop being Nancy Pelosi’s zombie sock puppet

American Greatness

Published  4 weeks ago

Post by @theamgreatness.

Fox News

Published  4 weeks ago

Dan Bongino and Bishop Talbert Swan clashed in a fiery debate about the fallout of the viral confrontation between the Covington Catholic students and Native American elder Nathan Phillips on The Ingraham Angle.

Swan began by acknowledging that the Black Hebrew Israelites “came at” the Covington students and that there was “no excuse” for their behavior, but he then accused the teenagers of “mocking” Phillips and “yelling at women” and saying “it’s not rape if you enjoy it.” Laura Ingraham corrected Swan that the young man who said that remark didn’t attend Covington Catholic High School.

After listening to Swan, Bongino told Ingraham that it’s like we’re living in a “post-fact bizarro world universe,” asking what these kids did wrong.


However, on the subject of the MAGA hats Covington student Nick Sandmann was wearing, Swan expressed that it’s a piece of clothing that “represents Donald Trump and everything that comes along with Donald Trump,” who he called an “unrepentant racist,” and compared the hat to a “Klan hood.”

“What’s going on here? Is this real? Did he just say that on cable television?” Bongino reacted.

“I absolutely said that,” the bishop doubled down.

“That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard in seven years of doing cable news that Make America Great Again, by the way a slogan used by Bill Clinton at times too, is racist? Are you serious?” Bongino exclaimed. “So Donald Trump, who gives you back more of your money, fought for school choice, has black unemployment at the lowest in modern American history… if he’s a racist, he’s the worst racist in American history.”

Bishop Swan shot back, invoking Trump’s reported remarks referring to third-world countries as “sh—holes,” calling Mexicans “rapists,” and labeling athletes who kneel during the national anthem “sons of b—ches.” When asked by Ingraham if the criminal justice reform that President Trump signed into law “counts” for anything, Swan said it does, but argued that it doesn’t disprove that the president is racist.

Ingraham wrapped up the heated panel by concluding that no one should be profiled based on the clothes they wear.

Sara A. Carter

Published  1 month ago

Lawmakers are demanding answers from Michael Cohen, as new revelations emerge that Lanny Davis 'pushed' his client to testify before their committee.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Actress and activist Alyssa Milano compared supporters of President Donald Trump to members of the Ku Klux Klan.


"The red MAGA hat is the new white hood," Milano, 46, tweeted Sunday.

"Without white boys being able to empathize with other people, humanity will continue to destroy itself. #FirstThoughtsWhenIWakeUp," she added.


Milano had previously posted a video of Nick Sandmann, a junior at Covington Catholic High School, and Native American Vietnam veteran Nathan Phillips.

Milano's post of the video came before a longer video emerged showing that Sandmann and his fellow students, who'd participated in the March for Life earlier that day, may have faced harassment of their own from other groups of protesters.

Sandmann, a junior at Covington Catholic High School in Kentucky, released a statement claiming he was targeted for harassment.


I am "mortified that so many people have come to believe something that did not happen — that students from my school were chanting or acting in a racist fashion toward African Americans or Native Americans. I did not do that, do not have hateful feelings in my heart and did not witness any of my classmates doing that," he said.

He added that other protesters him and his classmates "'racists,' 'bigots,' 'white crackers,' 'f—ts,' and 'incest kids.' They also taunted an African-American student from my school by telling him that we would 'harvest his organs.'"


The former "Charmed" star has been extremely open about her political beliefs.

Milano sat in on the Brett Kavanaugh hearings in September and has previously called for healthcare reform and gun control.

In November, she announced she refused to speak at the 2019 Women's March unless its founders condemned Louis Farrakhan.


Published  1 month ago

If you brought back either of the Roosevelts—Teddy or Franklin—from the grave, the most astonishing thing they would find is that the “malefactors of great wealth” have become the benefactors of today’s liberalism, and Democrats have become the party of the rich. In the economic crisis of the 1930s, the rich hated FDR. Most of today’s rich love Barack Obama—so much so that Washington D.C. area airports ran out of space to handle all of the private jets flying in the well-heeled for both of his inaugurals. Forget the “limousine liberals” of the 1960s and 1970s, sending their own kids to private schools while advocating forced busing for everyone else; behold today’s burgeoning class of “Gulfstream liberals,” who jet about the globe while fretting about global warming.

What accounts for this astonishing state of affairs, and what does it mean for our politics in this age of supposed concern over economic inequality?

To be sure, labor unions (along with trial lawyers) still provide the majority of the Democratic Party’s campaign funds and organizational muscle on election day, but it is the super rich of Silicon Valley and Wall Street, combined with the super rich of Hollywood, who command the priority attention of Democratic Party leaders these days. Of the ten richest zip codes in the U.S. eight gave more money to Democrats than Republicans in the last two presidential cycles. President Obama doesn’t go to union halls to host fundraisers; he goes to posh Wall Street townhomes, the Hollywood hills, or to Tom Steyer’s house in Pacific Heights. Steyer, a billionaire investor and wannabe George Soros, is the perfect model of today’s rich liberal, and shows where the balance of power on the Left rests today. Organized labor wants the Keystone pipeline built; Steyer, who imbibes deeply the green Kool Aid, is adamantly against Keystone. Note who Obama is siding with.

Yes, but haven’t many of the leading plutocrats, such as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, embraced higher income taxes? Yes, they have, but one important fact has escaped notice: higher income tax rates will not touch the bulk of the fortunes of today’s plutocrats, for the simple reason that the great bulk of the accumulated wealth of Gates, Buffett, Silicon Valley and Wall Street consists of appreciated asset values—not ordinary income. Few seem to be aware that most of this wealth has never been taxed, and in the case of Buffett and Gates, who are taking advantage of the charitable foundation laws, will never be taxed. Even a return to Paul Krugman’s nirvana of 90 percent marginal income tax rates of the 1950s would do little to reduce the wealth gap in the nation.

At a time when the Democratic Party is moving leftward, away from Bill Clinton’s relatively centrist economic outlook, what explains the growth in the ranks of super-rich liberals? (Or, to flip the Thomas Frank title, what’s the matter with Connecticut?) It is worth noting that many of today’s leading liberal super-rich are not heirs of fortunes, like Stewart Mott and various Rockefellers of previous decades, whose liberalism could be attributed to personal guilt over unearned wealth. Most of today’s super rich liberals are financiers and entrepreneurs, like Google founders Larry Page and Sergei Brin. Liberal guilt is not entirely absent from the mindset of the new rich, as can be seen especially in the mindless mantra that the rich have an obligation to “give back,” as though they “took” something in creating wealth by serving the marketplace with dazzling innovations like computer software and internet marketplaces.

There are several parts to this story, but perhaps the most significant is the presumption of the new rich today that they’re simply smarter (look at how fast I got rich?, they think), and today’s elitist, technocratic liberalism appeals to their superficial intellectual vanity. As a one-time critic of the new super rich once put it, “they found it hard to imagine that there might be any social ill that could not be cured with a high SAT score.” (That critic was Barack Obama, in The Audacity of Hope.)

The dependence—if not slavishness—of Democrats on the new super rich is best revealed by the dog that isn’t barking in the current liberal crusade against economic inequality: where is the call for a straight up wealth tax? Where is today’s Huey Long, who in 1935 proposed that no one should be allowed to keep any wealth beyond $50 million—or perhaps, he suggested, only $10 million. Whatever the figure, Long said, “it will still be more than any one man, or any one man and his children and their children, will be able to spend in their lifetimes; and it is not necessary or reasonable to have wealth piled up beyond that point where we cannot prevent poverty among the masses.”

Where is the voice of Huey Long in today’s supposedly populist liberalism? Long’s $50 million wealth limit, adjusted for inflation, would be about $850 million today—still more than anyone could spend in a lifetime. But not even Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders will go there. (The only person who has mooted the idea so far, ironically enough, is the quixotic and still befuddled David Stockman.) Why not? Probably because any such proposal would make Republicans out of the Hollywood and Silicon Valley crowd in a big hurry. The scene is another good reminder of the hypocrisy of modern liberalism.


Published  1 month ago

Fox & Friends briefly aired a graphic Monday morning which erroneously suggested Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is dead.

Upon returning from a commercial break, a graphic of the 85-year-old justice briefly came onscreen with the dates “1933-2019,” before a teaser of co-host Ainsley Earhardt’s upcoming interview about college culture appeared.

Fox News just slipped in Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s obituary segment opener

“We need to apologize … A technical error in the control room triggered a graphic of RBG with a date on it,” co-host Steve Doocy said later in the show. “We don’t want to make it seem anything other than that was a mistake. That was an accident.”

“We apologize, big mistake,” added Earhardt.

Ginsburg, the liberal face of the Court, is recovering from a December 21 procedure to remove malignant nodules from her left lung. The cancerous growths were discovered while receiving treatment for a November 7 fall in her chambers. Ginsburg missed the Court’s oral arguments for three consecutive days earlier this month, participating in cases using transcripts — a first in the justice’s 25-year tenure on the bench. Ginsburg missed oral arguments last week as well.

Ginsburg has also pulled out of two upcoming speaking engagements in recent days. She was slated to appear January 29 at the Skirball Cultural Center in Los Angeles. A February 6 event featuring Ginsburg and private equity titan and philanthropist David Rubenstein in New York City was also canceled.

Appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, Ginsburg rebuked calls to leave the bench during President Barack Obama’s second term, when a confirmation process appeared less volatile due to a Democrat-controlled Senate.

Last year, the justice signaled she intends to stay on the Court by hiring law clerks for at least two additional terms. In a December interview published by CNN, Ginsburg affirmed her commitment to remain a justice “as long as I can do it full steam.”

Koke: Koke Report Front Page News

Published  1 month ago

FBN’s Kennedy on how Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) announced that she will run for president in 2020.

Diamond & Silk

Published  1 month ago

A new proposal has been introduced in the Senate that would require members of Congress to remain in Washington D.C. during federal government shutdowns.

Republican Senator Joni Ernst submitted the new proposal which would completely restrict the travel on lawmakers who fail to pass a funding measure to keep the government open.

From the Western Journal:

The “No Budget, No Recess Act” would ban members of Congress from leaving Washington if there is no budget in place by April 15 or if spending bills are not all approved by Aug. 1, according to a press release issued by Ernst. In the latter case, the traditional August recess, where members go to their home states, would be sacrificed.

The federal fiscal year begins every Oct. 1. The release notes that since 1976, the full year’s budget has been approved on time in only four instances.

During an interview on Fox News ahead of Trump’s immigration announcement, Ernst said on Saturday that she said she would like to see “that a deal has been reached.”

“But, I don’t believe Pelosi is in town to do that. I would love to see the shutdown end. We have a lot of workers out there, they are working and they are not currently getting paid. We need to resolve this,” Ernst continued.

“I do believe the president has made very clear that he would like to see additional security at the border and part of that is through physical barriers. So, let’s come to an agreement. Let’s get this done. Let’s get our workers back doing their jobs,” the senator added.

“We have a humanitarian crisis [at the border] when we have tens of thousands of inadmissible people coming to our border every month. It is a crisis. We do need to find a way to support the president and his initiatives.”

Ernst said she would “point to Democratic colleagues in the house and the Senate” and ask: “why are we denying the president this opportunity to erect additional barriers when President Bill Clinton did this, President Bush did this, as well as President Obama, had miles of barriers built during his administration.”

“So why are denying this president the same opportunity the previous presidents had?” the senator asked.

The Iowan senator said negotiations are not continuing as Pelosi is out of town and refusing to meet with Trump.

“Pelosi has made the decision not to meet with the president—I don’t believe she’s in Washington D.C. this week. It’s really hard to have those conversations,” Ernst said.

She said that her new bill would force members to remain in Washington amid a shutdown to continue their negotiations “until we had a budget done and until we had those appropriations bills done. Those must be done by August 1 and the budget bill would have to be done by April 15th.”

“If we fail to pass a budget and spending bills, we should stay in town and work together until we get the job done.”

Check it out:


Published  1 month ago

A new proposal has been introduced in the Senate that would require members of Congress to remain in Washington D.C. during federal government shutdowns.

Republican Senator Joni Ernst submitted the new proposal which would completely restrict the travel on lawmakers who fail to pass a funding measure to keep the government open.

From the Western Journal:

The “No Budget, No Recess Act” would ban members of Congress from leaving Washington if there is no budget in place by April 15 or if spending bills are not all approved by Aug. 1, according to a press release issued by Ernst. In the latter case, the traditional August recess, where members go to their home states, would be sacrificed.

The federal fiscal year begins every Oct. 1. The release notes that since 1976, the full year’s budget has been approved on time in only four instances.

During an interview on Fox News ahead of Trump’s immigration announcement, Ernst said on Saturday that she said she would like to see “that a deal has been reached.”

“But, I don’t believe Pelosi is in town to do that. I would love to see the shutdown end. We have a lot of workers out there, they are working and they are not currently getting paid. We need to resolve this,” Ernst continued.

“I do believe the president has made very clear that he would like to see additional security at the border and part of that is through physical barriers. So, let’s come to an agreement. Let’s get this done. Let’s get our workers back doing their jobs,” the senator added.

“We have a humanitarian crisis [at the border] when we have tens of thousands of inadmissible people coming to our border every month. It is a crisis. We do need to find a way to support the president and his initiatives.”

Ernst said she would “point to Democratic colleagues in the house and the Senate” and ask: “why are we denying the president this opportunity to erect additional barriers when President Bill Clinton did this, President Bush did this, as well as President Obama, had miles of barriers built during his administration.”

“So why are denying this president the same opportunity the previous presidents had?” the senator asked.

The Iowan senator said negotiations are not continuing as Pelosi is out of town and refusing to meet with Trump.

“Pelosi has made the decision not to meet with the president—I don’t believe she’s in Washington D.C. this week. It’s really hard to have those conversations,” Ernst said.

She said that her new bill would force members to remain in Washington amid a shutdown to continue their negotiations “until we had a budget done and until we had those appropriations bills done. Those must be done by August 1 and the budget bill would have to be done by April 15th.”

“If we fail to pass a budget and spending bills, we should stay in town and work together until we get the job done.”

Check it out:

Note: The author of this article has included commentary that expresses an opinion and analysis of the facts.

Published  1 month ago

Economy From sweeping tax reform to support for energy production, President Donald Trump’s pro-business policies have boosted the ...

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

My Day at the Florida Women’s March By Jacob Engels Earlier today, I attended the Women’s March of Central Florida in Downtown Orlando. Sadly, as expected, it was a coven gathering for several hundred unhinged feminists, beta-male enablers, and impressionable youth. All were in the late stages of Trump Derangement Syndrome. In the past few […]


Published  1 month ago

More Americans consider Barack Obama to be the worst President since World War II than they do any other president, according to a new poll.

The Quinnipiac poll out Wednesday found that 33% of Americans see Obama as the worst post-war president, while just 8% consider him the best. Another 28% see former President George W. Bush as the worst. Richard Nixon, the only American President ever to resign in disgrace, was picked the worst by 13%, according to the poll.

The Brief Newsletter

Sign up to receive the top stories you need to know right now. View Sample

Sign Up Now

And 45% of Americans think the U.S. would be better off if Mitt Romney had been elected President in 2012, according to the poll, while 38% think the country would be worse off.

Ronald Reagan was the most common answer among those surveyed for the best President since World War II, with 35% choosing the Republican icon. Another 18% chose Bill Clinton, and 15% chose John F. Kennedy.

The survey of 1,446 registered voters, conducted June 24-30, had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.6 percentage points.

Contact us at

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

After the 36 day partial government shutdown Americans are finally starting to see that Democrats don’t give a damn about border security. When you have a party that votes for open borders and to ban ICE it makes it difficult to pretend like you care about national security. CNN’s Dana Bash warned Democrats today that […]

Daily Wire

Published  1 month ago

Report AdxReason: --Select please--

Across the nation, the so-called "judicial resistance" is very, very real. And, contra Teri Hatcher opining in an infamous Seinfeld scene on a certain bodily asset, it is not at all spectacular.

In the age of Trump, it is legitimately imposssible to keep up with the never-ending deluge of black-robed malfeasance. From finding an affirmative right to immigrate in contravention of the political branches' plenary power doctrine, to mandating the continuance of President Obama's lawless DACA amnesty edict, to commencing full-frontal assault on legislative prayer, to inducing abortion chain migration for illegal aliens, to countermanding the Commander-in-Chief's unambiguous military preparedness prerogative vis-à-vis precluding actively serving transgenders, the lower federal courts in the Trump era have more often than not been engaged in systemic, politically motivated defiance of the president's sundry priorities. What Alexander Hamilton assured his compatriots in Federalist No. 78 would be the "least dangerous" branch has instead transmogrified into something much, much more insidious.

In November, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts took the rare step of publicly rebuking President Trump. Trump had belittled a federal district court judge who ruled against him on his revised aslyum policy as an "Obama judge." Roberts shot back: "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges. ... What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them."

Roberts was wrong. And Trump was right.

We have long, long since crossed the proverbial Rubicon when it comes to the purportedly apolitical nature of our federal judiciary. The legal realism movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, best embodied by the transformative Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, was perhaps the first sustained intellectual blow against our republic's natural law-centric Founding. Legal realists rejected any useful role for a transcendental moral order in adjudication, and they also stood manifestly athwart the strict adherence to constitutional and statutory text that dominated the hitherto dominant legal formalism school of thought. By the end of the FDR administration — and, especially following the infamous "switch in time that saved nine" — legal realism was on its way to being replaced by what we would today recognize as the Left's preferred jurisprudential methodology, non-sensical and anti-republican "living constitutionalism."

The story does not end there. In 1958, in a little-known opinion known as Cooper v. Aaron, the Supreme Court quietly effected its most nakedly self-aggrandizing power grab ever. In Cooper, for the very first time, the Supreme Court pronounced itself to be the sole and final binding arbiter of constitutional disputes. The Cooper Court said:

In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation," declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison ... that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system.

Marbury, of course, stands for nothing even remotely resembling the judicial supremacist sentiment the Cooper Court affixed to it. As Michael Stokes Paulsen has persuasively argued, Marbury instead stands not for judicial supremacy but for constitutional supremacy: That is, each of the three branches has an independent and binding fealty to interpret and abide by the Constitution, as it sees fit, in line with its own carefully delineated constitutional duties and powers. As Josh Blackman noted last year, the Cooper Court's radical claims amounted to "unprecedented assertions of judicial power."

Contrast Cooper with Abraham Lincoln's magisterial First Inaugural Address, in which the Great Emancipator treated the legal and moral abomination of Dred Scott v. Sandford with little more respect than Bill Clinton might treat a Little Rock call girl:

I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

The legal Left, armed with the uniquely dastardly combination of unhinged "living constitutionalism" and grotesque judicial supremacism, has wreaked nonstop havoc on our republic for over half a century. The Lincolnian notion of a president refusing to kowtow and thereby stand athwart judges definitively settling broader legal disputes for the whole citizenry, as opposed to its actual constitutional role of merely adjudicating discrete legal disputes, now strikes us as quite faint.

Donald Trump is perfectly suited to be the man to help make Lincolnian defiance of the judiciary great again. It is long past time for Trump to defy a federal court.

It takes a certain amount of chutzpah, a certain amount of bravado, and a large helping of a devil-may-care attitude to try to pull this off. That pretty much perfectly describes President Trump. And ever since Inauguration Day, Trump has been routinely thwarted by the "judicial resistance." Indeed, President Trump's tweets and rhetoric have almost perfectly foreordained this very moment. Recall his infamous "so-called judge" tweet from barely two weeks into his presidency.

The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 4, 2017

Trump should start with defying a district court judge. Notwithstanding Cooper's erroneousness and the fact that not even the Supreme Court can bind a president as to its own constitutional interpretations, there is no serious argument that a single district court judge can actually bring the entirety of the political branches of the federal government to a complete halt. The next time an Obama-nominated resistance-type district court judge reaches an absurd legal conclusion and attempts to issue a (completely lawless) nationwide injunction against a prized Trump administration priority, the president should effectively tell that judge to go take a hike. Trump can make like Lincoln and enforce the judge's order as it pertains to the named litigant(s) to the actual underlying lawsuit, but he should go no further. He should resolutely refuse to treat the diktat as a broader and binding legal ruling. And he should have his Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel write a formal memorandum explaining exactly why nationwide injunctions are lawless, why Cooper and judicial supremacism are wildly at odds with a rudimentary understanding of constitutional structure, and why Lincoln was correct to treat Dred Scott as non-binding for everyone except Mr. Scott himself.

Trump's detractors would assuredly flip out. Perhaps they would take to the streets, don their "pussy hats," and cry out "tyranny!" en masse. Let them do it. Let MSNBC have a field day covering it. These are the same people who think that every bowel movement of Trump's ought to be monitored for possible signs of fascism.

Trump is uniquely positioned to defy a federal court. The courts are rabidly attempting to thwart his agenda, and his iconoclastic nature and built-in anti-judicial sympathies are perfectly suited for beginning to tilt the tide back away from Cooper and its hellacious subsequent decades of judicial supremacism gone wild.

And perhaps most importantly, Trump should be able to take solace in knowing that, in so doing, he will be standing with Abraham Lincoln himself.

Chicks On The Right — Young Conservatives

Published  1 month ago

Obama was the least transparent president of all time. Don’t take my word for it. There have been plenty of reports about how Obama denied more Freedom of Information Acts than any other president.

The media gave him a pass because during his 8 years they refused to follow up on anything. Obama’s administration was plagued with scandal after scandal and yet most liberal reporters will tell you his administration was scandal free. It’s madness.

Not only was Obama not transparent but a new study shows that Trump gives reporters even more access than Obama did.

From Conservative Tribune:

Research by Martha Kumar, director of the White House Transition Project, says that Trump has given a surprising amount of access to reporters.

“At his second year into his presidency, President Trump has given 200 interviews, 340 short question and answers sessions, 40 news conferences for a grand total of 580 interactions with the press. President Bill Clinton gave the most opportunities with 610,” Sinclair Broadcast Group reported.

“When you look at all the public utterances (Trump) has: his speeches, remarks, his interviews, his press conferences and his short Q-and-A, you find over half are instances when he is taking questions from reporters,” Kumar said.

In terms of question-and-answer sessions, Trump had 340 compared to Obama’s 75.

Just remember this the next time you see Jim Acosta shouting down Sarah Sanders about how she needs to do her job.

The Trump Admin. is doing it’s job. It’s the media who is failing to do theirs.


Published  1 month ago

Here are nine reasons everyone should be highly skeptical of Buzzfeed's "bombshell" report claiming Trump told Cohen to lie.

Daily Wire

Published  1 month ago

On January 3, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rep. Francis Rooney (R-FL) introduced a joint resolution proposing a term limit amendment to the Constitution.

The amendment would limit senators to two terms in office and representatives to three terms, meaning a senator could serve no more than twelve years, and a representative could serve no more than six years in Washington.

The same amendment was proposed in 2017, but essentially died on the table. The Daily Wire recently spoke with Senator Cruz about his most recent attempt at this amendment, why he believes it’s important, what issues it could solve, and who he believes are the impediments to getting it passed.

DW: Why did you propose the amendment?

CRUZ: Americans across the country understand that Washington is broken. There are few structural reforms that would have a more profound impact in ending the corruption in Washington than mandating term limits, and ending career politicians in Washington. I’ve introduced a constitutional amendment that would limit members of the House to three terms and limit members of the Senate to two terms. Overwhelming bipartisan majorities of Americans support this common sense reform, and I very much hope that Congress will listen and enact the will of the people.

DW: Why did the proposed amendment fail in 2017?

CRUZ: As I mentioned, there is an overwhelming bipartisan majority that supports term limits. 82% of Americans overall support term limits; 89% of Republican voters support term limits; 83% of independents support term limits; and even 76% of Democratic voters support term limits. There is one population, however, that consistently opposes term limits, and that is career politicians of both parties in Washington. That needs to change.

In Congress, there has long been resistance to term limits from those politicians who are invested in the current system. That being said, I think momentum is growing for this common sense reform, and the key to getting it brought up, voted on, and passed is growing public support from the people demanding it of their elected representatives. Once Congress passes it, the states, I believe, would readily ratify it because of the overwhelming public support. The impediments are the members of the United States Congress.

It may well be that now is a particularly opportune moment to take up this amendment. With divided government – a Republican Senate and a Democratic House – there may be an opportunity here because term limits don’t favor or disfavor either Republicans or Democrats. It simply ends the career politicians that have plagued both parties, and empowers the American people. I’m going to continue leading the fight to pass term limits until we get it done.

DW: There is a small percentage of individuals who stand against the idea of term limits. They believe that voting is a means of term limiting. What would you say to that?

CRUZ: I understand that argument. That is a very small percentage of American voters. According to the latest national poll, 82% of Americans support term limits, and 9% oppose. So, you’re talking about fewer than 10% of American voters. I supported term limits before I was elected to the Senate, but I have to say, having spent six years here, having seen firsthand what happens in the United States Congress, I now support term limits a thousand times more, and the reason is simple. The dominant instinct in Congress is risk aversion.

Whenever a major challenge facing this country comes up and we are at our Senate lunches, inevitably, to consider a major solution to a difficult problem entails risk. Doing something big and bold entails political risk, and the instinct that we see reflected over and over again is, [if] the overarching desire is to get re-elected, the answer to almost any big and bold solution is, "No, we can’t do that because that would be risky, and we might lose."

Term limits would enable elected representatives to address and tackle the big, meaningful challenges facing this country, and without the constant dependence on special interests and lobbyists funding perpetual re-election campaigns. The Framers of our Constitution envisioned citizen legislators; men and women who would come and spend a time serving in Congress, engaged in public service, but would then pack up their things and go back home and return to an honest living instead. That’s the vision, I think, America would be far better if we could get back to.

DW: If your proposal fails, will you try again in the exact same manner, or will you try a different route?

CRUZ: I certainly intend to continue pushing for term limits until we pass it. In terms of the specific details of the amendment, I am more than open to reasonable compromise. Indeed, I met with a senator today who was discussing different possible contours of the term limits amendment, and if it would procure the votes we need to pass it in Congress and get it adopted in the Constitution, I would be more than willing to make reasonable alterations.

One of the concessions to political pragmatism that this amendment makes is that the clock doesn’t start until the amendment is adopted and ratified. I would far prefer that it kick in instantaneously, meaning that those who have been here longer than three terms in the House or two terms in the Senate would be immediately term-limited, but as a concession to the realities of getting the votes, the amendment excludes prior service because it is difficult to ask members of Congress to vote for a provision that would [almost] immediately remove them from office. That being said, the clock would start the instant it was ratified. Within the decade, we would see the end of career politicians.

DW: Is there anything you would like to say that hasn’t been covered by the media?

CRUZ: The 22nd amendment was adopted by the American people to put term limits on the president, and it was adopted following World War II, following FDR serving four consecutive terms. The American people made a judgment that two terms was enough for a president. I think that was a good decision; I think that has proven beneficial for America – even though, if we hadn’t had the 22nd amendment, Republicans might well have wanted Ronald Reagan to serve a third term, and Democrats might well have wanted Bill Clinton or Barack Obama to serve a third term. But the process of term limits for the president has, I think, proven a resounding success for the country in terms of bringing in new and fresh leadership. The same principles should apply to the United States Congress.

The Daily Wire would like to thank Sen. Ted Cruz for speaking with us about his proposed term limit amendment to the Constitution.

If passed by lawmakers and ratified by the legislatures of 38 states, Cruz’s resolution would be the 28th amendment to the United States Constitution. To read the text of the proposed amendment, click here.

Santa Monica Observer

Published  1 month ago

Update: Stricken with Pneumonia, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg about to Retire from the Supreme Court.

Editor's Note; We first posted this story in September, 2018. Sadly we were correct, as Justice Ginsburg underwent surgery on December 15th to remove a cancerous growth from her lungs. We are reposting it since so many people contacted us to ask if it was true, which sadly, it is. She did not appear for oral arguments on January 7, 2019, & it is becoming increasingly clear that she will not ever return to the bench.

While the Nation is preoccupied with the appointment of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, it appears there will soon be another vacancy on the US Supreme Court

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has had a re-occurrence of malignant melanoma, she has told her law clerks. Ginsburg was treated in 1999 for colon cancer and had surgery in 2009 for pancreatic cancer.

She has told key Democratic members of the Senate about her medical condition, including ranking Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee Dianne Feinstein. This explains in part the "take no prisoners" attitude of the Democrats during the Kavanaugh nomination, carefully orchestrating weak 37 year old allegations against Kavanaugh by Women he barely remembers knowing in High School and College.

Kavanaugh is a player in this drama. He's in the wrong place at the wrong time . President Donald J Trump will be replacing Notorious RBG, the lovechild of the left, and so will remake the Supreme Court for a generation. The Democrats simply must win back the Senate in November 2018, progressives feel.

Ginsburg, 85 was appointed by President Bill Clinton and took the oath of office on August 10, 1993. She is the second female justice (after Sandra Day O'Connor) of four to be confirmed to the court (along with Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who are still serving). Following O'Connor's retirement, and until Sotomayor joined the court, Ginsburg was the only female justice on the Supreme Court. During that time, Ginsburg became more forceful with her dissents, which were noted by legal observers and in popular culture. She is generally viewed as belonging to the liberal wing of the court. Ginsburg has authored notable majority opinions, including United States v. Virginia, Olmstead v. L.C., and Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc.

Ginsburg was born in Brooklyn, New York, to Russian Jewish immigrants. Her older sister died when she was a baby, and her mother, one of her biggest sources of encouragement, died shortly before Ginsburg graduated from high school. She then earned her bachelor's degree at Cornell University, and was a wife and mother before starting law school at Harvard, where she was one of the few women in her class. Ginsburg transferred to Columbia Law School, where she graduated tied for first in her class.

Following law school, Ginsburg turned to academia. She was a professor at Rutgers School of Law and Columbia Law School, teaching civil procedure as one of the few women in her field. Ginsburg spent a considerable part of her legal career as an advocate for the advancement of gender equality and women's rights, winning multiple victories arguing before the Supreme Court. She advocated as a volunteer lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union and was a member of its board of directors and one of its general counsels in the 1970s. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter appointed her to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where she served until her appointment to the Supreme Court.

the Guardian

Published  1 month ago

Hundreds of Central American migrants have continued their march towards the United States, crossing from Honduras into Guatemala, as Donald Trump again demanded the construction of a border wall he claims would keep such groups out.

‘No way to live here’: new Honduran caravan sets off north as Trump blasts warnings

Read more

“We’re leaving because there’s no work here in Honduras,” said Carlos Maldonado, a 35-year-old from the city of La Ceiba, as he led a 200-strong column of migrants towards the Guatemalan border while waving his country’s blue and white flag in the air.

Maldonado is a member of the latest “migrant caravan” which set off from the notoriously violent Honduran city of San Pedro Sula at the start of this week and is expected to enter southern Mexico this weekend before heading north to the United States.

He said not all of the caravan’s estimated 1,500-2,000 members planned to reach “El Norte”. “We don’t know what our destination is yet. Some are going to stay in Mexico and others are heading for the United States,” he said.

Most of those interviewed by the Guardian this week, however, said they were set on entering the US.

Julio Oyuela, 42, said he was heading for New Orleans with his brother and cousin.

“There are no opportunities for anyone here,” Oyuela complained as he queued to leave Hondruas under the gaze of dozens of police officers equipped with riot shields, helmets and assault rifles.

“Just look at how many young people are leaving,” Oyuela added, pointing to the crowd of migrants around him, made up largely of exhausted-looking young men and families who had spent the last 36 hours trekking through the mountains of western Honduras.

As the caravan’s stragglers hiked the final stretch to the Guatemalan border, Donald Trump returned to Twitter to muse about the “nice, powerful wall” he has claimed would keep such people out and solve what he alleges is a crisis on the US-Mexico border.

“The are now 77 major or significant Walls built around the world, with 45 countries planning or building walls. Over 800 miles of Walls have been built in Europe since only 2015. They have all been recognised as close to 100% successful,” Trump claimed, concluding: “Stop the crime at our Southern Border!”

Pablo García, a 38-year-old migrant who said he had spent most of his life living in the US, said caravan members were crystal clear how Trump felt about them. “He doesn’t like Hispanic people,” he said in heavily-accented American English, before adding: “I don’t like him … I like Bill Clinton – and John Kennedy.”

Bartolo Fuentes, a Honduran activist and journalist who was at the border crossing on Wednesday afternoon, said he was worried that under pressure from Washington, his government would implement tougher border measures aimed at making life more difficult for caravans heading north.

On Tuesday, he claimed three buses containing perhaps 200 mostly young migrants had been sent back from the border by police. “What they want to do is stop the flow and show to the US government: ‘Look, we are doing something.’”

But Fuentes – who was accused but strenuously denies leading last October’s headline-making caravan – said such tactics would only expose Central American migrants to greater dangers by forcing them to use illegal crossings where they might face violence or be robbed. “People are leaving [Honduras] every single day and if they don’t allow people like this, they will go hidden. And that’s worse.”

As he prepared to say bid farewell to his homeland on Wednesday afternoon, Christian Sori, a 20-year-old migrant, admitted he was not sure where he would end up, nor what he would do.

But like thousands of fellow northbound travellers, he was determined to build a new life. “I’m going wherever God takes me.”


Published  1 month ago

President Trump should propose bipartisan deals, seize the moral high ground, and lead America back to success.


Published  1 month ago

Mere moments after BuzzFeed published a report — elements of which are now being called “false” by Special Council Robert Mueller’s office — the media had already begun invoking Trump’s imminent impeachment.

CBS News’s Paula Reid said: "If this 'BuzzFeed' news report is true, that the special counsel has evidence beyond just Michael Cohen's testimony, that the president directed his former personal attorney to lie to Congress, then we are likely on our way to possible impeachment proceedings. Because this, this is black and white.”

CNN’s Jim Sciutto said: "No reaction this morning from President Trump to report that ties him directly to the very same offense for which the House of Representatives moved to impeach Richard Nixon and two decades later Bill Clinton. ... The key offense at issue here is what is known as suborning or encouraging perjury, witness tampering, obstruction of justice."

MSNBC contributor Jill Wine Banks said: “I think this is the kind of evidence that could influence Republicans as well as Democrats to act faster. Because they are the ones who got lied to, and the public got lied to. There were also evidence of Nixon lying to the public as grounds for impeachment. And so while absolutely these are impeachment offenses and should be looked at for that, and we in Watergate decided that the best approach was the political one of impeachment, it didn’t mean that the crimes that were committed weren’t also subject to being indicted."

The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson said: “

ROBINSON: “It’s not just Cohen raising his hand and saying , you know, I know this thing. There’s actual evidence backing it up. That's -- that is a huge deal. We are talking subornation of perjury. You know, we're talking -- we’re -- we're deep in the realm now of credibly impeachable offenses. There is no excuse for this. And there is no way to talk you way out of this. If this is true the president's in deep trouble.”

Check out the montage above for many more.

Conservative Tribune

Published  1 month ago

The Obama-Clinton Benghazi scandal hasn't gone away.

National Review

Published  1 month ago

BuzzFeed News has tonight printed perhaps the most damaging claim against Donald Trump yet, a claim that, if true (a very big “if”), produces evidence against the president that is remarkably similar to evidence used to support articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon. And while there are numerous news reports regarding Trump’s activities that either remain unproven or have been debunked, this report is rendered especially plausible by documents the special counsel’s office filed just last month.

Let’s break this down, step-by-step:

First, the BuzzFeed report claims that Trump “directed his longtime attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.” BuzzFeed relies on “two [anonymous] federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter.”

[T]he two sources have told BuzzFeed News that Cohen also told the special counsel that after the election, the president personally instructed him to lie — by claiming that negotiations ended months earlier than they actually did — in order to obscure Trump’s involvement.

The special counsel’s office learned about Trump’s directive for Cohen to lie to Congress through interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Organization and internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents. Cohen then acknowledged those instructions during his interviews with that office.

Recall that in December Robert Mueller’s office filed a sentencing memo describing the extent of Cohen’s cooperation with the special counsel. A close read of the document shows that the special counsel dropped hints of some very interesting additional evidence in the case. Here’s how I analyzed the memo:

the special counsel takes pains to note that Cohen’s false statements to investigators were “deliberate and premeditated” and “did not spring spontaneously from a line of examination or a heated colloquy during a congressional hearing.” His lies were in a “written submission” and a “prepared opening statement.” These lies were allegedly told to “minimize the links” between the Moscow Trump Tower project and Trump himself.

Also — and this is crucial — the memo notes that Cohen has been cooperating in describing the “circumstances of preparing and circulating his response to the congressional inquiries” [emphasis added].

In plain English, this means that it is highly likely that senior Trump officials reviewed Cohen’s prepared, false testimony before he lied to Congress. This raises two important questions. Was Trump aware of the substance of Cohen’s testimony? If so, was Trump aware that Cohen’s testimony was false?

Now, why are these particular claims so important? First, because they go a long way towards meeting the elements of the crime of subornation of perjury. Here’s how the DOJ describes the crime:

To establish a case of subornation of perjury, a prosecutor must demonstrate that perjury was committed; that the defendant procured the perjury corruptly, knowing, believing or having reason to believe it to be false testimony; and that the defendant knew, believed or had reason to believe that the perjurer had knowledge of the falsity of his or her testimony.

If Trump “directed” Cohen — his own attorney — to lie, he faces very real legal jeopardy. In fact, Trump’s alleged misconduct now tracks the alleged misconduct of Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon. In his articles of impeachment (Nixon resigned before he could be impeached), Nixon was accused of, among other things:

approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings.

Bill Clinton faced similar claims. For example:

(1) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading.

(2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding.

There is more to the BuzzFeed report, including claims that Trump family members received “regular, detailed” briefings about the project and claims that Trump supported a plan to meet Putin during the campaign in part to “jump-start the tower negotiations,” but the allegation that Trump suborned perjury is easily the most significant.

Again, we don’t have confirmation of these claims, but they are very troubling indeed. And let’s recall, the alleged order to lie was about the immensely important matter of a presidential candidate’s reported desire to secure an extremely lucrative business deal from arguably our nation’s chief geopolitical foe — a foe that was even then attempting to interfere with an American presidential election. This is a serious matter. It’s vital that we learn promptly whether this report is supported by meaningful evidence. If Robert Mueller has the goods, we need to see them. Soon.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Plus, new details about the DOJ's knowledge of the Trump dossier - and its ties to Mueller's team

The Atlantic

Published  1 month ago

Democrats sometimes portray themselves as high-minded and naïve—unwilling to play as rough as the GOP. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is, once again, proving that self-image wrong. She’s not only refusing Donald Trump’s demand for a border wall. She’s trying to cripple his presidency. And she may well succeed.

Pelosi’s strategy resembles the one she employed to debilitate another Republican president: George W. Bush. Bush returned to Washington after his 2004 reelection victory determined to partially privatize Social Security. “I earned capital in the campaign, political capital,” he told the press, “and I intend to spend it.” Bush’s plan contained two main elements. The first was convincing the public that there was a crisis. Social Security, he declared in his 2005 State of the Union address, “is headed toward bankruptcy.” The second was convincing Democrats to offer their own proposals for changing it.

As Matthew Yglesias pointed out not long ago, a fallacy underlay Bush’s argument. Even if you believed Social Security was going bankrupt, diverting some of the tax money that funds it into private accounts wouldn’t solve the problem. It would make the problem worse. To mask that glitch, Bush needed to lure Democrats into offering proposals that actually shored up Social Security’s finances—by cutting benefits, raising taxes or cutting other spending—but were highly unpopular. Americans would presumably prefer Bush’s cotton candy to the Democrats’ broccoli, and thus empower Bush to fulfill the decades-old conservative goal of ending Social Security as a program of social insurance.

Aiding Bush’s effort was that fact that prominent Democrats had proposed tinkering with Social Security in the past. In his State of the Union address, Bush observed that, “During the 1990s, my predecessor, President Clinton, spoke of increasing the retirement age. Former [Democratic] Senator John Breaux suggested discouraging early collection of Social Security benefits. The late [Democratic] Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan recommended changing the way benefits are calculated.” Bill Clinton and Joe Lieberman had even toyed with private accounts.

But Pelosi, then House Minority Leader, wouldn’t take the bait. She denied that Social Security was in crisis. And she refused to offer a plan for changing it. When a member of Congress asked when Democrats would offer their own proposals, she replied, “Never. Is never good enough for you?”

Republicans called Democrats hypocrites for spurning proposals they had once supported. And centrist pundits, while admitting the problems with Bush’s proposal, criticized Democrats for not countering it. In a February 2005 editorial, The Washington Post slammed Democrats for their “silence about alternatives.” In a June editorial entitled, “Where are the Democrats?” the Post acknowledged that, “No doubt Democrats’ political instincts will be against engaging at this point: Why bail out Mr. Bush now, the strategists will argue, and let him claim that he led the way to putting Social Security on the path to solvency? … But there is also the little matter of what’s right for the country.”

Still Pelosi, understanding that policy and politics are inseparable, did nothing. Irrespective of the merits of tweaking Social Security, she realized that offering Democratic proposals would divide her caucus and give Bush a political lifeline. Instead, she forced Americans to choose between Social Security as it was and Social Security privatization, maneuvering Bush into a battle that crippled his second term and laid the foundation for Democrats to retake the House in 2006. “The first thing we had to do in 2005 was take the president’s numbers down. Bush was 57 percent in early 2005,” Pelosi recently remarked to The New York Times’s Robert Draper. “His numbers came down to 38 in the fall, and that’s when the retirements [of congressional Republicans] started to happen.”

Pelosi is up to something similar today. Just as Republicans in 2005 reminded Democrats that they once supported altering Social Security, Republicans today keep reminding Democrats that they once supported a border wall. In his Oval Office address last week, Trump observed that “Senator Chuck Schumer…has repeatedly supported a physical barrier in the past, along with many other Democrats.” Former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen titled a recent column, “Democrats were for a wall before they were against it.”

As in 2005, high-minded centrists are urging Pelosi and the Democrats to compromise. “Rather than talk about the immorality of a wall,” the Washington Post recently urged, “Democrats could use their leverage to achieve a truly moral purpose. In return for a few billion dollars for a segment of the president’s wall…Democrats might permanently shield from deportation well over 1 million ‘dreamers.’” A recent Bloomberg editorial scolded Democrats for wanting “to deny the other [side] anything that might be portrayed as a victory” and warned that “the only alternative to compromise, now that power in Washington is more equally divided, is paralysis.”

But Pelosi knows that the alternative to Democratic compromise isn’t necessarily paralysis. It may be Democratic triumph. Trump, like Bush, has picked a fight that is popular with conservatives but unpopular with the public at large. Most Americans don’t think there’s a border crisis, don’t support a border wall, and blame Trump for the shutdown. As a result, Republican members of Congress are under more political pressure to back down than their Democratic counterparts, and the longer the shutdown continues, the more that pressure should grow. For the time being, at least, conservative opposition has forced Trump to shelve talk of declaring a national emergency. All of which means that the most likely outcome to the current standoff is that Trump caves. And since the wall was Trump’s signature campaign promise, such a retreat could depress conservative enthusiasm and impair his chances in 2020. “If he gives in,” Lindsey Graham recently warned, “That’s probably the end of his presidency.”

That’s what Pelosi is aiming for. In pure policy terms, there’s a case for compromise. Arguably, it’s worth wasting a few billion dollars on a border wall to safeguard the “dreamers” who are stuck in an agonizing legal limbo. But Pelosi is focused on something bigger: the emasculation of the president. For years, Democrats have wondered when their leaders would start playing tough. Turns out Pelosi has been doing so all along.

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

Big League Politics

Published  1 month ago

There are a lot of national emergencies going on. In fact, there are 31 active national emergencies declared under the National Emergencies Act.

Bill Clinton used this authority 17 times. President Trump has only used it three times so far.

Sorry Democrats, this “national emergency” business is not quite the work of “dictators.”

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

All of the rest of Obama’s national emergencies were focused on blocking property or prohibiting transactions/travel for individuals engaged in various activities in — by order of the date of enactment — Somalia, Libya, transnational criminal organizations, Yemen, Ukraine, South Sudan, Central African Republic, Venezuela and Burundi.

Conservative Tribune passage ends

The American people stand with President Trump following his amazing Oval Office address explaining the human cost of illegal immigration.

Here’s why President Trump should not have to fear legal fights over his expected upcoming national emergency declaration. Jonathon Moseley reports:

If President Donald Trump uses the U.S. military to build the border wall along the United States’ international with Mexico by declaring a national emergency, won’t liberals simply run to a Federal judge whom they believe to be left-wing within the Ninth Circuit and block Trump? Can Congress vote to overturn Trump’s declaration of an emergency?

No. If the federal courts actually follow the law, President Trump cannot be prevented from “reprogramming” funds appropriated for the U.S. Department of Defense and actually using the military (such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) to build the border wall.

As noted in the first installment on this topic, Congress has given a president the power to declare a national emergency by 50 U.S.C. 1621 and 50 U.S.C. 1622. A declaration of an emergency allows the President to reprogram funds in the military budget. See 33 U.S. Code § 2293 “Reprogramming during national emergencies.”

Trump could reprogram funds from other parts of the Department of Defense budget — including from other DoD construction projects such as on bases, military housing, etc. — and engage in construction in areas of need for the national defense. The statute says that explicitly (although statutes are never easy reading).

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

With an unsettled field, betting on the victor of the Democratic 2020 presidential primary right now is risky business. In January 2015, Jeb Bush was atop the Republican pack, and Donald Trump was five months away from disrupting everything.

Nonetheless, there are indicators to assess the potential success of nascent campaigns. Among the dozens of names on the left, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., should be considered in the top tier.

At 54, Harris is two decades younger than some of her septuagenarian competitors – an age that enables her to appeal to the Instagram crowd without being painted as inexperienced. A child of immigrants, she brings diversity to a party obsessed with racial and gender politics.


Harris has been in the Senate only two years – not long enough to amass a voting record on thorny issues or carry the stench of Washington. She has used her perch on the Senate Judiciary Committee to filet Trump nominees and earn plaudits from liberals.

Harris represents California, whose nearly 40 million citizens account for 12 percent of the entire country’s population. Typically an afterthought in the voting process with its June primary, the Golden State moved its date up to March 3. The leap-frogging means it will play an outsized role in the nomination, and its hometown representatives stand to benefit.

Now let’s consider her challenges. Harris’s home state advantage is no guarantee. Delegates will be assigned by congressional district, of which there are 53 across California’s 11 media markets. Opportunistic candidates can pick off wins by blanketing targeted areas of the state with resources.

Running as a liberal in a deep blue state, Harris has never been through the wringer of a national political campaign. She faced no Republican opposition in her only Senate run, trouncing the nearest Democrat by the largest margin of any non-incumbent senator in 100 years. Candidates get better with practice, and Harris’ inexperience on the national scene could cause some bumps along the road.

Harris’ tenure on the Judiciary Committee has not been without controversy. Even The Washington Post awarded her the dubious “four Pinnochios” award for misleading attacks against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. More recently, she faced allegations of anti-Catholic bigotry for denigrating the Knights of Columbus. It is a sad reality that in 2019 principled Catholics face hostility in the Democratic Party once led by John F. Kennedy.

More than anything else, Harris’s greatest vulnerabilities lie in her professional background. Presidential candidates must put forward their entire resumes to be picked apart by the media and opposition researchers, who frame it for consumption by the general public.

Harris’s roots are in law enforcement, first as district attorney for San Francisco and then attorney general of California – the state’s top cop. Carrying the banner of law enforcement for Democrats is akin to entering a Republican primary with a resume advocating tax hikes. Both positions fly in the face of party orthodoxy, particularly among activists who decide primaries.

Four years ago, Hillary Clinton struggled to explain her support of the 1994 crime bill, which was one component of her husband President Bill Clinton’s commitment to law and order. Twenty years later, it was a headache in a party deeply skeptical of law enforcement.

For Harris, every case she was a part of as a prosecutor is about to be scrutinized. It will be Whac-A-Mole – every time a controversy erupts and is put out, another one will arise. Already, her role in a top aide’s resignation amid sexual harassment allegations and a $400,000 payout for the accuser has raised eyebrows.

Harris will be forced to explain past positions that are anathema to liberals, such as defending the death penalty, laughing at the idea of marijuana legalization, and threatening parents with jail time for truancy. In politics, when you’re explaining, you’re losing.

If Harris over-compensates by running far to the left, she will open herself up to charges of being soft on crime – a reputation that has sunk Democratic candidates of yesteryear in general elections (looking at you, Michael Dukakis).

Even in a field crowded with higher-profile names, it would be a mistake to underestimate Kamala Harris’ political upside. Time will tell if she is able to capitalize on it. For my money, she starts the primary race as the (very early) favorite.

Colin Reed is a former campaign manager for Scott Brown and is a Republican strategist and managing director at Definers Public Affairs, a Washington, D.C. communications firm.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has canceled a planned public appearance in Los Angeles set two weeks from now on January 29 due to her recuperating from lung cancer surgery. Ginsburg was scheduled to appear at the Skirball Center as part of a celebration of her career. An exhibit being shown at the center through March 10 is called “Notorius RBG: The Life and Times of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The Skirball Center released a statement Tuesday evening that said, “Update: An Evening with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is CANCELED. The Justice regrets that she is unable to visit the Skirball on 1/29. She is curtailing travel and focusing on her work while recuperating from recent surgery. Thank you for your understanding.”

Update: An Evening with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is CANCELED. The Justice regrets that she is unable to visit the Skirball on 1/29. She is curtailing travel and focusing on her work while recuperating from recent surgery. Thank you for your understanding.

— SkirballCulturalCtr (@Skirball_LA) January 15, 2019

Ginsburg’s appearance had just been announced on December 20. That turned out to be the day before she had surgery to remove two cancerous nodules in her left lung. Ginsburg was released from the hospital four days later and has reportedly been working from home. Ginsburg has missed every session of the Supreme Court since hearings resumed last week following the holiday break.

Just announced: AN EVENING W/ JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG Tue 1/29 @skirball_la. On-sale dates & impt info at! #NotoriousRBG 📷: Official portrait of US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg from the collection of the Supreme Court of the US.

— SkirballCulturalCtr (@Skirball_LA) December 20, 2018

Supreme Court PIO Kathy Arberg issued a statement Friday on Ginsburg’s status indicating Ginsburg is free of cancer following the surgery:

“Justice Ginsburg will continue to work from home next week and will participate in the consideration and decision of the cases on the basis of the briefs and the transcripts of oral arguments. Her recovery from surgery is on track. Post-surgery evaluation indicates no evidence of remaining disease, and no further treatment is required.”

Ginsburg has previously been successfully treated for colon and pancreatic cancer in 1999 and 2009, respectively. She broke three ribs in a fall at her Supreme Court office in November. Her absence from the Court this month marks the first time she has missed oral arguments since joining the court.

The 85-year-old Ginsburg was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1993 by President Bill Clinton. She is the oldest on the Court, however her fellow Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, 70, is currently the longest serving having been appointed in 1991 by President George H. W. Bush.

Published  1 month ago

Q: Is President Obama using tax dollars to rebuild mosques around the world? A: Yes — and to rebuild historic churches and temples as well. The State Department’s program to preserve overseas cultural landmarks started funding projects under President Bush in 2001. FULL QUESTION A mass e-mail sent out by the Christian, conservative American Family Association claims that Obama is giving foreign aid to overseas mosques.

The Federalist

Published  1 month ago

No one should be naïve enough to fall for Democrats’ pretenses that these gun bills are aimed at reducing crime. It never has been.


Published  1 month ago

Having been stung twice in less than 20 years in Presidential elections by winning the popular vote but not the office itself, Democrats now want to tear down the system that has preserved and stabilized us for over 200 years.


Published  1 month ago

The department may revise the rules for obtaining journalists' records in part because of a massive increase in criminal leak investigations.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

A stench has been emanating from the J. Edgar Hoover Building (FBI headquarters) for over two years. It landed Saturday on the front page of the New York Times in an article citing “former law enforcement officials” claiming they had to deal with “explosive implications” that President Donald Trump was “knowingly” or “unwittingly” working for Russia. Thus, the story goes, there was a basis to begin the Russia collusion investigation.

In fact, “The Gray Lady” was covering the derrieres of the Obama administration officials involved in the cabal to frame Trump, who now fear an imminent Special Counsel finding that during the 2016 campaign there was no collusion between Trump and the Russians. The article is intended to convey the following message: Even though there was no evidence to support the allegations, those making the decision to investigate Trump did so in good faith.

No, they did not. The rotting of the FBI hierarchy began when then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and then-agent Peter Strzok, enabled by former Director James Comey and the Obama Justice Department, utilized an “unsubstantiated” dossier created by former British spy, Christopher Steele, and financed by the Clinton campaign, to request a FISA warrant to wiretap Trump campaign advisor Carter Page. Yet, the New York Times described the dossier as a “factor[] fuel[ing]” the “FBI’s concerns.”


We have been involved in the criminal justice process for decades. Never have we seen a law enforcement person concerned about anything unsubstantiated.

Another “factor” was that Trump “refused to criticize Russia on the campaign trail.” Really? Where was the FBI or DOJ angst in 2012 when President Barack Obama requested then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev tell Vladimir Putin that after the election, he would have “more flexibility” to deal with serious stuff like missile defense?

Where was the angst when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attempted a Russian reset? Was anyone in law enforcement tossing his cookies in 2010 when her spouse, Bill Clinton, took $500,000 from a Russian entity comprised of former Russian intelligence operatives? Or when the Obama administration allowed corrupt Russian-controlled companies to purchase Uranium One, thereby acquiring 20 percent of the U.S. uranium supply.

Another “factor” was that in July 2016, candidate Trump “called on Russia” “to hack into” Clinton’s emails. No. Trump’s remark, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you will be able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” was not a request to hack. Hillary had already used BleachBit to delete the emails so “even God cannot read them” according to former Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. Trump was joking to attack his political opponent for destroying evidence or, in legal jargon, obstructing justice.

Which raises another New York Times “factor”: that firing Comey in May of 2017 was “obstruction of justice” calling for a criminal investigation in addition to the counterintelligence investigation already in place because of the pretextual factors cited above. Set aside the president’s clear constitutional authority to fire any executive branch person for any reason or for no reason.

The fact remains that a person cannot be charged with obstruction of justice if the act at issue cannot obstruct justice, meaning it cannot thwart the investigation. Even if a special counsel had not been (improperly) appointed, the FBI top dog’s departure does not affect in any way the continuing work of the FBI employees below him. Indeed, it has not. Where is the obstruction?

Moreover, if firing Comey obstructed justice, why wasn’t Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who recommended the firing, also placed under investigation?

The New York Times story was created to obfuscate the real criminal conspiracy: violation of Title 18 of U.S. Code Section 242, which prohibits any person under color of law (i.e. Obama administration personnel) to deprive another of “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution.” Such legal protection includes being free from a criminal investigation based on false charges.

Perhaps the bizarre January 20, 2017 email Susan Rice wrote “to herself” purporting to document a January 5, 2017 meeting with President Obama, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, FBI Director Comey and Vice President Joe Biden, gives a clue as to some of those conspirators. The meeting discussed the Steele dossier and Russian collusion, but curiously Rice stressed that the former president said every aspect should be handled “by the book.” Yet, Strzok had told his FBI colleague and paramour Lisa Page not to worry about Trump being elected because “We’ll stop it.”

The brazen plot against President Trump by the Obama FBI and DOJ continues, enabled by a complicit media. The odor of corruption has long been noxious. But the Democrats and media hold their collective noses. The criminal clique, via the New York Times, has announced to the world, “Catch me if you can.”

Joseph diGenova is a former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, co-founder of the law firm of diGenova & Toensing and an informal legal adviser to President Trump.

Victoria Toensing is a former chief counsel for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and former deputy assistant attorney general at the U.S. Department of Justice, where among other assignments she created the anti-terrorism section. She is a founding partner of diGenova & Toensing.

Raw Story

Published  1 month ago

President Donald Trump’s frosty relationship with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) resulted in cancelation of a celebration involving heads of state, The New York Times reported Monday.

Citing senior administration officials, The Times reported Trump privately said he wanted to withdraw from NATO “several times over the course of 2018.”

Retired Adm. James G. Stavridis, the former supreme allied commander of NATO, said Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin won just by Trump mentioning the subject.

“Even discussing the idea of leaving NATO — let alone actually doing so — would be the gift of the century for Putin,” Stavridis said.

America’s allies have fretted Trump’s attacks on the organization.

“NATO had planned to hold a leaders meeting in Washington to mark its 70th anniversary in April, akin to the 50-year celebration that was hosted by President Bill Clinton in 1999,” The Times reported. “But this year’s meeting has been downgraded to a foreign ministers gathering, as some diplomats feared that Mr. Trump could use a Washington summit meeting to renew his attacks on the alliance.”

Judicial Watch

Published  1 month ago

Big JW Victory: California and Los Angeles County to Remove 1.5 Million Inactive Voters from Voter Rolls Trump’s HUD Keeps Obama’s Funding for Radical Leftist Groups The Obama-Clinton Administration Behind Syria Debacle   Big JW Victory: California and Los Angeles County to Remove 1.5 Million Inactive Voters from Voter Rolls Good news for the voters...

Judicial Watch

Published  1 month ago

Judicial Watch Moves to Question Top Obama-Clinton Officials About Benghazi and Clinton Emails The Border Crisis is Also a Public Health Crisis Big Apple Corruption: the Mayor, the Rat, & the NYPD   Judicial Watch Moves to Question Top Obama-Clinton Officials About Benghazi and Clinton Emails The Departments of State and Justice will not investigate...

Washington Press

Published  1 month ago

The president thought he was being slick with his attacks on FOX News last night — but the House Oversight Committee wasn't fooled for one minute.

The DC Chronicle

Published  1 month ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is missing arguments for the first time in more than 25 years as she recuperates from cancer surgery last month, the Supreme Court said.

Ginsburg was not on the bench as the court met Monday to hear arguments. It was not clear when she would return to the court, which will hear more cases Tuesday and Wednesday, and again next week.

Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said the 85-year-old justice is continuing to recuperate and work from home after doctors removed two cancerous growths from her left lung on Dec. 21.

Ginsburg was discharged from a New York hospital on Dec. 25.

Chief Justice John Roberts said in the courtroom Monday that Ginsburg would participate in deciding the argued cases “on the basis of the briefs and transcripts of oral arguments.”

Ginsburg had two earlier cancer surgeries in 1999 and 2009 that did not cause her to miss court sessions. She also has broken ribs on at least two occasions.

The court said doctors found the growths on Ginsburg’s lung when she was being treated for fractured ribs she suffered in a fall at her office on Nov. 7.

After past health scares, Ginsburg has come back to work relatively quickly. In 2009, she was at the court for arguments on Feb. 23, 18 days after surgery for pancreatic cancer.

Weeks after her fall in November, Ginsburg was asking questions at high court arguments, speaking at a naturalization ceremony for new citizens and being interviewed at screenings of the new movie about her, “On the Basis of Sex.”

Her latest surgery was a procedure called a pulmonary lobectomy at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. The court said in a release issued the day of the surgery that doctors found “no evidence of any remaining disease” and scans taken before the surgery showed no cancerous growths elsewhere in her body. No additional treatment is currently planned, the court said.

Appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, Ginsburg rebuffed suggestions from some liberals that she should step down in the first two years of President Barack Obama’s second term, when Democrats controlled the Senate and would have been likely to confirm her successor.

She already has hired clerks for the term that extends into 2020, indicating she has no plans to retire.

If she did step down, President Donald Trump would have another opportunity to move a conservative court even more to the right. On the day she had surgery, Trump tweeted his wishes for Ginsburg’s “full and speedy recovery!”

News Punch

Published  1 month ago

An organization founded by Hillary Clinton and funded by George Soros is preparing to sue President Trump over his "racist border wall."


Published  1 month ago

Even as top officials in the communist regime ruling over mainland China were spewing increasingly militaristic anti-American rhetoric — not to mention the Beijing-based dictatorship’s massive espionage operations against the United States — the Obama administration reportedly waived laws prohibiting certain Chinese-made parts on U.S. weapons systems. Experts say the apparently unprecedented move represents a major national-security risk and is part of a troubling trend.

Among the biggest concerns expressed by critics of the waivers so far is the fact that Chinese manufacturers — much of the economy, including “business,” is owned and controlled by the barbaric regime — have developed an international reputation for providing poor quality products. Indeed, official investigations have revealed that military hardware components made in China have a tendency to fail. A recent congressional report, for example, found that there could be over a million counterfeit Chinese electronic parts on U.S. military aircraft.

Also troubling is the prospect of the U.S. military becoming even more dependent on a potential adversary to keep its weapons systems operational. In the event of a war, the communist autocracy could, and presumably would, simply refuse to supply the needed components. With the Chinese dictatorship and its allies becoming increasingly belligerent, more than a few analysts have noted that eventual conflict is certainly a realistic prospect.

Even more alarming to national-security advocates is the potential for spying and sabotage. The communist regime ruling mainland China has become infamous worldwide for its gargantuan intelligence-gathering apparatus. Multiple reports, meanwhile, have suggested that Chinese products are already being used to steal sensitive information. When it comes to the U.S. government’s key weapons systems, of course, the implications are enormous.

According to official documents cited by Reuters, which first exposed the administration’s controversial issuance of the waivers, the Pentagon allowed two U.S. arms manufacturers to avoid sanctions despite legal restrictions on using Chinese components. The parts in question include important magnets used in the controversial F-35 fighter (shown) program, already under heavy fire for cost overruns, delays, being unnecessary, and more.

The military aircraft program, run by Lockheed Martin, is expected to cost U.S. taxpayers close to half of a trillion dollars. Two of the firms supplying the F-35 program, Northrop Grumman Corp and Honeywell International Inc., were reportedly allowed by the administration to use Chinese-made parts in the new fighter planes’ radar systems, landing gear, and other important hardware. Depending on the situation, malfunctions of components or even espionage and sabotage could prove deadly.

According to the documents cited in news reports, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress’ investigative service, is probing at least three instances of Chinese-made parts being used in the F-35 program. The investigation was reportedly requested by U.S. lawmakers concerned about damage to American industry — and especially the prospect of having the U.S. military become more dependent on a potentially hostile foreign power just to produce its weapons and keep them operational.

Experts suggested the administration’s decision was unprecedented. “It was a pretty big deal and an unusual situation because there's a prohibition on doing defense work in China, even if it's inadvertent,” explained Frank Kenlon, described by Reuters as a recently retired senior Pentagon procurement official who now teaches at American University. “I'd never seen this happen before.”

Other former defense officials highlighted some of the myriad dangers of the scheme to use Chinese parts — even when U.S. companies could have reportedly supplied them. Michael Maloof, who served as a senior security-policy analyst in the office of the secretary of defense, called the news a “very serious development.” He also warned that the potential for problems was more than theoretical, with almost “all of the breakdowns” on U.S. weapons systems being attributed to components made in China.

“Of course, the Chinese look upon the U.S. military as an adversary,” he explained. “They know that the components will inevitably get into U.S. defense products, and consequently, this gives them some kinds of capability over U.S. systems — especially if those systems are used rigorously and vigorously. There is some indication that they can actually control the use of those components within those systems.”

That could mean bad news for U.S. troops and even, potentially, U.S. independence. “From the U.S. defense standpoint, this does not make you feel warm and fuzzy,” Maloof noted. “There have been recent Senate investigation studies in the U.S. Congress showing that Chinese components that went into military hardware were insufficient, they broke down or in some cases they could be used to spy, and actually break down a weapons system.”

The problem, Maloof added, is systemic. “The Chinese have entire industries that do nothing but build these fraudulent components — electronic components — and they export them,” he explained. “Lockheed Martin is not paying any attention to the concerns from the U.S. Congress, and they ought to be severely reprimanded for that.” Neither is the Obama administration, apparently. The federal laws prohibiting such machinations have been on the books for some four decades.

While the Chinese-made magnetic parts in the F-35 reportedly do not contain programmable elements, making them less risky for national security than other components from China, the waivers highlight what experts say is a deeply troubling trend. A study released last year found the U.S. military is dangerously dependent on foreign suppliers, including the communist dictatorship in Beijing, for its equipment. The United States is completely dependent on China for fuel needed to power “Hellfire” missiles, for example. The Communist Party-state is also among the top investors in key U.S. industries critical to national security, according to recent reports.

Separately, U.S. military leaders have blamed a combination of massive Chinese espionage and U.S. government machinations for putting huge amounts of the most sensitive American defense technology into the hands of the regime in Beijing. Officials have long said that the totalitarians ruling China represent the most serious spying threat to the United States. As documented in the February 15, 1999 “Chinagate: Treason in the White House” issue of The New American, however, even former President Bill Clinton played a key role in supplying U.S. military technology to the mass-murdering communist autocracy.

Among other top officials, former U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Thomas Moorer lambasted Clinton’s machinations. “President Clinton promised to restrain those who ordered the Tiananmen Square massacre, but he has now allowed these men whose hands are stained with the blood of martyrs of freedom into the highest reaches of our military defenses, and made available to them significant portions of our advanced military technology,” he wrote in a letter to congressional leaders at the time.

Under Obama, the trends have continued. The latest China scandal, for example, came just months after another major controversy surrounding the Obama administration’s troubling cooperation with the ruthless Chinese tyrants. Following an outcry over unprecedented terror drills with Russian troops on U.S. soil, the administration then came under heavy fire for inviting communist Chinese troops for “exercises” with American forces in Hawaii. While the Pentagon brushed off national security concerns when contacted by The New American, the Chinese regime boasted of “weapons demonstrations” and “cooperative action.” Critics said the scheme illustrated the acceleration of the dangerous trends.

Especially troubling to analysts is the Chinese regime’s rapid military build-up and its increasingly hostile anti-Western rhetoric. Among the countless examples that could be cited are the statements of Communist Chinese Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu, who threatened to destroy “hundreds” of American cities with nuclear weapons if the U.S. government adheres to its defense pact with free China, known as Taiwan. The same official who threatened to nuke the United States led a Chinese military delegation to Washington, D.C., last year.

More recently, the communist regime’s propaganda organs have been openly calling for a “de-Americanized” so-called New World Order. The dictatorship’s military, meanwhile, has been boasting that its warships can rival the U.S. Navy, even as the top tyrant in Beijing ordered his communist “People’s Liberation Army” to prepare for war. The regime has also reportedly been discussing the deployment of military assets to the moon — with the capability of striking any target on Earth. Experts say the troubling developments show no signs of slowing down and that Congress must take action.

Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. He can be reached at

Related articles:

Conservative Tribune

Published  1 month ago

Video after video shows Democrats sounding almost exactly like Donald Trump on illegal immigration, at least before he ran for president.

Power Line

Published  1 month ago

Robert P. George of Princeton offers this prediction:

You will be able to watch something as if in slow motion over the course of the next few years: the collapse of support for Israel by Democratic Party politicians who harbor ambition for national office. It will follow the pattern we saw of collapse of support for the pro-life cause by leading Democrats in the period of 1973-80 (and particularly 1973-76). One by one, major pro-life Democrats, perceiving the writing on the wall, flipped to supporting abortion and, eventually, even its public funding: Teddy Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Richard Gephart, Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, Joe Biden, and many others. (Something similar happened on marriage, by the way, in the period of 2000-2012, especially 2004-09, culminating in Barack Obama’s “evolution” and Hillary Clinton’s change of heart.)

Similarly, today’s leading Democrats will move from support for Israel, to merely nominal support for Israel, to neutrality, to quiet, somewhat ambiguous opposition, to something effectively indistinguishable from “Zionism is racism.” The left calls the tune, and just as the left settled in on abortion in the early 1970s and marriage redefinition in the 90s, it has now settled in on opposition to Israel–not merely the policies of its government, but its very existence as a Jewish state and homeland of the Jewish people. Do you doubt me? You can do a test of your own. Go to the center of campus at your local university and hoist a placard bearing a large blue star of David and the words “Long Live Israel!” (Notice: Please make sure your health and life insurance coverage are in good order before conducting this experiment.)

Of course, we already saw this shift taking place in the Obama Administration. The big question is whether Jewish voters will start voting Republican in response.


Published  1 month ago

More information is supporting the theory that the current big Justice Department "investigations" are actually functioning as big cover-up operations. Robert Mueller's team is effectively hiding key evidence related to serious crimes committed by government officials. Mueller has nearly complete control over what the public or any investigator can see. He has control over what witnesses can talk about.

This means that the Huber and Horowitz investigations exist to make you think something is being investigated when it is not. That is why Representatives Doug Collins, Mark Meadows, and Jim Jordan sent a letter to Huber, the U.S. attorney, this week that essentially exposes the fraud.

The letter begins, "We write to request an update on the progress of your review of irregularities involved with the Department of Justice's (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) actions during 2016 and 2017[.]" The letter then points to facts that indicate that there has been no real investigation. None of the many key witnesses has been interviewed. Huber refused to testify at a recent congressional hearing about the Clinton Foundation. The letter then asks for information in four areas where Huber cannot reply without further demonstrating that this is a fake investigation.

There is also mounting evidence that hiding facts is common in deep state political crusades. A recent column by Marty Watters and Lee Cary exposes Mueller's long history of improperly hiding evidence. The column begins, "During his twelve-year reign as FBI Director, Robert Mueller not only protected his criminal friends by silencing those who could expose their bad acts, he projected his friends' crimes onto others."

One example cited is the case of William Campbell, who infiltrated Russia's State Nuclear Energy Corporation, Rosatom, for the FBI. Over a period of eight years, he documented the bribery and money-laundering involved in Russia's effort to get access to U.S. uranium assets. Massive donations were made to the Clinton Foundation, and absurdly high speaking fees were given to Bill Clinton by those who planned to profit from the deal.

The reason you have not heard Campbell's story is that FBI director Mueller forbade him to go public. Attorney General Loretta Lynch threatened Campbell with jail if he told the truth. The truth was hidden, and the deal went through.

You will remember the case of Valerie Plame, where a special counsel was empowered to find out who "outed" supposed covert agent Plame. It was known early in this politically motivated investigation that the chosen target, Dick Cheney's top aide, Scooter Libby, was not the person who had leaked Plames name. There were two earlier leakers whom Mueller's FBI knew about. But the special counsel did not want to let a good investigation go to waste, so he prolonged it for maximum political effect. Sound familiar?

We know that the person who leaked Plame's name to Robert Novak was Richard Armitage. The Watters-Cary column added a new twist to the story by introducing an earlier leaker, who was hidden by Mueller. An FBI employee, Sibel Edmonds, did not like the extensive illegal surveillance she was witnessing. She wanted to expose the criminal actions of the FBI. Director Mueller intervened on two occasions to silence her. Some of the information from the surveillance related to Plame. Watters and Cary write:

One of the "secrets" that Mueller did not want Edmonds to expose was that the FBI has a 2001 recording of Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman outing Plame's identity as a CIA employee to a Turkish diplomat. This was long before Richard Armitage claimed he "accidently" [sic] outed Plame to Robert Novak.

Silencing Edmonds enabled Mueller to position his protégé, Deputy Attorney General James Comey, to eventually appoint their mutual, close friend, U.S Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, as the Special Counsel tasked to discover who leaked Plame's identity as a CIA employee. Everyone with a need to know already knew the original leaker was Grossman. But the public didn't need to know, and so the spin-up to the lengthy Plamegate puppet show began.

Scott Johnson of Powerline has three posts about "Mueller's Cone of Silence" that relate to Mueller attempting to hide evidence in his Russian troll case. In February of last year, Mueller indicted Russian social media actors (some of whom do not even exist) for some trivial actions not aimed at any particular candidate. The apparent purpose of the indictment was to feed the Trump-Russia collusion fable by creating news stories containing the word "Russia." Mueller surely had no expectation that the Russians would answer the charges, but Concord Management did just that.

Concord's attorney has asked to see the evidence against its people. Mueller has essentially told the judge that the evidence is "sensitive," and he doesn't want to show it. Openly telling the defendant he can't see the evidence is one step more brazen than simply hiding the evidence. The Concord attorney responded this way in his motion to Judge Dabney Friedrich:

In this first-of-its-kind prosecution of a make-believe crime, the Office of Special Counsel maintains that it can unilaterally – and for secret reasons disclosed only to the Court – categorize millions of pages of non-classified documents as "sensitive," and prohibit defense counsel from sharing this information with Defendant[.]

It is interesting that Judge Friedrich is married to Matthew Friedrich, who is tied directly to Mueller in some well documented cases of hiding evidence from defendants. Sidney Powell's great book, Licensed to Lie, describes the extreme corruption of Mueller's prosecutors in the cases of Ted Stevens, Merrill Lynch, and Enron. Evidence was hidden in these cases on a grand scale. Later, after the damage was done, higher courts overturned verdicts and strongly rebuked the dishonest prosecutors.

In 2014, Sidney Powell wrote a column about what Eric Holder had done to four of the corrupt and discredited prosecutors described in Powell's book. Holder did the same thing that our current "dirty cops" expected from President Hillary Clinton. Holder "honored, promoted and protected" them.

Matthew Friedrich was one of the four, and Andrew Weissmann was another. Matthew Friedrich "personally told the jury facts that were directly refuted by [evidence he withheld][.] ... Mr. Friedrich rushed the indictment of Senator Stevens and micromanaged that corrupted prosecution, which cost the citizens of Alaska their senior Senator, changed the balance of power in the Senate, and facilitated the enactment of Obamacare. "

Judge Friedrich is a Trump appointee. Her rulings so far indicate that she may be just as effective for Trump as Jeff Sessions was.

Look at the big picture. Those in power regularly hide evidence of their crimes and get away with it. From Lois Lerner to Hillary Clinton to Strzok and Page, the dreaded "glitch" eats the most important evidence. From "Fast and Furious" to Benghazi to Comey's fake investigation of Hillary to Rosenstein's stonewalling to Mueller's "insurance policy" cover-up, hiding the facts is the primary goal.

Joseph Stalin is quoted as saying, "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." It is also true that the actual evidence decides nothing. The people who control the evidence decide everything.

Image: James Ledbetter via Flickr.

Published  1 month ago


Published  1 month ago

Demand Justice, an organization founded by former members of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and associated with a “social welfare organization” financed by billionaire activist George Soros, is raising money for an eventual court fight against what the group describes as President Trump’s proposed “racist, unnecessary wall.”


Published  1 month ago

President Donald Trump is considering declaring a national emergency at the U.S. southern border and it would not be unprecedented in general.

Trump’s predecessor, former President Barack Obama, himself declared 12 states of national emergency ranging from a “National Emergency with Respect to the 2009 H1N1 Influenza Pandemic” to “blocking property” from “certain persons” in connection with countries in conflict with the U.S. (Related: Here’s What Would Happen If Trump Declared A National Emergency To Build The Wall)

The U.S. is currently under 32 active states of national emergencies, per the Brennan Center for Justice. Many of the emergencies were declared by presidents as far back as Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.

Trump will deliver a primetime address to the nation Tuesday as the nation enters its 18th day with a partial government shutdown. Trump is engaged in a high stakes battle with Democratic lawmakers over funding for his proposed wall along the U.S. southern border.

The White House is demanding 5.7 billion dollars for a proposed steel barrier along the border, with Democratic lawmakers saying they will provide no more than 1.6 billion. The White House is committed to keeping the government partially shutdown until an agreement can be reached over funding for the border wall.

Trump told reporters in recent days that he is open to declaring a national emergency to circumvent the funding process in Congress, and could simply use his powers as commander in chief to appropriate military funding for the border wall. Despite this consideration, however, Trump said he would much prefer to go through the congressional negotiations process.

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.” No doubt, but let’s get our deal done in Congress!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 7, 2019

Vice President Mike Pence told NBC News Monday evening that a national emergency is “something that he’s looking at and considering.”

VP Pence to @HallieJackson this morn re: POTUS/declaring a national emergency so he can start building a border wall without congressional approval: “It’s something that he’s looking at and considering”

— Robert Costa (@costareports) January 8, 2019

Business Insider

Published  1 month ago

Russian President Vladimir Putin's summit with US President Donald Trump in Helsinki, Finland on Monday ignited a firestorm of controversy in the US. For the most part, the two world leaders were more friendly toward one another than Trump's predecessors were.

Conservative News Today

Published  1 month ago

Classless CNN pundit Ana Navarro cavalierly filed her nails during a heated debate with CNN commentator Steve Cortes on Chris Cuomo’s talk show. Cortes, who’s of Colombian descent, is a successful Wall Street executive. Like many law-abiding Hispanics, Cortes opposes illegal immigration. He pointed out that the bogus statistics the media keep throwing around how […]

Daily Wire

Published  1 month ago

White House aides are said to be preparing a shortlist of potential Supreme Court nominees in the event that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies or retires.

Ginsburg, 85, missed oral arguments this week for the first time since she was first appointed to the high court 25 years ago by President Bill Clinton. After missing arguments on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday (for the record, she is reading transcripts of the sessions while she recovers from cancer surgery), the Trump White House began “reaching out to political allies and conservative activist groups to prepare for an ailing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s possible death or departure from the Supreme Court — an event that would trigger the second bitter confirmation battle of President Donald Trump’s tenure,” according to Politico.

This would actually be the third bitter confirmation battle of Trump’s tenure, unless Politico thinks Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) going nuclear to get Neil Gorsuch confirmed doesn’t constitute a “bitter confirmation battle.”

Politico spoke to “a source familiar with those conversations” within the White House, who said the administration “is taking the temperature on possible short-list candidates, reaching out to key stakeholders, and just making sure that people are informed on the process.” This source emphasized that the White House is “doing it very quietly, of course, because the idea is not to be opportunistic, but just to be prepared so we aren't caught flat-footed."

Back in November 2017, the White House updated a list of potential Supreme Court nominees in the event that President Trump would need to replace another justice. The list contained 25 names, including Brett Kavanaugh, who would eventually be confirmed to the court after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced he would retire in 2018. Other names on the list have since been appointed elsewhere, such as Don Willett, who now sits on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Still, some of the names on this list could come up again on a shortlist to replace Ginsburg, should the need arise. Amy Coney Barrett of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals was on the shortlist for the seat that eventually went to Kavanaugh. Since Ginsburg is a woman, replacing her with another woman could alleviate some of the attacks sure to be lodged against a potential future nominee.

Of course, Democrats and their media supporters will demand Trump replace Ginsburg with another liberal judge to keep the current makeup of the court’s ideology — a demand that was not put to President Barack Obama when he nominated Judge Merrick Garland (a center-left judge) to replace Justice Antonin Scalia (a reliably conservative judge). Garland never made it to the Supreme Court.

In the past, Ginsburg has said she would retire only when she “can’t do the job full steam,” however, previous justices have continued to work on the Supreme Court from home after their health deteriorated. Since it’s a lifetime appointment, Ginsburg is under no obligation to retire.

And we must remember she’s recovering from serious surgery. She may very well return to the bench soon. TMZ reported seeing her leaving her Washington, D.C. apartment on Wednesday, so she may be feeling better. Right now this is all just speculation, but Ginsburg has proved resilient in the past.

We wish her well.


Published  1 month ago

Univision anchor Jorge Ramos thinks President Donald Trump’s border wall would be nothing more than a “symbol of hate and racism” for “those who want make America white again.”

In a Wednesday New York Times op-ed, Ramos notes that Trump “is not the first president to ask for money for a wall.” He points out that former Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush “built fences and walls along the southern border” while former President Barack Obama “maintained the resulting system of roughly 700 miles of physical barriers.”

“So why don’t we want Mr. Trump to build his wall? What is different?” Ramos asks. “The difference is that Mr. Trump’s wall is a symbol of hate and racism, it would be completely useless, and it does not address any national emergency.”

Ramos, who said the United States has a responsibility to “absorb” caravan migrants, says the fight against the border wall “is about more than just a wall.”

“The wall has become a metaphor to Mr. Trump and his millions of supporters,” he writes. “It represents a divide between ‘us’ and ‘them,’ a physical demarcation for those who refuse to accept that in just a few decades, a majority of the country will be people of color.”

Ramos accuses Trump of trying to “exploit the anxiety and resentment of voters in an increasingly multicultural, multiethnic society” with his promise of a border wall, which Ramos says is nothing more than “a symbol for those who want to make America white again.”

“The chant ‘Build that wall, build that wall’ became his hymn — and an insult not just to Latinos but also to all people who do not share his xenophobic ideals,” Ramos continues. “The wall went from a campaign promise to a monument built on bigoted ideas. That is why most Americans cannot say yes to it. Every country has a right to protect its borders. But not to a wall that represents hate, discrimination and fear.”

He concludes by arguing that Trump “is the wall” because “the concept of America as an unwelcoming country to immigrants and uncomfortable for minorities is already here.”

Chicks On The Right — Young Conservatives

Published  1 month ago

Ashley (Kimber)

As I mentioned, Justice Ginsburg has missed arguments for the first time in her career.

This, despite having fought cancer twice before.

The White House is preparing for what many think is an inevitable possibility…

The White House is reaching out to political allies and conservative activist groups to prepare for an ailing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s possible death or departure from the Supreme Court — an event that would trigger the second bitter confirmation battle of President Donald Trump’s tenure.

The outreach began after Ginsburg, 85, on Monday missed oral arguments at the court for the first time in her 25 years on the bench. The justice, who was nominated to the court by President Bill Clinton in 1993, announced in late December that she underwent a surgical procedure to remove two cancerous growths from her lungs.

The White House “is taking the temperature on possible short-list candidates, reaching out to key stakeholders, and just making sure that people are informed on the process,” said a source familiar with those conversations, who spoke on background given the delicate nature of the subject. “They’re doing it very quietly, of course, because the idea is not to be opportunistic, but just to be prepared so we aren’t caught flat-footed.”

If the HYSTERIA surrounding Kavanaugh is ANY indication… this is going to get INSANE.

The Elder Statement

Published  1 month ago

This is not our first partial government shutdown. Somehow, someway, from 1976 through 2017, the nation has survived 18 shutdowns, the longest lasting 21 days. In this case, President Donald Trump insists that the next budget deal contain $5 billion to construct a wall on part of our southern border with Mexico.

Trump, say the Democrats, is “unwilling to compromise.” But when he asks for only $5 billion for a project with a U.S. Customs and Border Protection estimated price tag of $18 billion spent over 10 years, that is already a compromise. That $18 billion amounts to 0.0338 percent of the $53 trillion the Congressional Budget Office estimated the federal government will spend from 2018 through 2027.

For a few days, Trump dropped his demand for wall funding, angering much of his base. Did the likely next speaker of the house, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., applaud Trump’s “bipartisanship” and his “willingness to reach across the aisle”? Hardly. Left-wing cable pundits mocked Trump as having “caved” on a campaign promise due to the supposedly shrewd negotiating skills of the Democrat leadership. A Vanity Fair article called Trump’s retreat a “capitulation.” When Trump reversed his reversal, the same critics promptly accused him of yielding to the demands of “right-wing” television and radio hosts.

The late President George Herbert Walker Bush knew the feeling. When he violated his “no new taxes” pledge, did Dems praise this “compromise” as an example of how “both sides can work together to get things done” on behalf of the American people? Please. James Carville, Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign manager used it against Bush, calling it “the most famous broken promise in the history of American politics.”

The media has taken to calling the southern border wall “Trump’s wall” or “his” wall, as if it were devoid of usefulness in slowing down illegal border-crossers. When Republicans began calling President Barack Obama’s health care plan “Obamacare,” some Democrats called this personalization “racist.” MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry said, “The word (Obamacare) was conceived of by a group of wealthy white men who needed a way to put themselves above and apart from a black man, to render him inferior and unequal and diminish his accomplishments.” Would these be the same “wealthy white men” who, in the 1990s, referred to Hillary Clinton’s health care plan as “Hillarycare”?

Some Democrats denounce the border wall as “racist.” Pelosi called the wall — and Trump’s plan for a path to citizenship for 1.8 million “dreamers” — a “hateful anti-immigrant scheme” designed to advance the president’s agenda to “make America white again.” This pushes the left’s narrative that not only is Trump racist, but so are the Republicans who voted for him. This attack has been effective. A recent Axios poll finds that 61 percent of Democrats believe Republicans are “racist/bigoted/sexist,” while 31 percent of Republicans feel that way about Democrats.

Beyond “racist,” say many Democrats, the wall is “wasteful” and “ineffective.” Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., said, “Democrats are certainly happy to talk about border security, but we’re not going to build this stupid vanity wall of Donald Trump’s with U.S. taxpayer dollars.” He called the wall “inefficient, wasteful technology.” Pelosi said: “(The wall’s) the wrong thing to do. It doesn’t work. It’s not effective. It’s the wrong thing to do and it’s a waste of money.”

News bulletin: Democrats base legislation on efficiency and effectiveness?!

Fine, let’s examine the massive spending that’s occurred since President Lyndon Johnson’s so-called war on poverty, an effort launched in the mid-’60s. In the following five decades, according to The Heritage Foundation, taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion in this effort. The result? Poverty, trending down in America before the mid-’60s, reversed itself. Poverty among blacks fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent by 1960. Five years into Johnson’s “war,” America’s poverty rate declined to 12.1 percent. But within a few years, poverty reversed course and increased to 15 percent, where it has more or less remained. This “war” led to greater government dependency and increased fatherlessness as a growing number of single mothers, in essence, married the government. Has the “war on poverty” passed the efficiency test?

Then there’s Obama’s nearly $1 trillion “stimulus” plan that failed to achieve its own unemployment reduction targets. Ditto his “Cash for Clunkers,” “Cash for Caulkers” and “green-tech” programs, which have cost taxpayers billions of dollars while failing to achieve their objectives.

Obama, after insisting he lacked authority, used an executive order to create Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals — even though immigration law is up to Congress. But Trump can’t use $5 billion from this year’s $700 billion defense budget for a down payment on a border wall for national security, the principal job of the commander in chief?

Read More:

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

The Supreme Court has given no indication when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg might return to the bench, as she missed her third straight day of oral arguments on Wednesday while recuperating from cancer surgery.

Her absences this week from oral arguments were her first since joining the court in 1993, stirring speculation about her recovery.

Chief Justice John Roberts announced from the bench that Ginsburg is continuing to participate from home. This is not unprecedented, as the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist also participated and even authored several opinions while undergoing cancer treatment from 2004-2005.


But all eyes will be on the court when public sessions resume Monday for indications of Ginsburg’s status. A court spokesperson said there has yet to be a date decided for when she will return to the bench.

The 85-year-old justice underwent lung surgery in New York City last month to remove cancerous growths, and is continuing to recuperate.


The discovery came incidentally during tests after she fractured several ribs during a fall in November.

A court statement said both nodules removed during surgery were found to be malignant, but scans performed before surgery indicated no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body. No further treatment was planned.

Ginsburg has dealt with a series of health concerns in recent years. She broke two ribs in 2012, and previously battled two bouts of cancer, in 1999 and 2009. She also had a stent implanted in her heart to open a blocked artery in 2014.

The Harvard Law School-educated justice was nominated to the Supreme Court by former President Bill Clinton in 1993 to replace retiring Justice Byron R. White. Ginsburg was Clinton’s first Supreme Court pick.

Prior to ascending to the Supreme Court, Ginsburg became the first woman to receive tenure at Columbia University Law School and is also the co-founder of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Women’s Rights Project.

Ginsburg is the oldest member on the Supreme Court, and her retirement has been a topic of great speculation. However, she reportedly hired clerks for the term that extends into 2020, indicating she has no plans to leave soon.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


Published  1 month ago

The White House is reaching out to political allies and conservative activist groups to prepare for an ailing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s possible death or departure from the Supreme Court — an event that would trigger the second bitter confirmation battle of President Donald Trump’s tenure.

The outreach began after Ginsburg, 85, on Monday missed oral arguments at the court for the first time in her 25 years on the bench. The justice, who was nominated to the court by President Bill Clinton in 1993, announced in late December that she underwent a surgical procedure to remove two cancerous growths from her lungs.

The White House "is taking the temperature on possible short-list candidates, reaching out to key stakeholders, and just making sure that people are informed on the process," said a source familiar with those conversations, who spoke on background given the delicate nature of the subject. "They're doing it very quietly, of course, because the idea is not to be opportunistic, but just to be prepared so we aren't caught flat-footed."

Ginsburg had a pulmonary lobectomy, the Supreme Court said in a statement, and her doctors said that post-surgery there was “no evidence of any remaining disease.” She has also recovered from several past health scares. But her departure from the Court would allow Trump to nominate a third Supreme Court justice — the most in one presidential term since President Ronald Reagan placed three judges on the highest court during his second term.

The nine-member court is currently divided 5-4 between its conservative and liberal wings. Ginsburg’s departure would allow Trump to create the Court’s strongest conservative majority in decades, a scenario sure to bring intense opposition from Democrats and liberal activists still furious over the October confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

"It would be a brutal confirmation,” said John Malcolm, director of the Heritage Foundation's Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. “The first two were not easy at all, but this would be much harder in this respect: When Neil Gorsuch was the nominee, you were replacing a conservative with a conservative. With Kavanaugh, you were replacing the perennial swing voter, who more times than not sided with the so-called conservative wing, so that slightly solidified the conservative wing.”

“But if you are replacing Justice Ginsburg with a Trump appointee, that would be akin to replacing Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas,” Malcolm added. “It would mark a large shift in the direction of the court."

The White House is urging outside allies to be prepared for another bruising confirmation battle should Ginsberg’s health take a sudden turn for the worse, according to four sources with knowledge of the overtures. Outside groups, led by the Federalist Society and the Judicial Crisis Network, played a leading role in helping to confirm Kavanaugh and, before that, Justice Neil Gorsuch.

The groups have advised the Trump team on everything from potential nominees to political and media strategy, producing television advertisements and blitzing reporters with supportive messaging. Together, the conservative groups spent over $7 million on ads supporting Kavanaugh’s nomination.

The White House has quietly pressed them not to rest on their laurels after Kavanaugh’s nationally-divisive confirmation battle amid charges of sexual misconduct.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Though Ginsburg and the Court itself have been tight-lipped about her health, her absence from the bench this week has become a cause of concern because of her remarkable past attendance streak, which persisted through two previous cancer treatments and a number of other health scares. At the outset of oral arguments on Monday, Chief Justice John Roberts said she was “unable to be present” but would participate in the cases nonetheless, reading briefs, filings, and a transcript of the sessions.

Supreme Court appointments are indefinite, and a seat is considered empty only if a justice dies or retires from the court. In the event a judge is unable to perform his or her duties, the only clear recourse is Congressional impeachment.

Ginsburg told an audience in mid-December that she “will do this job as long as I can do it full steam.” As a candidate in July 2016,

Trump tweeted that her “mind is shot — resign!” But after her surgery last month he wished her a “full and speedy recovery."

The White House counsel’s office and senior aides on the Senate Judiciary Committee, now chaired by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), have begun drafting a shortlist of potential court nominees. It features judges the president has considered for previous vacancies along with some new names. Many of them are women, sources say.

They include Seventh Circuit judge Amy Coney Barrett, who was a leading contender for the last Supreme Court vacancy, created by Justice Anthony Kennedy; Sixth Circuit judges Joan Larsen, Amul Thapar, and Raymond Kethledge; Eleventh Circuit judge Britt Grant; and Third Circuit judge Thomas Hardiman; and Neomi Rao, Trump’s current nominee for Kavanaugh’s old seat on the D.C. Circuit Court.

Should Ginsburg’s seat open, it would be the first confirmation battle of White House counsel Pat Cipollone’s tenure. The president’s first White House counsel Don McGahn — who focused heavily on confirming conservative judges to the federal bench — left the White House shortly after he played a central role in Kavanaugh’s October confirmation.

“Outside of war and peace, of course, the most important decision you make is the selection of a Supreme Court judge, if you get it,” Trump said last summer.

Washington Examiner

Published  1 month ago

Alan Diaz/AP

Public optimism in their personal economy has hit a 16-year high under President Trump, according to a new survey.

Some 69 percent told Gallup that they expect their personal finances to be even better next year, just shy of the record 71 percent when the internet boom was raging under former President Bill Clinton.

What’s more, the survey company said that 50 percent believe they are "better off” than just a year ago when the current economic surge was kicking in and when the White House coined the phrase “MAGAnomics.”

Gallup said that is the first time the level has reach 50 percent since 2007.

“Americans' optimism about their personal finances has climbed to levels not seen in more than 16 years, with 69 percent now saying they expect to be financially better off 'at this time next year,'" said Gallup.

The highlights:

69 percent expect their financial situation to improve over the next year.

Optimism about finances over the next year is almost at a record-high level.

50 percent say they are in better shape financially than a year ago.

The president has been touting the economy and stock market recently, and Republicans are urging him to continue with policies like deregulation that can continue to feed growth.

While partisanship colors the view of Democrats and Republicans on their level of optimism, both expressed confidence in the future.

“For both Republicans and Democrats, results are more positive over the same time spans for the question asking about financial expectations for the coming year. Though Republicans' expectations rose after Trump took office and Democrats became less optimistic, majorities from both parties said they expected to be better off in the coming year in both the pre-Trump-election polls and the post-Trump-inauguration ones,” said Gallup.

[Read more: Entering year 3: Trump’s economy better than Obama’s, jobs highest ‘in decades’]

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

Back in 2013 Democratic Senators such as Chuck Schumer, Mazie Hirono, and Elizabeth Warren voted yes to protect the border along the United States and Mexico in a bipartisan effort in immigration reform. Included was about 700 miles of fencing along the border and efforts to end chain migration and the visa lottery. Flash forward to 2019 and these same type of Democrats are no longer supporting immigration reform strategies proposed by President Donald Trump.

People want to know what changed.

In 2013, the effort was basically led by then-Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in which 52 Democrats and two independents were satisfied enough to say OK to the proposed legislation.

These folks voted yes on immigration reform in 2013.

The Washington Examiner stated that the said legislation “called for “no fewer than 700 miles” of border fencing.

It also included a section detailing the end of the diversity visa, a lottery for green cards meant to diversify the U.S. immigrant population.

And it rewrote rules for which relatives of legal immigrants could come in, the so-called “chain migration” blueprint, to limit the numbers.

The provisions that were included in the legislation sponsored by Schumer, S.744 – Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, are very similar to those Trump is now pushing in his broad plan he will outline in tonight’s State of the Union address.

The bill was dubbed the “Gang of Eight” for those backing it, and it ultimately failed in the House.”

Even though it failed in the house, the bill won in the Senate at a 68-32 vote and all NO votes were from Republicans. Quite a different stance from the groupthink in 2019 where Republicans now want secure borders after numerous crimes occurred at the hands of illegal immigrants and drug smuggling have carried on for too long.

To make 2013’s proposed legislation and immigration reform even more interesting, we must also factor in former President Bill Clinton. He supported a proposal by late Representative Barbara Jordan, of Texas, to drastically decrease immigration entirely. “Her 1997 Commission on Immigration Reform called for reducing legal immigration to 550,000. The White House named January 17 Barbara Jordan Day, noting the 21st anniversary of her death by highlighting her support for comprehensive immigration reform including the end of chain migration.”

The big difference between now and then is the level of bipartisanship. Why did more Senate members vote yes collectively on securing the American border back then, but now it seems like Democrats can’t be bothered with it? Does it have something to do with who’s running the White House? Are Democrats reluctant to be bipartisan in immigration reforms because they don’t want to support a major creation such as Trump’s idea of a border wall?

It appears as though President Trump is willing to allow an increase in younger illegal immigrants, a number higher than Democrats had expected. The Washington Examiner believes that’s quite a carrot for Trump to dangle in front of Democrats in hopes to bring them to his side of politics. That number is 1.8 million.

“Also, the president did not include an “E-Verify” program to require employers to make sure their workers are legal. Democrats have fought that and administration officials felt it was worth leaving out of the president’s plan in another bid for Democratic support.

But so far Democrats are lining up in opposition, even to the provisions they approved in 2013.”

Yet still, why are major Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer against Trump’s version of border security and immigration reform?

It appears the Democratic Party is not interested in a ‘Trump wall’ – but there already exists barriers and fences along portions of the United States and Mexican border.

Trump’s wall would simply increase the already existing barriers while serving as a deterrent for those trying to break into America illegally.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Ed Buck’s lawyer talks to the media On Monday, the body of another young black gay escort was found at the West Hollywood home of Ed Buck, a top Democrat donor and political activist. As previously reported, a black gay escort named Gemmel Moore died of a meth overdose at Ed Buck’s West Hollywood home in […]


Published  1 month ago

Democrats' stringent calls for tougher border policy appear to have ceased since Donald Trump took office as President of the United States.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

For decades polls have shown that most Americans believe no one should pay more than 25 percent of their income in taxes.


Published  1 month ago

Democrats should get back to the negotiating table and give Americans what they want


Published  1 month ago

Hillary Clinton commented on the longest-running partial government shutdown, tweeting on Saturday that "Americans can't afford" it.


Published  1 month ago

As Rep. Adam Schiff yells about throwing President Trump in jail, maybe he should look into the creepy kind of people he takes political donations from.

Conservative Tribune

Published  1 month ago

Radio host and political commentator Dan Bongino accused Democrats of being fraudulent hypocrites for threatening to impeach President Donald Trump.

Bongino was addressing comments on “Fox & Friends” Monday made by freshman Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, when she said Congress would “impeach the motherf—er” while talking about Trump.

“Let’s start with the hypocrisy here,” Bongino said. “Listen, Democrats, I get it. It’s politics.

“You know, you do a lot of stuff that’s fraudulent and phony but at least try to have some dignity in your lives.”

Tlabi’s remarks came during a Thursday event for — a liberal website initially funded by George Soros after the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton.

“Don’t you find it a little ironic that it was said at a event? Move-on was founded to move on from the President Clinton impeachment proceedings,” Bongino continued.

“Does anybody find that even remotely ironic because they thought it was ridiculous, the impeachment proceedings.”

“Secondly, the fact that this was said at a private event — wait, wait now, time-out, hold on, red flag, let’s go under the hood for review here just like in the NFL, right. Are you telling me private event comments don’t matter now? Because when Mitt Romney made his 47 percent comment that was at a private event and that was a national — no that it wasn’t a national, that was a cosmic story.”

Bongino also said Democrats have preached about a return to civility in politics, but have failed to follow their own advice.

“For months we’ve been told now by the Democrats how tone and civility matters. Yet, we’ve got Maxine Waters — We’ve now got Rashida Tlaib from Michigan. This is ridiculous. They’ve lost all credibility on the tone,” he said.

“Stop with the nonsense. Have some dignity in your lies and keep them to just little white lies instead of big ones we can debunk like this.”

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

A version of this article appeared on The Daily Caller News Foundation website.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

Four major television networks are considering censoring President Donald Trump’s prime-time immigration address to the nation on Tuesday. NBC News reported that the White House has asked broadcast networks to provide at least eight minutes of airtime at 9 p.m. ET for the Oval Office address so that President Trump can possibly decide if America is in a state of national emergency in regards to the border with Mexico.

The major networks who are considering not airing the presidential address are ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC. All four are reported to have an inconsistent policy when regarding presidential address airtime, which could be directly linked to the subject matter of immigration.

NBC’s report stated that “they aired President George W. Bush’s prime-time address on immigration in 2006, but did not air one by President Barack Obama in 2014.

The networks are currently debating whether to air the Trump address, and if they do, they would probably grant Democrats an opportunity to respond, according to two sources familiar with the ongoing deliberations who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to speak publicly.”

CNN chimed in as well, stating “Recently, there has been debate about whether networks should air Trump’s words in real-time. Several media critics, for instance, told CNN on Friday that networks should not rush to air Trump’s remarks made during pool sprays and briefings.

“Some advice — demand to see the text in advance and if it is not truthful either don’t air it or fact check it live on lower third,” tweeted Joe Lockhart, the former White House press secretary under President Bill Clinton. “And cut away if he goes off text and starts lying.”

This is, of course, coming from a CNN political commentator. Most viewers would prefer to see Trump’s entire speech and decide for themselves how they feel, rather than having CNN control a narrative from a leftist perspective.

Sounds like tv networks will get a request soon for airtime for a Presidential address. Some advice—demand to see the text in advance and if it is not truthful either don’t air it or fact check it live on lower third. And cut away if he goes off text and starts lying.

— Joe Lockhart (@joelockhart) January 7, 2019

The obvious answer is to provide Trump with the time he needs to speak, then to provide an equal amount of time for Democrats to respond the day after, and perhaps time for Trump to respond after that. In order to be fair, they must both have equal talking time. Of course, that could become tiresome for both the network and viewers who have been expecting to see their favorite programs and do not wish to be interrupted by a presidential address.

Another solution would be to air the address at a time when reruns of another show were expected, so as not to interfere with the millions of people who won’t watch the adress.

If the major networks want to keep Americans happy, then they’ll provide fair opportunity for each side to speak and air it at a time when new episodes of a show aren’t being aired. That sounds ideal, but is probably unlikely.

If the networks refuse to air the immigration address, then they will miss out on what could be a significant news segment while being labeled as bias for avoiding the President of the United States. Any network that chooses not to air Trump’s presidential address will be considered biased against the President.

Not airing the address also adds more fuel to the fire known as right wing censorship in which Conservatives are constantly being blacklisted, censored, or deplatformed.

Conservatives consistently experience what could be called a liberal bias and hypocrisy, as many content creators, bloggers, and journalists have been “punished” on social media just for having an opinion.

Washington Examiner

Published  1 month ago


All Senate Democrats united with two independent senators in 2013 to push through a comprehensive immigration reform plan to build a border fence and end “chain migration” and the visa lottery, positions they now oppose because they are in President Trump’s immigration package.

Led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, 52 Democrats and two independents OK’d the legislation.

It called for “no fewer than 700 miles” of border fencing.

It also included a section detailing the end of the diversity visa, a lottery for green cards meant to diversify the U.S. immigrant population.

And it rewrote rules for which relatives of legal immigrants could come in, the so-called “chain migration” blueprint, to limit the numbers.

The provisions that were included in the legislation sponsored by Schumer, S.744 - Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, are very similar to those Trump is now pushing in his broad plan he will outline in tonight’s State of the Union address.

The bill was dubbed the “Gang of Eight” for those backing it, and it ultimately failed in the House.

But it it did win in the Senate, 68-32. All no votes were Republican.

And that’s not all. Former President Bill Clinton backed a proposal by the late liberal lion Texas Rep. Barbara Jordan to cut immigration significantly. Her 1997 Commission on Immigration Reform called for reducing legal immigration to 550,000.

The White House named January 17 Barbara Jordan Day, noting the 21st anniversary of her death by highlighting her support for comprehensive immigration reform including the end of chain migration.

Administration supporters are pointing to that and the 2013 vote as examples of bipartisanship the president hopes to follow in his plan which includes a huge increase in younger illegal immigrants that would win eventual citizenship than the Democrats sought during the recent budget shutdown.

In Trump’s plan, the number would surge to 1.8 million. The president believes that carrot should bring Democrats to his side.

Also, the president did not include an “E-Verify” program to require employers to make sure their workers are legal. Democrats have fought that and administration officials felt it was worth leaving out of the president’s plan in another bid for Democratic support.

But so far Democrats are lining up in opposition, even to the provisions they approved in 2013.

Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at


Published  1 month ago

Radio host and political commentator Dan Bongino accused Democrats of being fraudulent hypocrites on”Fox & Friends” Monday for threatening to impeach President Donald Trump.

Bongino was addressing comments made by freshman Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, who said Congress would “impeach the motherf—er” while talking about Trump. (RELATED: ‘Impeach The Motherf—er:’ Democratic Lawmaker Goes Off On Trump On Her First Day In Office)

“Let’s start with the hypocrisy here,” Bongino said. “Listen, Democrats, I get it. It’s politics. You know, you do a lot of stuff that’s fraudulent and phony but at least try to have some dignity in your lives.”

Tlabi’s remarks came during a Thursday event for — a liberal website initially funded by George Soros after the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton.

“Don’t you find it a little ironic that it was said at a event? MoveOn was founded to move on from the President Clinton impeachment proceedings,” Bongino continued. “Does anybody find that even remotely ironic because they thought it was ridiculous, the impeachment proceedings.”

“Secondly, the fact that this was said at a private event — wait, wait now, time-out, hold on, red flag, let’s go under the hood for review here just like in the NFL, right. Are you telling me private event comments don’t matter now? Because when Mitt Romney made his 47 percent comment, that was at a private event and that was a national … no, it wasn’t a national, that was a cosmic story.”

Bongino also said Democrats have preached about a return to civility in politics, but have failed to follow their own advice.

“For months we’ve been told now by the Democrats how tone and civility matters. Yet, we’ve got Maxine Waters. We’ve now got Rashida Tlaib from Michigan. This is ridiculous. They’ve lost all credibility on the tone,” he said. “Stop with the nonsense. Have some dignity in your lies and keep them to just little white lies instead of big ones we can debunk like this.”

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

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was absent from oral arguments on the nation’s highest court this week for her first time in her 25 year career.

The 85-year-old Justice is recovering from surgery to remove two cancerous growths from her left lung, which prohibited her from being on the bench to hear arguments on Monday.

There’s strong uncertainty looming as to when she will return, if she returns at all.

Should the DOJ open a special counsel to investigate Robert Mueller?

Could Ginsburg’s career be winding down? It seems certainly possible, despite her wish to work for at least another five years.

If Ginsburg is unable to return to work, then President Trump might be able to appoint another Supreme Court Justice.

If that happens, there’s a very good chance that no matter who he decides upon faces scrutiny, protests, and harsh treatment from Democratic Party who is likely to oppose anyone Trump selects.

A court spokeswoman named Kathy Arberg stated that Ginsburg is working from home.

The AP reported that “Chief Justice John Roberts said in the courtroom Monday that Ginsburg would participate in deciding the argued cases “on the basis of the briefs and transcripts of oral arguments.”

Ginsburg had two earlier cancer surgeries in 1999 and 2009 that did not cause her to miss court sessions. She also has broken ribs on at least two occasions.

The court said doctors found the growths on Ginsburg’s lung when she was being treated for fractured ribs she suffered in a fall at her office on Nov. 7.

POLL: Who do you blame for the Government shutdown – Trump or the Democrats?

After past health scares, Ginsburg has come back to work relatively quickly. In 2009, she was at the court for arguments on Feb. 23, 18 days after surgery for pancreatic cancer.

Weeks after her fall in November, Ginsburg was asking questions at high court arguments, speaking at a naturalization ceremony for new citizens and being interviewed at screenings of the new movie about her, “On the Basis of Sex.”

Who would win a 2020 matchup – Trump or Warren?

Ginsburg was appointed by former President Bill Clinton in 1993. She hired clerks to work for her until 2020.

President Donald Trump had wished her well upon her release from the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Her departure from the Supreme Court would mark a significant swing in power in the Supreme Court provided that President Trump selects a Republican replacement.

Mark America

Published  1 month ago

She can barely remain awake when she appears in public. It is now being reported that she won’t even sit for oral arguments of cases before the court. It’s sad that, avoiding other catastrophic, sudden ends, we all eventually come ’round to the time when we can no longer keep up a standard work-day or working life. Nobody wants to become useless. Nobody wants to feel like a burden to their families or their fellow citizens. Ego has a way of driving people to continue in a fashion that both logic and nature dictate is no longer possible. Having survived at least three serious bouts of cancer, including pancreatic cancer, which few survive, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is no longer able to keep up the schedule of a Supreme Court justice, and those with even the barest human compassion realize that it is time for her to retire, but the left is in a panic. Donald Trump is president, and they haven’t managed to impeach him yet. They must get Ginsburg to hold on to life and her seat on the court if they are forced to put her on life support and a feeding tube, strapping her, scarecrow-like, to a stake. They hope they can get rid of Trump by way of impeachment in time to appoint another leftist to replace Ginsburg. The leftists in Washington DC are contemplating everything from feeding tubes to a strange imitation of “Weekend At Bernie’s” in order to attempt to preserve the seat on the high court. None of it will work, but the shame lies in the insistence that this octogenarian remain on duty until they can conjure up a method to replace her with another radical leftist. Perhaps worse, Ginsburg has given every indication that she’s willing to be used in this fashion.

What they haven’t really considered is that even if they impeached Trump tomorrow, and somehow convinced two-thirds of the Senate to remove him the day after, the problem of a dying/retiring Ginsburg would not go away: President Pence would then make the appointment, and a Senate firmly in the hands of Republicans would undoubtedly approve. Game over. Checkmate.

One would think this argument would be enough to convince them to mercifully relent, and to finally let Ginsburg go. One might think that Ginsburg would finally give in and realize that no one person is that important to the court that they cannot be permitted to retire or die. One might think those things, but one would have to be completely unaware of what drives leftists. In their collective hive-mind, the possibilities are endless. They are concocting everything that the human mind can conceive (and not a few things that it can’t) in order to preserve the seat on the court. Democrats are convinced that if they can somehow rid themselves of Trump, they will be able to recapture the ideological edge on the court, but this is a fantasy.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been the most radical element on the court since Bill Clinton appointed her to replace Justice Byron White in 1993. It is odd that a woman who advocated for making children younger than 12 years of age capable of consenting to sex is now treated by the left as some sort of indispensable totem on the court. Or is it? After all, Ginsburg has demonstrated throughout her career that she is capable of the most irrational radicalism. She agitated on behalf of sex-integrated prisons. That’s right, she wanted to house both male and female inmates together. Ginsburg is the person who drove the replacement of the term “sex” with “gender,” a thing that ought to make every student of language happy to see her go. In short, she’s been a half-baked lunatic her entire working life, which by my own estimation, has gone on at least twenty-five years too long. I am not suggesting that I want her to die. I merely wish her to retire, but given her influence on the court and the constitution these last twenty-five years, it cannot come soon enough.

When she finally leaves the court, there will be some chance of eliminating the numerical advantage the left has due to Justice Roberts’ ridiculous posturing as the new swing vote, and the President’s nemesis. Ever since Obama and his crew exercised pressure on Roberts, he’s been unreliable at best. Let us hope that should President Trump get another Supreme Court pick, he chooses as well as when he selected Justice Gorsuch. I half expect Kavanaugh to wind up as a moderate justice, having been so thoroughly smeared by the left. He’ll feel obliged to show he’s “fair,” despite what was done to him. Whomever Trump may eventually pick, it must be a solid originalist.

This will not go easily. As with everything else President Trump undertakes, he will find massive and unanimous opposition from the left, and some opposition from the NeverTrump wing of his own party. People like Mitt Romney(R-UT) are always looking to be a thorn in his side. The Democrats are in constant fear of losing a tight ideological strangle-hold on the Supreme Court, primarily for one reason: Roe v. Wade. The 1973 decision of the court effectively legalized abortion from sea to shining sea; from conception through delivery. Protecting Roe v. Wade is such a baseline imperative to the left because they know it is written on flimsy medical, scientific, and legal grounds. It’s ripe for an overturn, and this is why the Democrats are in a quiet panic. So much of the campaign contributions Democrats receive grows out of this poisonous, wretched well of murder-profiteering that they cannot afford to leave any stone un-turned in pursuit of wrecking Donald Trump’s ability to replace Ginsburg.

If you think they were dishonest and shrill when it came to Kavanaugh, you’ve had only a sample-sized taste of what Democrats will do. They will all come out of the woodwork now. They will attempt to impeach Trump. They will attempt to remove him from office. Wait for Mueller’s Get-Trump-Brigade to pull out all the stops. Ladies and gentlemen, there is nothing more important to the near-term political future of the Democrats. If they don’t stop Trump from appointing another Supreme Court justice, they will see their agenda seriously imperiled for the first time in three decades.

At the moment, Democrats are playing it cool. “Nothing to see here, just move along.” Behind the scenes, they are frantically scouring law books and case precedents in pursuit of a strategy to stop Trump. They know Ginsburg’s time is likely running out. She’s effectively the patron saint of Roe v. Wade on the court. If they lose her, it will be horrifying for them, but to potentially lose her seat in the ideological balance of the court will lead them to do almost anything. Behind the scenes, they’re in full panic mode, and while they don’t dare admit it, or even acknowledge they’re thinking about it, you’d better believe that almost nothing else is dominating their time.

Published  1 month ago

The Wall Street Journal’s influential editorial board is known for being hard on presidents ... OK, just the even-numbered ones, in recent years. That would be Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. The bible of American finance -- whose conservative editorial writers never met a corporate tax cut they didn’t like, or a Democrat that they did -- could be ruthless toward the 42nd and 44th presidents, even encouraging some of the loopier conspiracy theories of the Whitewater era.

That’s why it was so jarring last week to see the Rupert Murdoch-owned broadsheet publish an editorial stating, “We cannot recall a more absurd misstatement of history by an American President" -- when that president is a Republican, Donald Trump. The WSJ -- which maybe isn’t as pro-Trump as that diner in southern Ohio that the New York Times has reported from 6,784 times now, but which generally likes POTUS 45 as long as he’s reducing marginal tax rates or dropping napalm on the Environmental Protection Agency -- ripped the current commander in chief in a piece headlined, “Trump’s Cracked Afghan History.”

Yes, it’s a little weird that an editorial board that was nonplussed (or sometimes mildly “concerned”) about Trump’s 7,000-plus other lies, firing of Jim Comey, shredding of the emoluments clause, etc., etc., would wig out about the president’s strange thoughts on an invasion exactly 40 years ago by a country, the USSR, that technically doesn’t exist. But anti-communism both was, and is, central to the Wall Street Journal brand. Let’s hear them out on this one.

The editorial bashed Trump for asserting that Leonid Brezhnev’s USSR was justified in 1979 when it invaded Afghanistan, a move that was so vehemently opposed by the U.S. government that Jimmy Carter imposed an Olympic boycott and reinstituted draft registration for 18-year-olds. That, the Journal argued, was “ridiculous, adding: “The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a defining event in the Cold War, making clear to all serious people the reality of the communist Kremlin’s threat."

Here’s the thing. Trump says crazy stuff every day of his presidency. But the Journal was absolutely right to hone in on the weirdness and disturbing nature of this particular statement. For one thing, it’s surprising that the usually assertively anti-intellectual Trump has deep -- albeit historically incorrect -- thoughts about foreign policy in the late ’70s and ’80s, the decade he was busy trying to promote Herschel Walker and bed Marla Maples. Second, not one other person on this side of the Atlantic Ocean holds that notion advanced by the president: that the USSR invasion of Afghanistan was justified or was about anything other than world domination.

But now here’s where it gets much, much weirder -- and much more disturbing. Because it turns out there is one prominent set of voices who -- just in the last few months -- started making the argument that the USSR was right to send those troops into Afghanistan, an action that even Russian higher-ups have conceded even before the USSR’s 1991 collapse was a horrible mistake, politically and morally.

It’s doubtful that either you or Donald J. Trump read this online Washington Post opinion piece from Dec. 4 that outlines an otherwise little-reported push by Russian lawmakers allied with Putin for a resolution that would justify their country’s 1979 invasion and reverse an 1989 vote backed by then-USSR leader Mikhail Gorbachev that had condemned it. The Putinists’ goal is to pass the resolution by the 30th anniversary of the invasion, in February.

OK, maybe it’s a coincidence that a babbling Trump -- who certainly gives the appearance of saying whatever pops into his mind -- just happened to make the same obscure argument as Putin’s minions halfway across the globe. But on Thursday night, I and a couple of other million folks saw a remarkable report by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that tied together some wild threads (for which she credited other journalists such as Vladimir Kara-Murza, author of that Post op-ed, and New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait, as well as her own Steve Benen).

It turns out Trump’s bizarre, historically incorrect Afghanistan riff is part of a pattern in which either the president or his administration has mimicked obscure foreign-policy points linked directly to Putin and/or Russian intelligence ops, and to virtually no one else -- certainly not anyone in the American diplomatic community.

The most bizarre such episode happened early in Trump’s presidency. When Mike Flynn -- who would later plead guilty to lying to the FBI about his phone calls with Russia’s ambassador -- was still Trump’s national security adviser in the first weeks of the new administration, there was this little noticed report from the AP.

“According to one U.S. official, national security aides have sought information about Polish incursions in Belarus, an eyebrow-raising request because little evidence of such activities appears to exist,” the AP reported. “Poland is among the Eastern European nations worried about Trump’s friendlier tone on Russia.” Meanwhile, Putin’s interest in swallowing up Belarus -- possibly using the fake “Polish incursions” as a pretext -- has only intensified in the two years since the 45th president was sworn in.

Then there’s the strange matter of U.S. policy toward the tiny Balkan nation of Montenegro, which in 2017 became the first new member of NATO in a decade. A few weeks later, Trump caused a lot of head-scratching when he went on Fox News with Tucker Carlson and the president (echoed by Carlson) lashed out at the idea of defending his new NATO ally. “You know, Montenegro is a tiny country with very strong people. ... They are very aggressive people," Trump said. “They may get aggressive, and congratulations, you’re in World War III.”

Actually, when it comes to Montenegro, Trump was arguably the “aggressive” one -- with the viral clip of POTUS shoving aside the Montenegrin prime minister at a summit meeting two months early. Most viewers watched the clip for a laugh. What’s not so funny is that Russian intelligence officers had been involved in a 2016 plot to assassinate Montenegro’s leader -- so determined was Putin to prevent the expansion of NATO. A goal that seems to have been shared by the current president of the United States.

These obscure Putin-flavored U.S. maneuvers have happened amid the highly publicized probe by special counsel Robert Mueller, who is tasked with finding out if the Trump campaign somehow colluded with Russia’s spies as they sought to interfere with and alter the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Although arguably a strong case for collusion has already been revealed, we won’t know the full extent of what he’s uncovered until later this year. None of Team Trump’s arcane moves on Belarus, Montenegro or Afghanistan is conclusive proof of a vast Trump-Russia conspiracy, but ...

There’s a famous scene in All the President’s Men where Robert Redford as Bob Woodward says: “If you go to bed at night and there is no snow on the ground, when you wake up there is snow on the ground, you can say it snowed during the night although you didn’t see it, right?" When it comes to U.S. policy toward Russia under Trump, we are waking up to find 6-foot snow drifts outside. Beyond the bizarre echoes of Belarus, Montenegro and Afghanistan, we’ve watched the White House kowtow to Team Putin every chance it gets, from leaving Syria to dropping sanctions on Paul Manafort’s favorite Russian oligarch.

Thursday’s Maddow report was so alarming because it revealed the deep extent to which Trump -- at least on Russia policy -- is acting as a kind of “Manchurian Candidate” inside America’s seat of power. We don’t know the mechanics of how the Trump administration is receiving and absorbing these ideas like “Polish incursions into Belarus" or “aggressive Montenegro,” but the fact that he’s parroting the Putin line should be alarming enough. It’s one more reason why the nightmare of the Trump presidency needs to end long before January 20, 2021.

Look, I don’t want to see another Cold War, nor do I believe that’s necessary. That said, even those of us who prefer peace to rampant militarism can see that Putin keeps testing the limits of European expansionism -- the same kind of aggressive fantasies that brought disastrous consequences within the last century. Putin is also not as strong as he likes the world to think he is. His ambitions can be contained -- but only with U.S. policies that support our democratic allies and not the Russian dictator. If we’re not careful on this one, America could wake up from a long slumber with snow up to the second-floor windows, and then congratulations, you’re in World War III.


Published  1 month ago

House Democrats’ choices for committee leadership may be even more questionable than their ethics and politics


Published  1 month ago

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Monday will miss oral arguments for the first time as the 85-year-old recovers from surgery to remove cancerous nodules from her left lung.

Ginsburg is recovering from surgery to remove the cancerous lesions undertaken on December 21 and will participate in cases using transcripts, according to Court spokesperson Kathy Arberg. It is unknown when the justice will return to the bench.

The justice was discharged from Memorial Sloan Kettering hospital in New York City on December 25. Doctors found no further evidence of remaining cancerous growths after the surgery, nor did they detect any additional disease.

Despite previous medical issues, Ginsburg, the oldest member of the Court, has never missed an argument.

Ginsburg underwent two cancer surgeries in 1999 and 2009 and has suffered broken ribs on at least two occasions. In 2014, the justice had a stent inserted into her right coronary artery. According to Ginsburg’s doctors, cancerous growths were discovered during treatment for her fractured ribs, which occurred in a November 7 fall at her office.

Following the justice’s hospitalization, President Donald Trump told reporters that he wished her good health.

Ginsburg, appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, has dismissed calls to step down during President Barack Obama’s second term, citing a potentially smoother confirmation process with a Democrat-controlled Senate.

The liberal face of the Supreme Court, Ginsburg signaled her aspiration to remain on the bench through 2020 by hiring law clerks for at least two more terms. “I said I will do this job as long as I can do it full steam,” Ginsburg said in a December interview after the screening of On the Basis of Sex, a biopic about the justice’s life.

Conservative Review

Published  1 month ago

While Jared Kushner is working assiduously to promote amnesty for some of the same criminal aliens for whom he just secured early release from prison, the courts are already repealing our immigration laws.

Among all the new rights created by courts in recent years, a judge just created a right for illegal aliens to receive advance notice of ICE deportations, even after they have final orders to be deported. In other words, criminals have a right to be tipped off so they can flee and remain elsewhere in the country while sucking us dry and committing more crimes.

There are over roughly one million aliens in this country with final deportation orders from immigration judges (not to be confused with Article III judges). These are people who harm our country and on behalf of whom we’ve already exhausted overgenerous and gratuitous notions of due process. One can imagine the millions of others that have evaded justice whom we haven’t even apprehended. It’s hard enough for ICE to secure a final deportation order. Yet now the federal courts are fighting trench warfare on every last criminal alien removal, making it impossible to deport anyone, even in slam-dunk cases.

On Thursday, California U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney, a Bush appointee, issued a temporary injunction against the deportation of 1,400 criminal legal aliens and 500 illegal aliens – all from Cambodia. He said that even though they all had final orders of deportation, ICE could not re-detain them for deportation without two weeks’ notice.

Judge Carney is the same radical in a robe who unilaterally declared California’s death penalty to be unconstitutional in 2014.

As I observed last week, the categories of offenses to trigger deportation for legal immigrants were set out in the 1996 immigration bill, which was adopted unanimously in the Senate and signed by Bill Clinton. Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Dick Durbin, and James Clyburn all voted for it. That is the law of the land. Yet judges have now seized the power to nullify immigration law outright and rewrite it with their own conditions.

This is the other side of the immigration story. In many ways, interior enforcement is even more important than the wall. Even if we stopped all illegal immigration across the land border, we have many criminals and dangerous aliens from the past few decades already here and many more who overstay their visas or who commit crimes while here with a green card. ICE can easily remove them, but the courts are now fighting every last deportation from every angle, even if it means rewriting immigration law. Left-wing groups have convinced judges that these particular criminal aliens in California are somehow a protected class because they fled violence in Cambodia, but that doesn’t change the fact that these particular Cambodians targeted for deportation are criminals. The fact that they were fleeing persecution should make it all the more egregious that they bit the hand that fed them and returned our generosity with criminal acts. The overwhelming majority of Cambodians who came here in the 1970s fleeing Khmer Rouge lived law-abiding lives in America.

As the courts have said for 130 years, there are no limitations on the power of the political branches to deport any foreign national for any reasons without any judicial oversight. The only limitation on immigration enforcement is that we can’t indefinitely detain aliens just for detention’s own sake, but can certainly detain for the purpose of deporting. Among many settled cases, here is what the court said in Turner v. Williams in 1904:

No limits can be put by the courts upon the power of Congress to protect, by summary methods, the country from the advent of aliens whose race or habits render them undesirable as citizens, or to expel such if they have already found their way into our land, and unlawfully remain therein. But to declare unlawful residence within the country to be an infamous crime, punishable by deprivation of liberty and property, would be to pass out of the sphere of constitutional legislation unless provision were made that the fact of guilt should first be established by a judicial trial. … Detention or temporary confinement as part of the means necessary to give effect to the exclusion or expulsion was held valid, but so much of the act of 1892 as provided for imprisonment at hard labor without a judicial trial was held to be unconstitutional.

Thanks to a previous egregious court ruling (Zadvydas v. Davis), over the strenuous dissent of Justice Scalia, ICE has been forced to release a number of criminal aliens because their home countries refused to repatriate them. Now that the Trump administration has made diplomatic progress in achieving cooperation, ICE is finally tracking them down and simply following up on the existing deportation orders. This is where judicial civil disobedience comes in.

Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies told me she was concerned that the courts are essentially creating a “two-week notice to disappear” for criminal aliens. “This is outrageous on an operational level and in the context of the law,” said the veteran analyst of interior immigration enforcement. “If a federal judge can block these relatively cut-and-dried deportations, why not every single deportation case? This is nonsensical. The deportation due process that Congress set up is not meant to provide deportable aliens with endless appeals without appropriate grounds. The federal judiciary seems bent on taking over the civil deportation process and creating rights for removable non-citizens that Congress never intended and Americans do not wish to underwrite or allow.”

Indeed, the Supreme Court has already said decades ago that any effort to eliminate the concept of deportation must be done through the political branches, not the courts. “[I]t would be rash and irresponsible to reinterpret our fundamental law to deny or qualify the Government’s power of deportation. … It should not be initiated by judicial decision which can only deprive our own Government of a power of defense and reprisal without obtaining for American citizens abroad any reciprocal privileges or immunities,” said the high court in Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952).

In 1893, the Supreme Court made it clear that the power to deport is just as unassailable as the power to exclude so long as the alien has not been naturalized. “The power of Congress to exclude aliens altogether from the United States or to prescribe the terms and conditions upon which they may come to this country, and to have its declared policy in that regard enforced exclusively through executive officers, without judicial intervention, is settled by our previous adjudications.” (Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 707 (1893))

I couldn’t reach out to ICE for reaction because the agency is limited in media correspondence during the partial shutdown. While ICE could not respond to any media requests during the shutdown, the courts seem to have no problems operating 24/7 to subvert our sovereignty.

The problem of judicial amnesty is one of the many reasons why Trump would be insane to allow Jared to push him into a deal of “amnesty for a border wall.” If courts are voiding existing statutes that explicitly call for deportations, one can only imagine what would happen once the law is changed to blatantly shield a number of illegal aliens from deportation. They would essentially shut down deportations for everyone so that all aliens can be afforded an opportunity to apply for status. Then, a number of others will just come here on tourist visas and overstay their visas indefinitely while the courts shield them from any interior enforcement.

Instead of agreeing to amnesty, it’s time to double down on the original promise of 1996 – a promise Schumer and Pelosi agreed with – to stop all illegal immigration once and for all and to deport criminal aliens. That promise will never be actualized until we finally enforce the judiciary’s own settled case law on today’s activists disguised as judges.

Want to keep up with what’s going on in Washington without the liberal media slant, establishment spin, and politician-ese?

Sign up to get Blaze Media’s Capitol Hill Brief in your inbox every morning! It’s free!


Published  1 month ago

Certain common aphorisms were never meant to be taken literally. “What doesn’t kill you only makes you stronger” is a particularly risky principle by which to live. A watched pot will indeed boil. Time does not heal all wounds. “Slow and steady” does not always win the race. President Trump added a new — and, for him, potentially dangerous — aphorism on Friday, when asked about impeachment. He said he was not at all concerned because “you can’t impeach somebody that’s doing a great job.”

The president was hopefully making an aspirational, not a literal, point — because a president can be entirely successful in office yet rightfully be impeached for committing “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Indeed, no matter how successful a president may be in various policies, the commission of any impeachable offense means, by definition, that he or she is not doing a “great job.”

Trump’s statement was unnerving not only because he has said it before but because he is entering the most dangerous period of his term so far. With Democrats now controlling the House of Representatives — and some already stating their intentions, intemperately or even profanely like Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) — the White House is about to be hit with a torrent of document demands and subpoenas from a half-dozen committees.

Committee chairmen have promised to demand answers on Trump’s taxes, foreign business dealings, family charity and other areas beyond the still-ongoing Russia investigation. These moves reflect a strategy that not only targets Trump but is counting on Trump to be successful. They are relying on Trump’s self-description as a “counterpuncher” to supply the grounds of his removal. Yes, a president can counterpunch himself into impeachment.

Despite the filing of articles of impeachment on the first day of House Democratic control, there is not a strong basis for a single article at this time. Thus far, the strongest basis is the money paid to two women to silence them about alleged affairs with Trump before the election. Yet, while highly damaging, these allegations can be difficult to prosecute and occurred before Trump took office. An in-kind campaign contribution simply is not a strong stand-alone issue for impeachment.

Likewise, there still is no compelling basis to allege a crime based on obstruction or theories of collusion. That leaves Democrats with a House majority secured, at least in part, on promises of impeachment but without a clear, impeachable act.

Special counsel Robert Mueller could well supply the missing “high crime and misdemeanor,” of course, but the only other possible source is Trump himself. And, as he demonstrated during the James Comey debacle, Trump has the ability to do himself great harm by acting impulsively or angrily.

His firing of Comey as FBI director was not the problem; an array of Democrats and Republicans, as well as career prosecutors, felt Comey deserved to be dismissed. Instead, it was the timing: Rather than firing Comey upon taking office, Trump waited and then fired him after inappropriately questioning him on the Russia investigation and asking for leniency for a former associate, retired general Michael Flynn. Trump also reportedly called for the firing of Mueller, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, only to be deterred by his staff.

Democrats now have the chance to see if they can trigger an impeachable offense by hitting Trump across a broad range of subjects, including his tightly held business and tax records. Hammered by subpoenas and demands, they are hoping that the unpredictable Trump could commit an impulsive and destructive act. Consider just a few possible “scores” that this strategy could produce if President Trump walks into an impeachment trap.

First, firing frenzy. The biggest score would be a frustrated Trump ordering the firing of Mueller. Trump could be faced by not one but multiple special counsel reports in 2019, as well as ongoing litigation against indicted individuals. If reports are correct, he repeatedly has raised the idea of firing Mueller. That would cross a red line for some Republican senators and add “official acts” to an alleged pattern of obstruction.

Second, false statements. Unlike President Bill Clinton, who knowingly lied under oath (and was later found by a federal court to have committed perjury), Trump has not spoken under oath and only given limited answers in writing to a few questions from the special counsel. Now, Congress will be demanding answers not just from Trump but from his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and others in the White House. Lying to congressional investigators is a crime. If Trump tries to spin facts or gives false information, he would commit an impeachable offense.

Third, witness tampering. Equally dangerous is an allegation of shaping or inducing testimony. Trump has shown a continuing refusal to observe lines of separation from the investigation. Just recently, a report alleged that he called acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker to complain about the New York prosecutors pursuing campaign-finance violations. If he speaks with potential witnesses about their knowledge or accounts, it could be construed as influencing witnesses or even subornation of perjury. Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, allegedly confessed to false statements and suggested the statements were made with Trump’s knowledge.

Other potential criminal acts relate to the withholding of documents or acts that could constitute contempt of Congress. Of course, this strategy will fail if President Trump maintains simple restraint and leaves congressional and special counsel investigations to his own legal counsel. Congressional demands often raise separation-of-powers issues that can lead to litigation and delay. While Congress may not like it, it is very difficult to convert such constitutional objections into obstruction.

That, however, depends on the proper assertion of privileges. If the president interjects himself into the mix, the rationale — and the defense — can be compromised or lost. The scope and subject matter of these inquiries make for an obvious trap for Trump. This is why an aphorism like “you can’t impeach somebody that’s doing a great job” can be dangerous. Even if true to some degree on a political level, it also is true that a president can do a “great job” of getting himself impeached — if he walks into the world’s most obvious impeachment trap.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He testified on the impeachment standard for Bill Clinton and served as the lead defense counsel in the last impeachment trial in the United States Senate. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

Published  1 month ago

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) didn’t raise any objections three weeks ago when the Senate approved – by way of a voice vote – a spending package that would’ve prevented a government shutdown, without funding for a medieval border wall. At the time, the White House assured senators that Donald Trump would sign the bill and keep the government open.

A day later, conservative media told the president to change course, and he did – which point the South Carolina senator changed right along with him. In fact, yesterday, Graham appeared on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” and defended his party’s posture in a rather unusual way.

Graham said Republicans are “not going to put any offers on the table as long as people in charge of these negotiations accuse all of us who want a wall of being a racist and see our Border Patrol agents as gassing children. Until you get that crowd put to the sidelines, I don’t see anything happening.”

“Why would you negotiate with someone who calls you a racist?” Graham said.

The senator added, “I think we’ll have offers on the table when we find somebody that’s not crazy to deal with.” In the context of the interview, Graham’s comments seemed to be directed at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

The comments may have been a bit more candid than the Republican lawmaker intended. To hear Graham tell it, as the GOP’s shutdown continues into its third week, his party is reluctant to even propose possible solutions. That’s not an especially sound position given the fact that House Dems have already passed a resolution to the shutdown – the same one that Graham and other Senate Republicans approved of as recently as Dec. 19.

But it was that other line from Graham that stood out for me: “Why would you negotiate with someone who calls you a racist?” So, are we to believe Republicans might work constructively toward ending their shutdown if Democrats stopped hurting GOP leaders’ feelings?

If this seems at all familiar, it’s because we’ve been here before. In 1995, in the midst of the longest government shutdown in American history, then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) publicly confessed he’d shut down the government in part because then-President Bill Clinton had seated him toward the back of Air Force One following Yitzhak Rabin’s funeral in Israel.

“This is petty,” Gingrich acknowledged at the time. But, he added, “You’ve been on the plane for 25 hours and nobody has talked to you, and they ask you to get off the plane by the back ramp…. You just wonder, where is their sense of manners? Where is their sense of courtesy?” The Republican Speaker concluded, “It’s petty, but I think it’s human.”

The Gingrich “cry baby” meme soon followed.

More than a decade later, in 2008, as the global economy crashed, the House was poised to approve a rescue plan for the financial industry, but Republicans balked in the 11th hour, saying they were offended by Nancy Pelosi’s speech on the economic crisis. The top three leaders of the House Republican caucus – all of whom supported the legislation – held a press conference to say, earnestly and sincerely, that Pelosi’s “partisan” speech led at least a dozen House Republican lawmakers to vote against a package they would have otherwise supported.

It was a stunning admission: GOP leaders effectively said their own members voted against the nation’s interests during a crisis because Nancy Pelosi had hurt their feelings.

I’ll never forget then-Rep. Barney Frank’s (D-Mass.) response to the Republicans’ argument:

“Frankly, that’s an accusation against my Republican colleagues I would have never thought of making. Here’s the story: there’s a terrible crisis affecting the American economy. We have come together on a bill to alleviate the crisis. And because somebody hurt their feelings, they decide to punish the country. I mean, I would not have imputed that degree of pettiness and hypersensitivity. […]

“Think about this. ‘Somebody hurt my feelings, so I will punish the country.’ That’s hardly plausible. And there are 12 Republican members who were ready to stand up for the economic interest of America, but not if anybody insulted them. I’ll make an offer. Give me those 12 people’s names and I will go talk uncharacteristically nicely to them and tell them what wonderful people they are and maybe they’ll now think about the country.”

A decade later, Republicans have shut down the government, and Lindsey Graham asked a national television audience, “Why would you negotiate with someone who calls you a racist?”

If Democrats agreed to say nice things about Republican views on race, would the GOP end the shutdown? If Nancy Pelosi were uncharacteristically nice to Republican leaders, would GOP policymakers agree to take the same position they held a few weeks ago?


Published  1 month ago

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Monday will miss arguments for the first time on the Supreme Court. 

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Shortly after he took office on Monday, California's Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom unearthed an unprecedented new health care agenda for his state, aimed at offering dramatically more benefits to illegal immigrants and protecting the embattled Affordable Care Act, which a federal judge recently struck down as unconstitutional.

The sweeping proposal appeared destined to push California -- already one of the nation's most liberal states -- even further to the left, as progressive Democrats there won a veto-proof supermajority in the state legislature in November and control all statewide offices.

"People's lives, freedom, security, the water we drink, the air we breathe — they all hang in the balance," Newsom, 51, told supporters Monday in a tent outside the state Capitol building, as he discussed his plans to address issues from homelessness to criminal justice and the environment. "The country is watching us, the world is watching us. The future depends on us, and we will seize this moment."

Newsom unveiled his new health-care plan hours after a protester interrupted his swearing-in ceremony to protest the murder of police Cpl. Ronil Singh shortly after Christmas Day. The suspect in Singh's killing is an illegal immigrant with several prior arrests, and Republicans have charged that so-called "sanctuary state" policies, like the ones Newsom has championed, contributed to the murder by failing to allow state police to cooperate with federal immigration officials.

As his first order of business, Newsom -- who also on Monday requested that the Trump administration cooperate in the state's efforts to convert to a single-payer system -- declared his intent to reinstate the ObamaCare individual mandate at the state level.


The mandate forces individuals to purchase health care coverage or pay a fee that the Supreme Court described in 2012 as a "tax," rather than a "penalty" that would have run afoul of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Last month, though, a federal judge in Texas ruled the individual mandate no longer was a constitutional exercise of Congress' taxing power because Republicans had passed legislation eliminating the tax entirely -- a move, the judge said, that rendered the entire health-care law unworkable.

As that ruling works its way to what analysts say will be an inevitable Supreme Court showdown, Newsom said he would reimpose it in order to subsidize state health care.

Medi-Cal, the state's health insurance program, now will let illegal immigrants remain on the rolls until they are 26, according to Newsom's new agenda. The previous age cutoff was 19, as The Sacramento Bee reported.

Additionally, Newsom announced he would sign an executive order dramatically expanding the state's Department of Health Care Services authority to negotiate drug prices, in the hopes of lowering prescription drug costs.

In his inaugural remarks, Newsom hinted that he intended to abandon the relative fiscal restraint that marked the most recent tenure of his predecessor, Jerry Brown, from 2011 to 2019. Brown sometimes rebuked progressive efforts to spend big on various social programs.

"For eight years, California has built a foundation of rock," Newsom said. "Our job now is not to rest on that foundation. It is to build our house upon it."

Newsom added that California will not have "one house for the rich and one for the poor, or one for the native-born and one for the rest."

"The country is watching us, the world is watching us."

— California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom

In a statement, the California Immigrant Policy Center backed Newsom's agenda.

“Making sure healthcare is affordable and accessible for every Californian, including undocumented community members whom the federal government has unjustly shut out of care, is essential to reaching that vision for our future,” the organization said. “Today’s announcement is an historic step on the road toward health justice for all.”

Several of Newsom's recent hires have signaled he's serious about his push to bring universal health care to California. Chief of Staff Ann O’Leary worked in former President Bill Clinton's administration on the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which offers affordable health care to children in families who exceed the financial threshold to qualify for Medicaid, but who are too poor to buy private insurance.

And, Cabinet Secretary Ana Matosantos, who worked in the administrations of Brown and former GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, has worked extensively to implement ObamaCare in California and also worked with the legislature to expand health-care coverage for low-income Californians.

Fox News' Andrew O'Reilly and Corbett Riner contributed to this report.

Published  1 month ago

Every day that goes by, more and more Americans become more deeply entrenched and brainwashed into believing what they’re told by their boob tube (television), newspapers, magazines and [...]

Mail Online

Published  1 month ago

The former Speaker, 48, wore a University of Wisconsin-Madison Badgers jacket to take his sons to school in Janesville, WI, while Washington D.C. wrestled with the shutdown crisis.

The Atlantic

Published  1 month ago

From seizing control of the internet to declaring martial law, President Trump may legally do all kinds of extraordinary things.


Published  1 month ago

More than 600 women around the world have already accused John of God of sexually abusing them during healing sessions with the medium


Published  1 month ago

In an interview Thursday morning with 'Good Day New York,' Alan Dershowitz pushed back against allegations that he had sex with underage girls through billionaire convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. He said he is being framed and has emails that will put "prominent people in handcuffs."

"There are emails so far that are secret, but that prove, not only that I was framed, but who framed me," Dershowitz said. "It names names. These people are going to go to jail once these e-mails come out because this was a total frame up for financial reasons, and I can prove it, and will prove it. Have me back on the show when the e-mails come out, boy it will be so interesting because there will be prominent people in handcuffs. Prominent people in handcuffs once these e-mails come out."

"Look, as to the first woman who accused me, her own lawyer admitted in front of witnesses that she was wrong, just wrong, that I couldn’t have been in the places,” he said.

"The second woman," he said, "is a woman who wrote to the NY Post claiming she had video tapes of Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump having sex with underage girls. The NY Post said, ‘We don’t believe you.’ They wouldn’t even publish her story, but, she’s one of the people."

Hat tip: Law & Crime

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Democrat Rep. Steve Cohen refuses to face that fact that Hillary Clinton lost in 2016 because she is awful and has now introduced a bill to eliminate the electoral college all together — instead of figuring out how his party could do better next time.

Cohen also introduced a bill that will prevent presidents from pardoning themselves or their family members.

Bill Clinton famously pardoned his brother, Roger Clinton, for drug charges before he left the White House. His brother was charged with drunk driving and disorderly conduct less than a year after the pardon.

“In two presidential elections since 2000, including the most recent one in which Hillary Clinton won 2.8 million more votes than her opponent, the winner of the popular vote did not win the election because of the distorting effect of the outdated Electoral College. Americans expect and deserve the winner of the popular vote to win office. More than a century ago, we amended our Constitution to provide for the direct election of U.S. Senators. It is past time to directly elect our President and Vice President,” Cohen wrote in a statement.

Without the electoral college, elections will be decided primarily by large coastal cities — denying voters in flyover country a voice.

Cohen wasn’t the only vengeful representative not wasting any time before making petulant attention grabbing moves on the first day.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) also introduced articles of impeachment against President Trump on the first day of the 116th Congress, “filing them as his first order of business in the new, Democrat-controlled House of Representatives.”

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Former President Bill Clinton was a much more frequent flyer on a registered sex offender’s infamous jet than previously reported, with flight logs showing the former president taking at least 26 trips aboard the “Lolita Express” -- even apparently ditching his Secret Service detail for at least five of the flights, according to records obtained by

Daily Wire

Published  1 month ago

Ad closed by Report this adWhy this ad? Ad was inappropriateNot interested in this adSeen this ad multiple timesAd covered contentWe'll try not to show that ad againAd closed by

The Republican National Committee (RNC) released a new ad on Monday night highlighting how American families have been impacted by illegal aliens, which comes a day before President Donald Trump is set to address the nation about the ongoing crisis on the southern border.

The video was released as part of a new website launched by the RNC called, which was created to combat misinformation from the media and Democrat Party.

"President Trump is committed to fighting for American citizens and our national security," RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel said in a statement. "Meanwhile, Democrats are committed to fighting President Trump."

The video highlights multiple Americans who have been killed by illegal aliens, including the recent tragedy out of California where an illegal alien allegedly murdered Ronil Singh, a legal immigrant who was a police officer.

The website laid out five facts that will be part of the Republican Party's push to get Democrats to take action on border security:

Fact #1: In four Customs and Border Protection sectors where physical barriers have been expanded — El Paso, Yuma, Tucson, and San Diego — illegal traffic has dropped by at least 90%.

Fact #2: In fiscal year 2018, U.S. Border Patrol seized or helped seize 282,000 pounds of cocaine, 248,000 pounds of methamphetamine, 6,500 pounds of heroin, and 2,400 pounds of fentanyl.

Fact #3: In 2018, over 17,000 adults arrested at the border had prior criminal records. This included over 6,000 gang members, a major number of those members were from MS-13.

Fact #4: The Democrats would rather risk the safety of hard-working Americans than work with President Trump to secure our nation’s borders. But in 2013, all 54 Senate Democrats, including Chuck Schumer, voted to pass legislation that provided $46 billion to build a physical barrier on the border.

Fact #5: Nancy Pelosi and her hyper-liberal Congressional colleagues just passed a bill to give $54 BILLION to foreign governments, but Democrats won’t allow just $5 billion to secure our borders and protect American citizens.

The site also highlighted previous statements made by Democrat leaders going all the way back to the Clinton administration.

"When we use phrases like 'undocumented workers,' we convey a message to the American people that their government is not serious about combating illegal immigration, which the American people overwhelmingly oppose," Senator Chuck Schumer said in 2009. "If you don't think it's illegal, you are not going to say it. I think it is illegal and wrong, and we have to change it."

Other quotes from Democrat leaders include:

President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”

Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."

President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."

Published  1 month ago

The media talks about Trump being hateful, but where’s the media when this woman is cursing at the Commander-in-chief

Human Events

Published  1 month ago

Hypocrisy stands at the pinnacle of the sins that liberals most disdain. So it’s fair game to compare the free ride they gave to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with their searching the archives to pillory every word ever written by Supreme Court nominee John Roberts.

Liberal commentators and U.S. senators, who are salivating at the upcoming interrogation of Roberts, never asked Ginsburg about her extremist views spelled out in her lengthy paper trail. The senators didn’t have to do much research; I made it easy for them by publishing her words in my July 1993 Phyllis Schlafly Report.

I quoted extensively from her 230-page book called Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, published in 1977 by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The purpose of this book was to show how the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (for which she was an aggressive advocate) would change federal laws to make them sex-neutral and “eliminate sex-discriminatory provisions.”

Ginsburg called for the sex-integration of prisons and reformatories so that conditions of imprisonment, security and housing could be equal. She explained, “If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.” (Page 101)

She called for the sex-integration of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts because they “perpetuate stereotyped sex roles.” (Page 145)

She insisted on sex-integrating “college fraternity and sorority chapters” and replacing them with “college social societies.” (Page 169)

She even cast constitutional doubt on the legality of “Mother’s Day and Father’s Day as separate holidays.” (Page 146)

Ginsburg called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to people who are “less than 12 years old.” (Page 102)

She asserted that laws against “bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist” are unconstitutional. (Page 195)

She objected to laws against prostitution because “prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.” (Page 97)

On the other hand, her view of the traditional family was radical feminist. She said that the concept of husband-breadwinner and wife-homemaker “must be eliminated from the code if it is to reflect the equality principle,” (Page 206) and she called for “a comprehensive program of government supported child care.” (Page 214)

Ginsburg wrote that the Mann Act (which punishes those who engage in interstate sex traffic of women and girls) is “offensive.” Such acts should be considered “within the zone of privacy.” (Page 98)

She demanded that we “firmly reject draft or combat exemption for women,” stating “women must be subject to the draft if men are.” But, she added, “the need for affirmative action and for transition measures is particularly strong in the uniformed services.” (Page 218)

An indefatigable censor, Ginsburg listed hundreds of “sexist” words that must be eliminated from all statutes. Among words she found offensive were: man, woman, manmade, mankind, husband, wife, mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, serviceman, longshoreman, postmaster, watchman, seamanship, and “to man” (a vessel). (Pages 15-16)

She even wanted he, she, him, her, his, and hers to be dropped down the memory hole. They must be replaced by he/she, her/him, and hers/his, and federal statutes must use the bad grammar of “plural constructions to avoid third person singular pronouns.” (Page 52-53)

Not only did Ginsburg pass former President Bill Clinton’s litmus test of being pro-abortion, but she was also on record as opposing what was then settled law that the Constitution does not compel taxpayers to pay for abortions. In her chapter in a 1980 book, Constitutional Government in America, she condemned the Supreme Court’s ruling in Harris v. McRae and claimed that taxpayer-funded abortions should be a constitutional right.

In a speech published by Phi Beta Kappa’s Key Reporter in 1974, Ginsburg called for affirmative action hiring quotas for career women. Using the police as an example, she wrote, “Affirmative action is called for in this situation.”

It’s too bad that Americans were denied the entertainment value of a C-SPAN broadcast of a Senate Judiciary Committee interrogation of Ginsburg about her out-of-the-mainstream views. But Republicans rolled over and Ginsburg was confirmed 97 to 3.

Liberals are trying to make a federal case out of Roberts’ membership or non-membership in the Federalist Society. But Ginsburg had been the general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, which, unlike the Federalist Society, litigates to bring about leftist and even radical goals.

Tim Russert posed the pertinent question on Meet the Press, after showing a clip of Clinton saying he would appoint only Supreme Court justices “who believe in the constitutional right to privacy, including the right to choose.” Russert asked: “Doesn’t George Bush, as a Republican, have the same opportunities as Bill Clinton, the Democrat, to put people on the Court who share his philosophy?”

Judicial Watch

Published  1 month ago

The Trump administration has dedicated another big chunk of taxpayer money to a controversial Obama housing project and the latest allocation gives millions to a leftwing group that advocates open borders, organizes pro-illegal immigrant marches across the country and promotes a radical Chicano curriculum in publicly-funded charter schools nationwide. Known as Choice Neighborhoods, the program aims to transform slums into desirable middle-class neighborhoods. The costly experiment was the centerpiece of a broader Obama initiative to convert poverty-stricken neighborhoods into sustainable, mixed-income areas with affordable housing, safe streets and good schools. It was launched as a collaboration between the departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Education, Justice, Treasury and Health and Human Services (HHS) to help attract private investment necessary to transform distressed areas.

During Obama’s tenure Choice Neighborhoods received a breathtaking $375 million, according to HUD figures. A substantial portion—$120 million—was rewarded as a parting gift in 2016, the HUD numbers reveal and the largest chunk—$122.27 million—was allocated in 2010 when Obama launched the program. Like many of the former president’s initiatives, large sums of cash went to leftist nonprofits and community groups that aligned with his liberal agenda. Back in 2012 Judicial Watch reported that the administration paid half a million dollars to study the effectiveness of Choice Neighborhoods, including the challenges of brining healthy food options to poor areas and the characteristics of the neighborhoods being targeted for transformation.

Instead of cutting back on these dubious programs that give huge sums of taxpayer dollars to leftist groups, the Trump administration keeps filling their coffers. This month HUD announced more than $60 million in grants for Choice Neighborhoods and other housing counseling grants. Among the recipients is the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), which recently changed its name to UNIDOS US. The renowned open borders group that specializes in promoting the Mexican La Raza (“the race”) agenda is getting approximately $2.6 million, according to government records. Other likeminded groups getting cash include the Refugee Family Assistance Program ($32,000) and the Center for New York City Neighborhoods ($16,000), which lists the Mutual Housing Association of New York (an Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now—ACORN—offshoot) as a partner. The center’s board chair, Herbert Sturz, is a senior advisor to the Open Society Foundations (OSF), the deeply politicized groups billionaire George Soros uses to promote his radical leftist agenda worldwide. Read all about it in a Judicial Watch investigative report.

Earlier this year Trump’s HUD gave Choice Neighborhoods a $5 million infusion to promote “a comprehensive approach to transforming neighborhoods struggling to address the interconnected challenges of distressed housing, inadequate schools, poor health, high crime, and lack of capital,” according to a HUD statement. Los Angeles California, Lewiston Maine and Philadelphia Pennsylvania got the biggest portions, $1.3 million each. Chicago Illinois, Huntington West Virginia and Cleveland Ohio each got $350,000 to revitalize poor neighborhoods. The goal is to replace distressed public housing with high-quality, mixed-income housing and improve residents’ employment, income, health and education. Ultimately this is supposed to create the conditions necessary for public and private reinvestment in distressed neighborhoods. Three of the awardees received an additional $950,000 for “action activities” to build momentum and attract additional investment, according to HUD. The extra cash can be used to recycle vacant properties into community gardens or farmers markets or for community arts projects that beautify an area.

Weeks earlier HUD gave dozens of leftist groups that purport to fight housing discrimination $37 million. The biggest allocation—$999,962—went to a nonprofit that attacked Trump for terminating an Obama program that protects hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants living in the U.S. Shortly before getting its money the Washington D.C. group, National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA), bashed the president over a contentious policy known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) that shields nearly 800,000 illegal aliens under the age of 31 from deportation and lets them obtain work permits and drivers’ licenses. An administration that continues funding leftist housing programs carried out by groups hostile to the president makes you wonder if Trump knows what’s going on under his nose?

Controversy is nothing new at HUD. The agency has been embroiled in a multitude of serious scandals—under both Democrat and Republican administrations—over the years involving leadership, low-level employees and field directors. Problems go back to the Ronald Reagan administration, when an influence-peddling scandal led to the conviction of 16 people, including top aides to then HUD Secretary Samuel Pierce. Bill Clinton’s housing secretary, Henry Cisneros, pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about payments to his former mistress. George W. Bush’s HUD secretary, Alphonso Jackson, was ousted after the feds launched an investigation into his plots to enrich himself and his friends by giving them lucrative government contracts. Obama’s second HUD secretary, Julian Castro, misspent the agency’s federal funds as mayor of San Antonio.


Published  1 month ago

After being sworn in on a Koran, America’s first Muslim Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib attended a party where she declared to her supporters, “We’re going to go in and impeach the motherf**ker.”

During a party in Washington DC last night, the Michigan Democrat said, “When your son looks at you and says momma look you won, bullies don’t win, and I said ‘baby they don’t’, because we’re gonna go in and impeach the motherf**ker.”

The audience reacted by screaming with delight.

.@RashidaTlaib saying it louder for the people in the back!! ???#116thCongress

— UndocuNestor (@_NestorRuiz) January 4, 2019

Tlaib also called for Trump’s impeachment in an article for the Detroit Free Press yesterday.

Despite Tlaib’s enthusiasm for impeachment, which is shared by many members of the so-called “resistance,” the chances that it could lead to Trump being turfed out of office are minimal.

Even if the House votes to impeach Trump, it would require 67 senators to convict the president and remove him from office. With a Senate made up of 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats, this is virtually impossible.

Top Democrats like Nancy Pelosi also believe that impeachment could help turn Trump into a martyr and actually boost his re-election chances in 2020. Following efforts to impeach Bill Clinton in 1998, Republicans actually lost seats in Congress.

Meanwhile, the left is almost salivating over Tlaib’s traditional Palestinian “thobe” and Ilhan Omar’s hijab, once again fetishizing a garment that for millions of women in the Middle East is a symbol of subjugation to an oppressive male patriarchy.

More fetishization of the hijab by the left, a garment that women in the Middle East are ostracized, persecuted, tortured and imprisoned for REFUSING to wear. When will this idiocy cease?

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) January 4, 2019


Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet


Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of and Prison


Published  1 month ago

Party leaders fear such explosive talk only gives ammunition to the GOP.

Daily Wire

Published  1 month ago

Conveniently lost amid the endless jabber over President Trump’s character flaws are the myriad shortcomings of his predecessors and critics. No more vulgar or erratic than exhibitionist Lyndon Johnson, no less learned than haberdasher Harry Truman, no more a womanizer than Bill Clinton, JFK, LBJ, and FDR, Trump starts to seem disciplined by comparison. As Roger Kimball quotes Cardinal Newman in an excellent piece at American Greatness, a man “may be great in one aspect of his character and little-minded in another. … A good man may make a bad king; profligates have been great statesmen or magnanimous political leaders,” which brings us to the sad case of Mitt Romney.

The former Massachusetts governor, current Utah senator, and twice-failed presidential candidate published a sanctimonious op-ed in Pravda on the Potomac this week in which he bemoaned the “deep descent” of the Trump presidency. Romney took issue with Trump’s “resentment and name-calling,” his lack of “honesty and integrity,” and his overall “shortfall” in the “qualities of character.” Romney excels at seeing the speck of sawdust in his president’s eye; he fails to notice the plank in his own.

Mitt Romney had no issue with name-calling when he called the president “a phony” and “a fraud” in a 2016 diatribe at the University of Utah. You may have missed those comments, sandwiched in between his presidential and Senate runs in 2012 and 2018, respectively, when he requested Trump’s endorsement. In 2012, Romney gushed, “Being in Donald Trump’s magnificent hotel and having his endorsement is a delight. I’m so honored and pleased to have his endorsement.” In 2016, he declared, “On the economy, if Donald Trump’s plans were ever implemented, the country would sink into prolonged recession. … A business genius he is not.” In 2012, Romney raved, “Donald Trump has shown an extraordinary ability to understand how our economy works, to create jobs for the American people.” He even complimented Trump’s superior business acumen, observing, “I’ve spent my life in the private sector — not quite as successful as this guy, but successful nonetheless.” Are we expected to find Romney's honesty and integrity in his flattery or invective?

Trump’s business record may not have changed between 2012 and 2016, but Romney’s public views certainly shifted with the political winds, as they have for his entire career. During his failed 1994 Senate campaign, Romney distanced himself from the legacy of Ronald Reagan, insisting, “I was an Independent during the time of Reagan-Bush! I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush!” During his failed 2012 presidential run, he described himself as “severely conservative.” If only Romney had been more severely conservative as governor of Massachusetts, he might have avoided inventing Obamacare.

President Trump has kept more of his campaign promises than any president in recent memory, the very standard of honesty and integrity in public office. President Trump’s critics call him an immoral lout. By strict moral standards, so are we all. Still, compared to his fellow politicians, Trump’s character seems relatively upright, at least where it counts in public life. How does Mitt Romney fare in such a comparison?

Dan Bongino

Published  1 month ago

Authored by: Matt Palumbo The new Democratic-Socialist darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called out CRTV’s Allie Stuckley earlier this week for a satirical video Stuckley released mocking Cortez. The video featured Stuckley …

Blunt Force Truth

Published  1 month ago

Democrat Rep. Steve Cohen refuses to face that fact that Hillary Clinton lost in 2016 because she is awful and has now introduced a bill to eliminate the electoral college all together — instead of figuring out how his party could do better next time.

Cohen also introduced a bill that will prevent presidents from pardoning themselves or their family members.

Bill Clinton famously pardoned his brother, Roger Clinton, for drug charges before he left the White House. His brother was charged with drunk driving and disorderly conduct less than a year after the pardon.

“In two presidential elections since 2000, including the most recent one in which Hillary Clinton won 2.8 million more votes than her opponent, the winner of the popular vote did not win the election […]

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.


Published  1 month ago

This battle over an obscure budget rule is really a fight for the future of the Democratic Party.

Conservative Tribune

Published  1 month ago

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg missed a court session Monday, prompting speculation about how much longer the 85-year-old justice will serve.

Daily Intelligencer

Published  1 month ago

“When a man becomes president,” said Rudy Giuliani not long ago, “he shouldn’t be subject to a review of his entire life.” Putting aside for the moment whether such a review should or should not take place, Giuliani has correctly identified what is happening. The new Democratic House that will conduct oversight into the presidency and obtain his tax returns, the multiple state-level investigations into Trump’s transparent business fraud, and the Mueller probe will all pry open a massive trove of secrets held tight over decades.

Giuliani’s position is that, having been elected president, Trump should be granted immunity for his past crimes. (Of course, Giuliani also opposes holding Trump accountable for his misdeeds since taking office, like obstruction of justice, but never mind.) Giuliani’s complaint may intuitively seem fair — why should Trump, or any president, face another review of his entire life? That, after all, is what presidential campaigns are for, so presumably Trump’s election settled that matter. But the answer to this query is that, in truth, Trump was never really vetted in the first place.

This may seem like a strange thing to say about such an apparently familiar persona. Trump has been a ubiquitous character in American culture for decades. He first contemplated running for president more than 30 years ago, and 18 years ago “President Trump” was already a comedy punchline. Trump’s career has produced a body of coverage so massive that no single person could possibly hope to absorb it all. Yet we are even now discovering the extent to which Trump is a secretive, mysterious figure who has escaped basic scrutiny. And this oversight has occurred not despite his media overexposure but, in some ways, because of it.

It was only three months ago that the New York Times published a dramatic exposé upending the entire Trump financial mythos. Trump had always insisted he had received “just” a $1 million loan from his father as a young man, which he repaid. Before the Times’ story came out, his critics used to express doubt that Trump had actually ever paid back the million dollars. In fact, the Times established that Trump has received $413 million from his father, all in gifts rather than loans, and the vast bulk of it transferred illegally, to avoid estate and gift tax.

What’s more, the story reconstructs how Fred Trump carefully manufactured his son’s image. The family presented its young heir to the media as an already-accomplished young millionaire of his own. The key vehicle for the publicity campaign was the Times itself. In 1976, a reporter toured Trump’s properties alongside him in a chauffeured Cadillac and dutifully fawned over the “tall, lean and blond” developer, who had amassed more than $200 million at the tender age of 30. The Times now debunks its own story. It reports that all the properties depicted in the story as Donald’s burgeoning empire — even the Cadillac they rode around in — were actually purchased by Fred Trump.

But the lie was reproduced 10,000 times over, and the man who won the 2016 election was the fictional character established in stories like that one. The truth, meanwhile, has only begun to scratch the surface. Basic facts about Trump’s life, which would have been thoroughly plumbed were he any other presidential candidate, are only starting to be investigated. A recent Patrick Radden Keefe profile of Mark Burnett reveals how the reality television producer turned Trump into a commanding business tycoon. “We walked through the offices and saw chipped furniture,” one Apprentice producer recalls in the piece. “We saw a crumbling empire at every turn. Our job was to make it seem otherwise.”

The Apprentice depicted Trump not as a bankrupt crook but as a wealthy genius, for whose favor a cast of supplicants would compete. The show revolved around competing business ideas that Trump would oversee. The problem was that Trump — just as he does in the White House — made irrational and bizarre choices. He “was frequently unprepared for these sessions, with little grasp of who had performed well. Sometimes a candidate distinguished herself during the contest only to get fired, on a whim, by Trump.” Keefe reports that in such instances, the producers would edit the footage to make Trump’s foolish decisions appear wise. Tens of millions of Americans voted for a television character they took to be some reasonable approximation of a real person.

The day after Christmas, the Times broke another exclusive story. The podiatrist who diagnosed Trump with bone spurs, thus protecting him from being drafted and sent to Vietnam, was a tenant of his father’s. The doctor’s daughter told the Times the diagnosis was made as a favor to the senior Trump.

Military service histories, or lack thereof, are a customary subject for journalists to scrutinize during presidential campaigns. The steps taken by candidates like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush to avoid going to Vietnam were documented in excruciating and sometimes damaging detail. It’s amazing that the background of how Trump obtained a highly suspicious diagnosis is only being ascertained now, two years into his presidency.

One reason Trump has escaped scrutiny, of course, is that he has withheld his tax returns. The more information about his finances that dribbles out, of course, the more explicable that decision appears. Trump has an obvious motive to conceal his decades of dependency on his father’s largesse, as well as the apparent role played by Russian money laundering in replacing those cash infusions after his father’s money ran out. Those tax returns, a basic object of examination in vetting any presidential candidate — and all the more crucial for a candidate whose qualification is asserted based solely on his business credentials — will finally be exposed now that Democrats have the power to subpoena them.

Another reason is that the sheer volume of news Trump has created has had a distorting effect that the media could never quite account for. Trump spent decades courting the news media, and was covered like a member of the British royal family. The sheer mass of the coverage blotted out any damning details. And the pace of the coverage accelerated during the campaign. On a daily basis, Trump committed astonishing offenses of the sort that would have destroyed an ordinary campaign. But there was hardly any bandwidth to exercise the normal due diligence in vetting presidential nominees. And when such reporting was conducted, its impact could hardly register against the constant blaring of outrages.

Measured in absolute terms, or against other candidates, Trump was subject to harsh, unrelenting scrutiny. But measured against the scale of his own dark past, he skated into office with barely any vetting at all, abetted by decades of friendly propaganda.

The review of Trump’s life is only beginning now. It will probably tell us that Trump is not merely a politician who has abused his power, or a businessman who has cut corners. He is a criminal who happened to be elected president.

Leave a Comment

The Intercept

Published  1 month ago

As I took the stand, I thought about how much press freedom had been lost and how drastically national security reporting had changed in the post-9/11 era.


Published  1 month ago

Nancy Pelosi plans to confront Donald Trump on many fronts, from investigating the deaths of child migrants to protecting Robert Mueller’s probe.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

On Thursday, the 116th Congress began and San Francisco’s Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives once again. Hopefully, she won’t revert to her old tricks by passing bills so the rest of us can find out what’s in them.

As the president of Citizens United, I know that every two years around this time the left ramps up its wrongheaded quest to gut the First Amendment and attack the landmark “Citizens United” Supreme Court decision that protects robust free speech rights for all of the American people. And this year is no exception, as House Democrats prepare to unveil H.R. 1 today.

A recent column in The New York Times entitled “After Citizens United, a Vicious Cycle of Corruption,” opens by stating, “In the eight years since it was decided, Citizens United has unleashed a wave of campaign spending that by any reasonable standard is extraordinarily corrupt.” An intriguing opening perhaps, but the entire opinion piece contains no evidence of corruption whatsoever. Liberals just can’t come to grips with the fact that spending a lot of money to participate in the political process doesn’t equal corruption.

The last time there was a real campaign finance scandal was during the 1996 election cycle when it was discovered that China funneled illegal contributions into our political system to help Bill Clinton and the Democrats’ re-election efforts. That investigation resulted in more than 25 individuals being charged with crimes by the Department of Justice. In the wake of that investigation, President George W. Bush signed the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act into law, which was largely overturned by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision.

Fast forward to today and the left’s effort to restrict free speech in America is still front and center. But now, the liberals are forced to scream at the top of their lungs about fake corruption in our campaign finance system because little, if any, actually exists.

Instead of jobs, health care or border security, the incoming Democrat majority in the House is making a so-called “reform” package their first legislative priority in the new Congress. The bill consists of speech-stifling regulations under the guise of campaign finance reform, voting reform that puts “automatic” voter registration ahead of election integrity, and the overtly political action of income tax return disclosure that applies to the president but not Congress. It should be noted that this effort has a zero percent chance of passing the Senate, much less being signed into law.

The Democrat campaign finance plan dusts off their decades-old dream for the public financing of political campaigns. This excessive spending could go a long way toward paying for a border wall and enhanced border security. Curiously, this bill appears not to directly address the large amounts of money being raised and spent by Super PACs that liberals complain about ad nauseam. Maybe that’s because Democrats employ Super PACs to get their message out just as much as Republicans. According to a recent column in the Los Angeles Times, “Among the top 25 super PACs in 2018 spending, through Dec. 3, contributions supporting Republicans and conservatives came to $341 million; contributions on the Democratic and liberal side totaled about $282 million.”

Additionally, only a hypocrite like Hillary Clinton - in collusion with her allies in the liberal media - could get away with making overturning the Citizens United decision her number one legislative priority in 2016 while spending nearly twice as much as Donald Trump. Liberal hypocrisy knows no bounds, but it only gets you so far. If the Democrats truly wanted to get rid of Super PACs they could make them obsolete by getting behind measures like Senator Ted Cruz and Congressman Mark Meadows’ bill, the “Super PAC Elimination Act.”

The Democrat reform package includes an election reform section to fix something that isn’t the problem. The bill argues we need to make it easier to vote, despite just witnessing record turnout in the 2018 midterm elections. According to CBS News, “An estimated 113 million people participated in the 2018 midterm elections, making this the first midterm in history to exceed over 100 million votes.” Furthermore, early reports are predicting more record turnout in 2020 with encouraging headlines such as, “Expect Record Turnout in 2020.” This begs the question; shouldn’t the priority be ballot integrity, to ensure that only those persons eligible to vote actually get to vote?

Another section of the Democrat reform bill covers ethics reform. Laughably, the political bill would require presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns while making no such requirement for congressional candidates. Also absent from the Democrats’ ethics reform platform is any mention of congressional term limits. Let’s be honest, if the Democrats really were interested in draining the swamp, wouldn’t they agree with President Trump and the 80 percent of Americans who support term limits for Congress?

Here’s the bottom line. The incoming Pelosi-led House of Representatives should listen to the American people and prioritize issues that voters care most about and actually have a chance of becoming law. Two years will fly by and only time will tell how badly House Democrats squander their time in the majority.

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


Published  1 month ago

Written by:Robert Patrick Lewis

American Liberty Report

Published  1 month ago

America enjoyed a brief respite from its march toward Sharia law in the two years after B. Hussein Obama left office. But now that Democrats have regained control the House, the march has resumed – and picked up speed! It’s practically a sprint toward Sharia, as shown by a developing court case and the (probably) Pelosi-led House.

The media has dutifully been blacking out the federal trial of The United States of America v. Jumana Nagarwala. Dr. Nagarwala is a Mohammedan who hails from India and she is charged with leading a conspiracy to perform genital mutilation surgeries on baby girls in the Detroit, MI area for more than 12 years. The media refuses to cover this trial because it might lead you to ask uncomfortable questions about Islam and whether it was a good idea to quadruple the number of belligerent, unemployable foreign Muslims in America during Obama’s eight years in the White House.

Female genital mutilation, or FGM, for those who don’t know is a barbaric Third World Muslim practice just one step above tossing virgins in a volcano. A Muslim doctor or, in cases where a doctor is unavailable, some old guy with a rusty knife, hacks off part of a baby girl’s clitoris and usually some additional chunks for good measure. It is a savage, unholy and disgusting practice that the “diversity is our strength” coalition wants to import to America.

Congress specifically banned the practice of FGM 22 years ago and President Bill Clinton, being a stalwart defender of female genitals, signed it into law. Hey, credit where credit is due!

The media gleefully tells us every time that a federal judge overturns anything that President Trump or the current Congress does. So, it’s a bit of a mystery why the media doesn’t want to tell you about USA v. Nagarwala.

The federal judge in that case just overruled Congress. Using a bizarre bit of reasoning, the judge has declared that Congress had no authority to ban the practice of FGM. As of this moment, it is technically legal in all 50 states for Muslim immigrants to have a doctor – or some old guy with a rusty knife – mutilate their baby girls’ genitals, thanks to US District Judge Bernard Friedman.

Perhaps the Supreme Court will intervene eventually. But for right now, the federal government is trying to prosecute Dr. Nagarwala for a crime that the judge says cannot be a crime.

Congress could rewrite the law and try again, but how likely is that given that Democrats have just turned over a 181-year-old House rule in order to appease its newest Sharia-loving Representative. A woman named Ilhan Omar was just elected as Minnesota’s newest Congresswoman.

Quick question: What does Minnesota look like these days? Our impression was lots of hardy people of Northern European stock, with lots of blonde hair, blue eyes and Viking temperaments during Sunday NFL games. If Ilhan Omar “represents” them, Minnesota has probably made some drastic changes.

Ms. Omar is a full-on Israel-hating, Farrakhan-loving, hijab-wearing Muslim. She’s being very gently investigated for possibly marrying her own brother in order to dupe America’s clueless immigration officials. And now she’s in Congress!

House Democrats have announced that they will overturn a rule that’s been in place for almost two centuries in order to submit to Sharia. The rule is the one against wearing hats or head coverings of any sort while on the House floor. It’s a rule that was originally passed to differentiate Congress from those wags in the British Parliament. They were a bunch of hat-wearing continentals, you see, and the US Congress didn’t want to have any similarities to them in terms of dress while doing official duties. A lot of veterans from the War of 1812 were probably still kicking around in the House at the time, so there was probably some bitterness involved.

At any rate, the rule has stood for 181 years. Orthodox Jewish members of Congress have always been prevented from wearing their traditional kippah and no one raised a stink about it. But Muslims always demand total submission to their minority rule.

Ilhan Omar is not going to let you oppress her by preventing her from wearing the hijab! This is also good news for her, because her co-religionists will not be able to stone her to death for walking around with her head uncovered.

So, FGM is suddenly legal and Congress has submitted to the Sharia dress code. Tell us again why mass immigration from the Third World is such a positive for America?


Published  1 month ago

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a New Year’s Eve social media dirge Monday night, saying she and the entire country endured a “dark time” in 2018.

“In many ways, 2018 was a dark time for the country,” Clinton related on Instagram.

But the former first lady — who included an old snapshot of herself with her husband, former President Bill Clinton, and daughter, Chelsea Clinton, in her post — did find some reason for hope in 2018, saying she was “grateful to everyone who brought light into” 2018 and naming a select crew of the illuminated faithful. (RELATED: Exclusive Hillary Clinton Is Hiring Interns For The Fall — But Won’t Pay Them A Cent)

In many ways, 2018 was a dark time for our country. As it ends, I’m grateful to everyone who brought light into it: activists who protected kids at the border, journalists who stood up for truth, organizers who mobilized voters for the 2018 elections, candidates who ran races with grit and inspiration, voters who made their voices heard, and absolutely everyone who marched, donated, called, and protested to fight for the values we share. Here’s to more light in 2019, and to a shared commitment to make it as bright as possible. Happy New Year.

A post shared by Hillary Clinton (@hillaryclinton) on Dec 31, 2018 at 7:41am PST

“I’m grateful to everyone who brought light into it: activists who protected kids at the border, journalists who stood up for truth, organizers who mobilized voters for the 2018 elections, candidates who ran races with grit and inspiration, voters who made their voices heard, and absolutely everyone who marched, donated, called, and protested to fight for the values we share,” she wrote. (RELATED: Federal Court Says Clinton Must Answer More Questions About Her Emails)

Two years after her 2016 defeat, Clinton wasn’t so enthusiastic about all candidates in 2018. She flatly alleged that the Georgia gubernatorial election was illegitimate when Democrat Stacey Abrams went down to defeat. Another way Clinton combated the dark in 2018 was to start her 2018-2019 book tour with her husband in November and speak at a number of events across the country.

Ever the optimist, Clinton portentously suggested “more light” might be on the way in the New Year.

“Here’s to more light in 2019, and to a shared commitment to make it as bright as possible.”

Clinton did not sign-off before remembering to wish her followers, “Happy New Year.”

American Greatness

Published  1 month ago

Post by @DownStreamPols.

Judicial Watch

Published  1 month ago

DOJ Colluded Directly with Clinton Email Witnesses to Limit Discovery (Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch announced today that it submitted a court-ordered discovery plan for the depositions of several top former government officials involved in the Clinton email scandal, including Obama administration senior officials Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Jacob Sullivan, and FBI official E.W. Priestap....


Published  1 month ago