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.


Published  1 month ago

Washington D.C., Feb 27, 2019 / 07:00 pm (CNA).- The chairman of the U.S. bishops’ conference pro-life committee praised Wednesday a new federal rule that will prohibit abortion clinics from receiving federal funding aimed at subsidizing some medical services for low-income women and families. The rule is expected to strip Planned Parenthood of about $60 million in federal funds.

“I applaud the Trump Administration for reaffirming that abortion is not family planning. Abortion ends the lives of families’ most vulnerable members, as well as damaging the spiritual, mental and physical health of mothers,” said Archbishop Joseph Naumann in a Feb. 27 statement.

“Although the USCCB continues to have strong objections to government promotion and funding of contraceptives, we have long supported enforcement of the abortion funding restrictions in Title X, and we are pleased to see that the Administration has taken seriously its obligation to enforce those restrictions.” The “Protect Life Rule,” amending rules for federal Title X funds, was announced in a Feb. 22 press release from the Department of Health and Human Services.

Title X is a federal program created in 1965 that subsidizes family-planning and preventative health services, including contraception, for low-income families. It has been frequently updated and subject to new regulations. While the program has not directly funded abortion, critics have complained that abortion providers who received Title X funding did not adequately prevent commingling of funds.

Among other provisions, the Protect Life Rule requires that there be a physical and financial separation between recipients of Title X funds and facilities that perform abortions. Clinics that provide “nondirective counseling” about abortion can still receive funds.

Previous regulations, written during Bill Clinton’s presidency, not only allowed for health clinics that were co-located with abortion clinics to receive funds, but also required that Title X recipients refer patients for abortions.

“We are also grateful that this rule eliminates the requirement that doctors in Title X clinics refer and counsel for abortion, which previously ensured that all Title X clinics and staff had a close connection with abortion,” Naumann said.

Naumann, Archbishop of Kansas City, was elected to chair the U.S. bishops’ pro-life committee in November 2017.

You may also like »


Published  1 month ago

Court documents filed in a recently settled lawsuit against billionaire, Harvard donor, and convicted sex offender Jeffrey E. Epstein allege Epstein directed a second woman to have sex with Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan M. Dershowitz.


Published  1 month ago

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

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch said Friday that the FBI has uncovered 30 pages of documents related to the controversial 2016 tarmac meeting between former President Bill Clinton and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

The newly uncovered documents will be sent to Judicial Watch by the end of November in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, a spokesman for the group told Fox News.

Judicial Watch originally filed a FOIA request in July 2016 -- which the Justice Department did not comply with -- seeking “all records of communications between any agent, employee, or representative” of the FBI for the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server use, and all records related to the June 27, 2016 meeting between Lynch and Bill Clinton.

“We presume they are new documents. We won’t know what’s in them until we see them, unfortunately,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told Fox News in an email Friday. “The fact they just ‘found’ them is yet another scandal.”


The FBI initially did not find any documents or records related to the tarmac meeting, according to an FBI letter reviewed by Fox News, but in a related case this summer, the Justice Department recovered email correspondence regarding the meeting.

“Upon further review, we subsequently determined potentially responsive documents may exist,” the FBI wrote to Judicial Watch in a letter on Aug. 10. The FBI wrote that the request had been “reopened” and is “currently in the process of searching for any responsive material.”

The tarmac meeting fueled Republican complaints at the time that Lynch had improperly met with the husband of an investigation subject, just before the probe into Hillary Clinton's personal email use was completed with no charges filed.

Fired FBI Director James Comey, in Senate testimony in June, described that tarmac meeting as problematic.


Congressional Republicans have called for a second special counsel to investigate Comey, Lynch and Clinton.

Washington Examiner

Published  1 month ago

Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page testified last year that officials in the bureau, including then-FBI Director James Comey, discussed Espionage Act charges against Hillary Clinton, citing “gross negligence," but the Justice Department shut them down.

Newly released transcripts from Page’s private testimony in front of a joint task force of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees in July 2018 sheds new light on the internal discussions about an investigation into Clinton's emails. This goes back to the FBI’s "Midyear Exam" investigation, which looked into whether Clinton committed crimes when she sent and received classified information on her unauthorized private email server while serving as secretary of state.

Comey cleared Clinton of all charges in a press conference on July 5, 2016.

Page told the committee that the FBI "did not blow over gross negligence.” Responding to a question from Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, Page testified the FBI, including Comey, believed Clinton may have committed gross negligence. “We, in fact — and, in fact, the Director — because, on its face, it did seem like, well, maybe there’s a potential here for this to be the charge. And we had multiple conversations, multiple conversations with the Justice Department about charging gross negligence," she said.

Page further testified the DOJ put a stop to that: “The Justice Department’s assessment was that it was both constitutionally vague, so that they did not actually feel that they could permissibly bring that charge.” The specific statute being referenced, 18 U.S. Code § 793, deals in part with “gross negligence” in the handling of national defense information, which Clinton came under scrutiny for possibly violating.

Page said Comey and the FBI spoke with DOJ about a gross negligence charge for Clinton multiple times, but that the DOJ consistently pushed back on it. “We had multiple conversations with the Justice Department about bringing a gross negligence charge. And that’s, as I said, the advice that we got from the Department was that they did not think — that it was constitutionally vague and not sustainable," she said.

Ratcliffe asked if the decision not to charge Clinton with gross negligence was a direct order from the DOJ. "When you say advice you got from the Department, you’re making it sound like it was the Department that told you: ‘You’re not going to charge gross negligence because we’re the prosecutors an we’re telling you we’re not going to,’” he said.

Page responded: “That’s correct.”

Page is the former FBI lawyer who reportedly carried out an affair with FBI agent Peter Strzok, the lead investigator in the Clinton investigation. The thousands of text messages that they sent back and forth about the Clinton and Trump-Russia investigations raised questions of bias, and Mueller eventually removed Strzok from the special counsel investigation. Strzok was also fired by the FBI.

Page’s testimony raises further questions related to the decision not to charge Clinton with any crimes, including gross negligence, following a lengthy FBI investigation into her email practices that potentially put classified information at risk. After the revelation that then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch met with former President Bill Clinton on a Phoenix tarmac in June 2016, while Hillary Clinton was running for president, Lynch refused to recuse herself from the case while also saying she would accept Comey’s decision on what charges to bring against Clinton. But Page’s testimony indicates that DOJ had shut the door on gross negligence.

Comey gave an infamous press conference on July 5, 2016, where he listed Clinton’s numerous missteps, including the fact that 110 emails in 52 email chains contained classified information at the time they were sent or received by Clinton. But he would not recommend charging her with any crimes, and the phrase “extremely careless” (not a crime) would be used instead of “gross negligence” (a chargeable offense).

It was Strzok who reportedly changed the language in Comey’s draft statement from “grossly negligent” in an earlier draft to “extremely careless” in the final statement.

At the time, the National Review's Andy McCarthy wrote, "According to Director James Comey, Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code ... and, in essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute."

It was previously reported that a chart had been shared inside the FBI which did not include "gross negligence" on the list of potential criminal violations that Clinton could’ve been charged with. In front of Congress last year, an email containing the chart was reportedly shown to the assistant director of the FBI’s counterintelligence division Bill Priestap. He testified that he didn't know why the email said, “DOJ not willing to charge this.” Page’s testimony indicates that the decision not to charge Clinton with gross negligence came directly from the DOJ.

Priestap also testified that "if there is a Federal criminal statute still on the books, then, you know — and we think there may or might be a violation of that, we still have to work to uncover whether, in fact, there was.” Page testified that the DOJ pushed back on the FBI’s desire to explore the gross negligence charge.

The hundreds of pages of newly released Page testimony are just the latest peek into the investigations surrounding Hillary Clinton and President Trump. Testimony from Bruce Ohr, a high-ranking DOJ official connected to dossier author Christopher Steele and whose wife worked at Fusion GPS, was released last week.

Conservative Review

Published  1 month ago

Tuesday night on the radio, LevinTV host Mark Levin ripped into all the “loose talk” about impeaching President Trump being thrown around by politicians and media figures.

Levin took issue with the seemingly common idea that impeachment is merely a political process. “It’s not a criminal process; we know that, but it’s not a purely political process, either,” Levin explained. “It is a constitutional process.”

“This loose talk about impeachment, the inability of some conservatives to effectively engage, is troubling,” Levin added.

“There is absolutely no legitimate, historical, or constitutional basis to impeach this president,” Levin concluded, “yet they keep throwing the word around.”

Levin also explained the nature of impeachment as the Founders understood it, why president Bill Clinton was impeached, and what to really expect when special counsel Robert Mueller releases the findings of his investigation.

Are “Never-Trumpers” Really An Issue?

You won’t want to miss tonight’s show!

— LevinTV (@LevinTV) March 8, 2019

Don’t miss an episode of LevinTV. Sign up today!

David Harris Jr

Published  1 month ago

Rep Doug Collins released the transcripts of Lisa Page’s testimony before Congress, and one item jumped to the forefront. Page told the House members that the FBI, including James Comey, had discussed bringing charges against Hillary for violating the espionage act, but that the DOJ ordered them to drop it. Who gave the order? And why?(Although I’m sure we can all guess why.) And as to who ordered the stand down order, my guess is that it was Loretta Lynch, who met Bill Clinton on the tarmac. A couple of days later the Hillary campaign said they were thinking of keeping her on in the Hillary administration.

Rep Collins said his patience with the DOJ had grown thin so he released the testimony.

Collins plans on releasing more testimony.

The Ohr testimony disclosed the Bruce Ohr gave his wife’s opposition research on Trump to the FBI in a flash drive.

On Tuesday Rep. Doug Collins released the Lisa Page testimony online.

The testimony released today revealed the FBI was considering charging HIllary Clinton under the Espionage Act until the Department of Justice told them “no.”

Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page testified last year that officials in the bureau, including then-FBI Director James Comey, discussed Espionage Act charges against Hillary Clinton, citing “gross negligence,” but the Justice Department shut them down.

Newly released transcripts from Page’s private testimony in front of a joint task force of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees in July 2018 sheds new light on the internal discussions about an investigation into Clinton’s emails. This goes back to the FBI’s “Midyear Exam” investigation, which looked into whether Clinton committed crimes when she sent and received classified information on her unauthorized private email server while serving as secretary of state.

Comey cleared Clinton of all charges in a press conference on July 5, 2016.

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

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

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page admitted under questioning from Texas Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe last summer that "the FBI was ordered by the Obama DOJ not to consider charging Hillary Clinton for gross negligence in the handling of classified information," Ratcliffe alleged in an incendiary social media post late Tuesday.


Published  1 month ago

Republican Georgia Rep. Doug Collins released the private testimony of former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, but it’s former Attorney General Loretta Lynch who may feel the sting.

According to Page’s testimony, which was made public on Tuesday, the FBI considered charging former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with gross negligence under 18 U.S. Code § 793 for her alleged handling of classified information. (RELATED: Doug Collins Releases Ex-FBI Lawyer Lisa Page’s Interview Transcripts)

NEW: Lisa Page’s congressional testimony reveals that the FBI was considering charging Hillary Clinton under the Espionage Act for “gross negligence” — until the DOJ flat-out told them “No.”

— Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) March 12, 2019

“We had multiple conversations with the Justice Department about bringing a gross negligence charge,” Page told Republican Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe. “And that’s, as I said, the advice that we got from the Department was that they did not think — that it was constitutionally vague and not sustainable.”

Ratcliffe responded, “When you say advice you got from the Department, you’re making it sound like it was the Department that told you: ‘You’re not going to charge gross negligence because we’re the prosecutors and we’re telling you we’re not going to.'”

“That’s correct,” Page answered.

But if Page were telling the truth, and the FBI did recommend possible charges against Clinton, then Lynch may not have been telling the truth when she said that she would “accept their recommendations.”

Lynch: “I fully expect to accept” the DOJ and FBI recommendations on the Clinton email probe

— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) July 1, 2016

“I fully expect to accept their recommendations,” Lynch said at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado on July 1, 2016. “I will be accepting their recommendations and their plans for going forward.”

Lynch, who was responding to criticism of her tarmac meeting with former President Bill Clinton, made the reassurance that she would abide by the recommendations of the FBI when she declined to recuse herself from the case. “It’s important to make it clear that that meeting with President Clinton does not have a bearing on how this matter is going to be reviewed, resolved and accepted by me,” she said.

True Pundit

Published  1 month ago

True Pundit has verified the Arkansas Judiciary has reinstated Hillary Clinton’s suspended law license, just days ago — 17 years after it was suspended.

Hillary announced last week she would not seek the presidency in 2020 but the quiet mysterious reinstatement of her law license sets the stage for a possible Attorney General post, according to Clinton and DC insiders.

Or perhaps the Supreme Court.

Revenge personified.

Hillary’s law license was reinstated on March 4, 2019, according to Arkansas officials. It had been suspended since March 14, 2002, according to records. The Arkansas Judiciary lists Clinton’s address as a PO Box in Chappaqua, NY, where Clinton resides.

Clinton’s law license was first granted in 1973, Arkansas records show.

Larry Nichols, a Clinton insider, and whistleblower agreed Hillary could be looking for a spot as Attorney General if Democrats won the White House in 2020.

“Absolutely,” Nichols said. “She could become the Pope and she’s not even Catholic. Who is going to stop her?”

Or does Hillary want a seat on the Supreme Court?

Nichols echoed the sentiments of Mike “Thomas Paine” Moore who floated that Hilary was looking at the Attorney General job last week on CrowdSource the Truth’s weekly Patreon show. Moore and Nichols first floated the possibility although it was unknown at the time that Clinton’s law license had been restored in Arkansas literally hours earlier.

Moore said he wouldn’t rule out a White House counsel post either for Clinton.

“A clear law license sure would help her get confirmation as Attorney General,” Moore said. “I mean, who in DC has the guts to vote against her? She already runs the Justice Department and she’s sitting at home.

“One thing is for sure: this woman is already planning her revenge for losing in 2016.”

Clinton’s license was suspended in March 2002 for failure to complete continuing education requirements. Having been admitted to the bar more than 40 years ago (she was admitted to the Arkansas bar in October 1973) and also being older than 70, she’s no longer required under Arkansas rules to meet CLE requirements.

Clinton was a partner in the Rose Law Firm when Bill Clinton ran for president. She’s stayed busy since, but not as a practicing lawyer. Her last appearance of record in an Arkansas court was in May 1992, a civil case before the Arkansas Court of Appeals.

Bill Clinton’s law license was suspended for five years in 2001 as an agreed settlement of disciplinary action over his misleading testimony about Monica Lewinsky in depositions taken in a lawsuit against him by Paula Jones. He has not sought reinstatement.

This story is developing.

Trump Train

Published  1 month ago

In the months leading up to the 2016 United States presidential election, stories abounded about the relationships between the Clinton Foundation and various foreign entities. May 2015 saw the publ…


Published  1 month ago

FOX News host Tucker Carlson responded to audio Media Matters posted of "numerous misogynistic and perverted comments" he made in interviews 10 to 13 years ago. Carlson said he would never "bow down" to the liberal "mob" and denounced modern progressives as the "new Puritans" in the opening monologue on the Monday broadcast of his program. (Media Matters called the audio "unearthed," but the interviews have always been available on the internet.)

Carlson said the criticisms aren't sincere and liberals are just pretending to be shocked. He said, "The left’s main goal, in case you haven’t noticed, is controlling what you think. In order to do that, they have to control the information you receive."

TUCKER CARLSON: As anyone who’s ever been caught in its gears can tell you, the great American outrage machine is a remarkable thing. One minute you’re having dinner with your family, imagining that everything is fine. The next, your phone is exploding with calls from reporters. They read you snippets from a press release written by Democratic Party operatives. They demand to know how you could possibly have said something so awful and offensive. “Do you have a statement on how immoral you are?” It’s a bewildering moment, especially when the quotes in question are more than a decade old.

There’s really not much you can do to respond. It’s pointless to explain how the words were spoken in jest, or taken out of context, or in any case bear no resemblance to what you actually think, or would want for the country. None of that matters. Nobody cares. You know the role you’re required to play: You’re a sinner, begging the forgiveness of Twitter. So you issue a statement of deep contrition. You apologize profusely for your transgressions. You promise to be a better person going forward. With the guidance of your contrition consultants, you send money to whatever organization claims to represent the people you supposedly offended. Then you sit back and brace for a wave of stories about your apology, all of which are simply pretexts for attacking you again. In the end, you lose your job. Nobody defends you. Your neighbors avert their gaze as you pull into the driveway. You’re ruined.

Yet, no matter how bad it gets, no matter how despised and humiliated you may be, there’s one thing you can never do, one thing that’s absolutely not allowed: You can never acknowledge the comic absurdity of the whole thing. You can never laugh in the face of the mob. You must always pretend that the people yelling at you are somehow your moral superiors. You must assume that what they say they’re mad about is what they’re actually mad about. You must pretend that this is a debate about virtue, and not power; that your critics are arguing from principle and not partisanship. No matter what they take from you, you must continue to pretend that these things are true: You are bad. They are good. The system is on the level.

But what if we stopped pretending? What if we acknowledged what’s actually going on: one side is deadly serious. They believe that politics is war. They’re not interested in abstractions or principles, rules or traditions. They seek power. They plan to win it, whatever it takes. If that includes getting you fired, or silencing you, or threatening your family at home, or throwing you in prison, so be it. Their goal is power. If you’re in the way, they’ll crush you.

What’s interesting is how reliably the other side pretends that none of this is happening. Republicans in Washington do a fairly credible imitation of an opposition party. The still give speeches. They tweet quite a bit. They make concerned noises about how bad liberals are. But on the deepest level, it’s all a pose. In their minds, where it matters, Republican leaders are controlled by the left. They know exactly what they’re allowed to say and believe. They know that the rules are. They may understand that those rules were written by the very people who seek their destruction. They ruthlessly enforce them anyway. Republicans in Washington police their own with never-ending enthusiasm. Like trustees in a prison, they dutifully report back to the warden, hoping for perks. Nobody wants to be called names. Nobody wants to be Trump.

How many times have you seen it happen? Some conservative figure will say something stupid, or incomplete, or too far outside the bounds of received wisdom for the moral guardians of cable news. Twitter goes crazy. The mob demands a response. Very often, the first people calling for the destruction of that person are Republican leaders. You saw it with the Covington Catholic high school kids. You see it all the time. Kevin McCarthy spends half his life telling his Republican members not to criticize progressive orthodoxy. Paul Ryan did the same before him. A couple of years ago, the entire Democratic Party decided to deny the biological reality of sex differences, an idea that’s as insane as it is dangerous. Republican leaders decided not to criticize them for it. They might get upset.

This is a system built on deceit and enforced silence. Hypocrisy is its hallmark. Yet in Washington, it’s considered rude to ask questions about how it works. Why are the people who considered Bill Clinton a hero lecturing me about sexism? How can the party that demands racial quotas denounce other people as racist? After a while you begin to think that maybe their criticisms aren’t that sincere. Maybe their moral puffery is a costume. Maybe the whole conversation is an absurd joke. Maybe we’re falling for it.

You sometimes hear modern progressives described as the new puritans. That’s a slur on colonial Americans. Whatever their flaws, the puritans cared about the fate of the human soul and the moral regeneration of their society. Those aren’t topics that interest progressives. They’re too busy pushing late term abortion and cross dressing on fifth graders. These are the people who write our movies and sitcoms. They’re not shocked by naughty words. They just pretend to be when it’s useful.

It’s been very useful lately. The left’s main goal, in case you haven’t noticed, is controlling what you think. In order to do that, they have to control the information you receive. Google and Facebook and Twitter are on board. They’re happy to ban unapproved thoughts without apology. They often do. So do the other cable channels, and virtually every major news outlet in this country. On of the only places left in America where an independent view is allowed is right here, the primetime shows on this network. A total of three hours, in a sea of television programming. It’s not much, relatively speaking. For the left, it’s unacceptable. They demand total conformity. Since the day we went on the air, they’ve been working hard to kill this show. We haven’t said much about it in public. It seemed too self-referential. The point of this show has never been us. But now it’s obvious to everyone. There’s no pretending it’s not happening. Going forward we’ll be covering their efforts to make us be quiet. For now, just two points. First, Fox is behind us, as they have been since the first day. Toughness is a rare quality in a TV network, and we’re grateful for that. Second, we’ve always apologized when we’re wrong, and we will continue to. That’s what decent people do. But we will never bow to the mob. Ever. No matter what.

Tammy Bruce reacts with Tucker Carlson:


Published  1 month ago

A federal appeals court in Manhattan has moved to make public records the sealed records from a lawsuit involving the sexual abuse of underage girls by Palm Beach multimillionaire Jeffrey Epstein.

Published  1 month ago

In a new opinion column written in The Wall Street Journal, Senator Ben Sasse and Meghan McCain write about how the Democrat Party is now controlled by Planned Parenthood abortion extremists who support infanticide.

The Nebraska Senator and the daughter of former presidential candidate and Senator John McCain say the Democratic Party is now running by pro-abortion radicals who have moved far away from even the abortion supporters of yesteryear like Bill Clinton. At least those abortion advocates used to be able to say they wanted abortions to be rare. Today’s modern abortion advocates don’t even pay that lip service.

“The party of ‘safe, legal and rare’ has been captured by the loud voices and deep pockets of an extremist abortion industry that treats abortion as a moral good. Major Democratic politicians are even unwilling to protect the lives of babies who survive attempted abortions,” they write.

They excoriate all of the Democrat presidential candidates who recently voted for support infanticide, saying “infanticide isn’t complicated. The current debate is about whether or not it’s OK to deprive newborns of appropriate medical care.” The bill merely “would have required health-care providers to give babies who survive abortions the same care they would give to any other baby at the same gestational age.”

“It shouldn’t be controversial. It shouldn’t be partisan…. Yet under enormous pressure from an abortion industry that spends tens of millions in campaign contributions, Senate Democrats—including six seeking the presidency in 2020—filibustered the bill,” they wrote.

They also complained how the media has become a willing pro-abortion accomplice covering up the truth “with cheap euphemisms and a prefabricated narrative,” and describing “all pro-life policies, even ones backed by a majority of Americans, as ‘controversial.'”

And they highlighted how abortions up to birth and infanticide have received support from top Democrat politicians.

“Gov. Andrew Cuomo lit One World Trade Center pink to celebrate late-term abortion and the removal of protections for babies born alive during botched abortions,” they wrote. “Meanwhile in Virginia, Gov. Ralph Northam endorsed infanticide outright, suggesting that a baby born during a botched abortion ought to be ‘made comfortable,’ but then possibly left to die on the table.”

“This debate is about infanticide. Planned Parenthood is defending that crime. Many in the national media are overlooking it. Democratic politicians are hiding from it. But the American people are repulsed by it. The recent vote was a missed opportunity to protect the most vulnerable among us. But it will not be the last,” McCain and Sasse concluded.

When it comes to the 2020 presidential election there is no bigger divide between President Donald Trump and the pro-abortion Democrats who want to replace him than the issue of infanticide and abortions up to birth.

While President Trump has taken a strongly pro-life position throughout his presidency and has compiled a strong pro-life record opposing abortion and defunding the Planned Parenthood abortion business, Democrats have promoted killing babies in abortions even in the late term of pregnancy. And recently they supported infanticide.

Every single Democrat in the Senate who is running for president voted against a bill that would stop infanticide and provide medical care and treatment for babies who are born alive after botched abortions. That includes Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Amy Klobuchar.

While they all voted to support infanticide, President Trump spoke out against infanticide in two tweets saying that it’s nothing short of “executing” babies to let them die after failed abortions

NBC News

Published  1 month ago

While some Democrats are already clamoring for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says President Donald Trump is "just not worth it."

In an interview with the Washington Post published Monday, Pelosi said, "I'm not for impeachment."

Pelosi, who was House minority leader when President Bill Clinton was impeached by the Republican majority house in 1998, told the paper, "Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he's just not worth it."

But asked if she thought Trump was "fit" to be president, Pelosi said, "No. I don't think he is. I mean, ethically unfit. Intellectually unfit. Curiosity-wise unfit. No, I don't think he's fit to be president of the United States," she said, before chiding herself for "coming across too negatively."

In the same interview, she complimented Trump with a laugh, calling him "a great organizer for Democrats, a great fundraiser for Democrats and a great mobilizer at the grassroots level for Democrats. And I think that's good for America."

Billionaire Tom Steyer, who's been running television advertisements calling for Trump to be impeached, blasted Pelosi for her comments.

"Speaker Pelosi thinks 'he's just not worth it?' Well, is defending our legal system 'worth it?' Is holding the President accountable for his crimes and cover-ups 'worth it?' Is doing what’s right 'worth it?' Or shall America just stop fighting for our principles and do what's politically convenient?" he said in a statement.

The issue has been on the president's mind. In an an interview with CBS on Super Bowl Sunday, Trump said, "The only way they can win, because they can't win the election, is to bring out the artificial way of impeachment."

"It's supposed to be high crime and misdemeanors. Well, there was no high crime. There was no misdemeanor. There was no problem whatsoever," Trump said then.

Responding to Pelosi's comments on Monday, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said, “impeachment should never be on the table because the president is doing a great job.”

As for Pelosi's comments on Trump's fitness to be president, Sanders said, “Most of America disagrees with her comments. That’s why they voted him into office.”

Trump lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by almost 2.9 million votes.


Published  1 month ago

A federal appeals court in Manhattan has moved to make public records the sealed records from a lawsuit involving the sexual abuse of underage girls by Palm Beach multimillionaire Jeffrey Epstein.

Conservative News Today

Published  1 month ago

The more we learn the more we realize that collusion and obstruction of justice may have actually occurred… under the Obama administration. Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page admitted last year under oath that the FBI was ordered by the Loretta Lynch-run Justice Department not to charge Hillary Clinton for gross negligence in the handling of classified information. That’s […]

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

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

Media Matters for America

Published  1 month ago

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


Published  1 month ago

Constitutional treasure hunters, stay on your toes these these next few days, because they reveal a giant "X marks the spot" on our collective expedition back to that lost democratic paradise: a Congress that represents the will of the people.

Here’s what’s happening: The Democratic House passed a bill to prevent President Donald Trump from using his power to declare a national emergency in order to fulfill his campaign promise of constructing a 2,000-mile vanity wall across the southern border, which automatically sent the bill to a vote in the Republican Senate, where it has just garnered the votes to pass. Checks: balanced.

Did you catch the golden distinction right there in the middle? The National Emergencies Act contains a crucial provision: When one Congressional chamber votes to override an emergency declaration, it automatically goes up for a vote in the other chamber. That makes this the rare occasion Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., cannot stand in the way of our representatives voting on a popularly-supported bill by just not scheduling it for a vote.

Let me simplify: If you take away the Senate majority leader’s power to schedule or not schedule votes, government works. Open sesame.

Let’s back up. In the throes of the longest government shutdown in U.S. history – over funding for the president’s campaign promise of a boarder wall to his base – Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., seemingly spotted the keystone that would topple the wall between us and functioning democracy. “We have secured enough Republican votes in the Senate to reopen the government,” she wrote. “Our obstacle now is Mitch McConnell, who won’t call the vote.”

McConnell was using his power to determine the schedule of votes to singlehandedly veto any popularly-supported legislation that would have reopened the federal government. McConnell and the other senators who came before him who had the title “leader” in front of their names have used this impenetrable power to stall progress for decades. Might we even deploy capital letters and brand it the “Scheduling Veto?”

In case it wasn’t abundantly clear: McConnell himself circled, highlighted and double-underlined the problem of his “Scheduling Veto” so you couldn’t miss it. Responding to a question Thursday about why the Senate wouldn’t be taking up a House bill to fix partisan gerrymandering, increase voter turnout, and get big money out of electoral politics, McConnell answered with his trademark grin, "Because I get to decide what we vote on.”

Recent years are littered with wreckage of progress blocked by this “Scheduling Veto.” In 2013, for example, during the last period when the House and Senate were held by opposing parties, comprehensive immigration reform was popular (supported by between 70 and 80 percent of Americans), bipartisan (passed the Democratic Senate with significant Republican votes) and had a real possibility to become law (President Obama said he had the votes in the House to pass it). However, then-Speaker of the House John Boehner refused to schedule a vote in his chamber.

In that same session, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill that would have made it illegal to fire Americans based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, was popular (about 70 percent of Americans supported it), bipartisan (it passed the Senate by a margin of 32 votes), and had a real possibility to become law (it had several House GOP co-sponsors). But Boehner wouldn’t schedule a vote.

But perhaps the most awful, egregious, anti-Democratic of them all was this: In 2016, when President Obama nominated the popular and moderate Judge Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court, whom conservative Republican Senators like Utah’s Orrin Hatch praised effusively, McConnell declared that he would not schedule a vote on Garland under any circumstance.

Climate change legislation, gun safety measures and criminal justice reform are just a few matters that have been stalled by the “Scheduling Veto” at one point or another. The battle to pass the latter of these provided perhaps the starkest illustration last year. As the AP reported, “[Senator Chuck] Grassley says more than two-thirds of the Senate supports [criminal justice reform]. But McConnell is refusing to bring the legislation forward . . . ‘What’s holding it up is our leader, the majority leader,’” Grassley said at the time.

During that fight, Senator Rand Paul, R, Ky., Described the situation in far more blunt terms “. . . Sen. McConnell — he has all the power to allow it or not allow it.”

How is it possible that one man, for whom odds are neither you nor I voted, has absolute control over the ignition switch to our country, as well as the brakes, the gas, the wheels, the seats and the windows? After a bloody revolution to escape monarchical rule, our Congress was designed to be a conference of extraordinary citizens representing a polity of constituencies as equals, pushing and pulling our country towards the truest manifestation of the popular will. It’s why we call it the People’s House. But instead, “Mitch and Nancy” and their predecessors have enjoyed unchecked rule.

It wasn’t always like this. The Speaker of the House role, for instance, was initially quite objective, gradually consolidating powers via the adoption of new House rules until the early 1900s, when a pair of Republican speakers – Illinois Rep. Joseph Gurney Cannon and Ohio Rep. Nicholas Longworth – took full control of the House’s legislative agenda along with the coercive power to appoint committee chairs and members. Majority leaders in the Senate, on the other hand, weren’t even conceived of until 1920, let alone did they wield such imperatorial powers.

In a democracy, what comes to a vote should be determined by a process, a system, a democratic mechanism – not the whims of one person. If a bill fulfills some reasonable procedural trigger point, it should automatically go up for a vote by the entire body.

While there are no signs of improvement on the Senate side, baby steps in the House were recently taken that at least recognize the problem. Under its new Democratic leadership, any legislation that achieves 290 co-sponsors will automatically get a floor vote in the House. That threshold, however, is exceedingly high and not so different than the almost never used “Discharge Petition,” which already allows the House to force a vote if an absolute majority of 218 members sign a petition for it. A democratic process should be regular order – not an act of defiance.

In lieu of voluntarily disarmament, the matter could be taken up in the courts. Just as the Supreme Court took away former President Bill Clinton’s “line-item veto” on the grounds that it gave the presidency unconstitutional legislative authority, they should take away this unconstitutional “Scheduling Veto” from both the speaker of the House and Senate majority leader, as well. It can be done: in the United States v. Ballin case of 1892, the Supreme Court ruled that while Congress may have significant deference to determine its own rules, those rules may not violate the Constitution or fundamental rights.

This won’t fix all this of the problems of our democracy alone, but it could have an outweighed impact. There are numerous, near-universally supported policies that would likely pass if only they could be brought up for a vote. Universal background checks, a pathway to citizenship for DREAMERS, the ability for Medicare to negotiate down drug prices, are a few. Lives would be saved and enriched; our country would be healthier and safer. Except for the will of the majority leader

It’s not uncommon for political commentators to advocate reigning in the powers of the presidency. Far less common is a serious conversation about recalibrating the powers of both the speaker of the House and the Senate majority leader, who all but single-handedly control what has the chance to become law in this country. Now is the time to make our way back to democratic order, and vanquishing the “Scheduling Veto” is an obvious first step on that journey.


Published  1 month ago

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

Zero Hedge

Published  1 month ago

Images show the exact opposite of what think tanks and NBC News claim...

Washington Examiner

Published  1 month ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Democratic 2020 hopeful Kirsten Gillibrand believes aspects of the proposal to fight climate change -- like infrastructure, jobs and clean water -- will appeal to Republicans; analysis from Gerard Baker, editor at large for the Wall Street Journal.

She’s making the fight against sexual assault and harassment a key component of her Democratic presidential campaign.

But now Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York – one of the most vocal advocates of the #MeToo movement who also led the charge in calling for fellow Democratic Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota to resign – is dealing with a harassment issue in her own Senate office.


Last summer, a female aide in her mid-20’s who was working in Gillibrand’s office resigned in protest as she criticized the office’s handling of her sexual harassment complaint against a senior male adviser to the senator.

“These are challenges that affect all of our nation’s workplaces, including mine, and the question is whether or not they are taken seriously,” Gillibrand said in a statement Monday morning, after the news was reported by Politico.

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

The female staffer alleged that the male aide – who was a decade older than her and married – made repeated unwelcome advances and crude, misogynistic comments.

The woman – who was granted anonymity because of fears of retaliation – resigned less than three weeks after reporting the alleged harassment.

“I have offered my resignation because of how poorly the investigation and post-investigation was handled,” the woman wrote to Gillibrand in a letter obtained by Politico.

In the letter, the woman urged that the senator “draw a line in the sand and say none of it is O.K. None of it is acceptable. Your office chose to go against your public belief that women shouldn’t accept sexual harassment in any form and portrayed my experience as a misinterpretation instead of what it actually was: harassment and ultimately, intimidation.”

In a statement obtained by Fox News, Gillibrand Senate office communications director Whitney Mitchell said that “at every step of the process, immediate action was taken by the office. The previous allegations in question were investigated in consultation with Senate Employment Counsel, and included multiple interviews with relevant current employees who could potentially corroborate the claims. A full and thorough investigation into the evidence revealed employee misconduct that, while inappropriate, did not meet the standard for sexual harassment.”

Mitchell added that “the office did find unprofessional behavior that violated office policy, including derogatory comments, the office took strong disciplinary action against the employee in question and he was given a final warning.”

But Mitchell explained that the senior aide – Abbas Malik – was terminated last week after “we learned of never-before reported and deeply troubling comments allegedly made by this same individual.”

She said the Senate office “immediately began another investigation and interviewed relevant witnesses, which has led to the office terminating the employee from staff last week.”

The episode hits home for Gillibrand, who’s long been a leader in the fight against sexual harassment. Even before the start of the #MeToo movement, the senator was holding high-profile hearings on rape in the military and battling on behalf of survivors of sexual assaults on college campuses.

She was the first Democratic senator in 2017 to call for Franken to resign after he faced multiple allegations that he had in the past forcibly kissed and touched women. And she ignited a firestorm that same year when she suggested that Bill Clinton should have resigned the presidency during the scandal over his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

Fox News' Mike Emanuel contributed to this report.


Published  1 month ago

Conservative author and conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi filed a defamation lawsuit against Infowars and its founder Alex Jones on Thursday.

Corsi and his lawyer, conservative activist Larry Klayman, filed the claim against Jones, Jones’s father David Jones and Infowars host Owen Shroyer for allegedly “defaming, intimidating and threatening” them.

The lawsuit notes that Alex Jones said Corsi “seemed to be extremely mentally degraded to the point of what I would call dementia” and that Infowars guests often impugned Corsi's and Klayman’s character. The plaintiffs claim that the allegations have hit them in their wallets, costing them “financial support and sales.”

The plaintiffs noted that Infowars has used its widespread reach, with “a radio audience of over two million people” and a sophisticated digital operation, to spread conspiracy theories, including that the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting was staged and that Hillary and Bill Clinton were running a high-profile pedophile ring out of a Washington, D.C., restaurant.

Corsi too was a promoter of conspiracy theories, often highlighting the “birther” claim that former President Obama was not born in the U.S. He used to work for Alex Jones as Infowars’s Washington bureau chief but left the show last June.

However, Alex Jones has used his show to attack Corsi as special counsel Robert Mueller seeks Corsi’s testimony in his probe into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Mueller is investigating if Corsi connected the Trump campaign with WikiLeaks during the 2016 election and whether Roger Stone, a Trump associate and Infowars host, facilitated the connection.

The lawsuit cites attacks Stone made against Corsi and Klayman while hosting the show, including when Stone said Corsi has a “feeble, alcohol-affected memory” and said Klayman is “an egomaniac, and he could be the single worst lawyer in America.”

Mueller recently indicted Stone on one count of obstruction of an official proceeding, five counts of false statements, and one count of witness tampering.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Tucker Carlson: Since day one, the left has tried to silence my show.


Published  1 month ago

Only a small number of Americans have not yet made up their minds about whether Donald Trump's 2016 election campaign coordinated with Russian officials, according to new Reuters/Ipsos polling, w...


Published  1 month ago

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said this week that Texas will be “ground zero” for Democrats in 2020 and predicted that when Texas turns blue soon, it will change the country and the world.

“Texas is ground zero for us in the next election,” Pelosi reportedly said at the Travis County Democratic Party’s Johnson Bentsen Richards Dinner. “When you helped win in 2018, you were doing something very patriotic for America and when we win a great Democratic victory — and it’s essential that we win the victory in 2020 — we will know that that victory was our destiny.”

Pelosi told activists to know the power that they have to change the country—and the world—by turning Texas blue and giving Democrats the Lone Star State’s 38 Electoral College votes.

“Know your power, this state is so important,” Pelosi reportedly said. “When it turns — and it will soon — it will make a difference not only in Texas and the lives of individual people here, it will make a difference in the country and it will make a difference in the world.”

President Donald Trump carried Texas by nine percentage points over Hillary Clinton in 2016, and Democrats became more optimistic about turning Texas into a battleground state in 2020 after former Rep. Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke narrowly lost his 2018 Senate race to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).

After O’Rourke’s came within 2.6 percentage points of defeating Cruz, Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa told the Texas Tribune that “turning Texas blue is not an event, it’s a process.”

“And I think 2020 will put us, if not blue, purple — deep purple,” he reportedly added.

As the Tribune noted, “Texas hasn’t voted for a Democrat for president since Jimmy Carter in 1976. The last time both parties made a serious play for the state’s electoral votes was in 1996, when President Bill Clinton campaigned here for his re-election ahead of Election Day. Bob Dole won the state by 4.9 percentage points.”

Top super PACs on the left, though, are reportedly planning to spend massive amounts in Texas if the Democrat is within striking distance of Trump in 2020.

Texas could soon have two Democrats running for president to challenge Trump. Julian Castro, the former San Antonio mayor, is already in the race and O’Rourke, who has ruled out running for Senate in 2020 against Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), is reportedly set to announce his 2020 decision this month.


Published  1 month ago

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


Published  1 month ago

FNC: In his monologue, Tucker Carlson asked what would happen if America's two main political parties "changed completely and nobody noticed." Carlson said the Democratic Party has morphed into something that bears no resemblance to what it was even 10 years ago.

"Where are the adults in the Democratic party? It used to be in the leadership but not anymore," Carlson said.

Transcript, via FOX News:

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS: Good evening and welcome to Tucker Carlson Tonight. What if one of America's two great political parties changed completely and nobody noticed? We don't need to guess. It happened. While the National Press Corps stare's transfixed at the President's Twitter feed, the Democratic party has morphed into something that bears no resemblance to what it was even ten years ago.

For many decades, that party was a coalition of liberal intellectuals, the urban poor, and the country's working class. That last group kept the Democrats grounded in the vicinity of reality, but those voters are long now, and with them, the Democrats' connection to America itself. Consider the party's evolution on the question of borders, Bill Clinton ran twice against illegal immigration. He attacked it in stump speeches and in his State of the Union address. Clinton understood that without borders, you don't have a country. He also knew and repeatedly said that a flood of low-wage labor undermines the wages of American citizens, because it does.

Try making that point today. Keith Ellison will denounce you as a Nazi. Ellison is a Democratic congressman from Minnesota. This year, he was nearly elected Chairman of the DNC. He's not a fringe character, and yet the other day, he announced that opposing illegal immigration in any way is morally on par with aiding Hitler.


KEITH ELLISON, MINNESOTA CONGRESSMAN: I'm one of the people who believe that we should give our neighbor sanctuary. And if you ask yourself what would happen if I was a gentile in 1941, if my Jewish neighbors were under attack by the Nazis. Would I give them sanctuary? You might be about to find out what you would do. Would you pass that moral test or would you fail it?


CARLSON: So if you think we ought to enforce the immigration laws, Congress itself passed, Congressman Ellison believes you are evil. When did Democratic politicians start talking like this? Maybe around the time Congresswoman Maxine Waters of Los Angeles became a folk hero on the left. In a recent appearance, Waters explained that the Trump administration isn't simply wrong on the issues, it's a front for the Klan.


MAXINE WATERS, LOS ANGELES CONGRESSWOMAN: I'm cleaning out the White House. This person who does not respect you, this dishonorable human being who cheats everybody, this dishonorable human being who will lie at the drop of a hat, this dishonorable human being who has the alt-right and the KKK and everybody else inside his cabinet. I'm going to say impeach 45 every day, impeach 45 every day.


CARLSON: That's not political rhetoric, it's a war cry. it's incitement to hysteria and maybe worse. If you really thought the Ku Klux Klan control the White House, what would you do? What wouldn't you do? Where are the adults in the Democratic party? It used to be they were in leadership, but not anymore. Nancy Pelosi is the most powerful Democrat in the House of Representatives, she was once a speaker, if you remember, she may soon be again. Pelosi isn't just tolerant of illegal immigration, she's now explicitly encouraging it. Watch this.


NANCY PELOSI, MINORITY LEADER, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: The list goes on and on about how we want to advance and protect the Dreamers until we can pass the bill. Their families did a great thing for our country, bringing these kids here who are working, who are in the military, who are in school, who are a brilliant part of our future.


CARLSON: Breaking our laws is now a great thing says one of our country's chief lawmakers. People who ignore the legislation, Congress writes, should be congratulated for it, says one of Congress' top leaders. That's more than perverse, this is what it looks like when the people in charge of a country decide to destroy it. Their motive? it's always the same, political power. They lost it, they want it back. Even if it means hurting the people they are sworn to protect. Democrats alienated the middle of the country during the Obama years but they have no plans to convince those voters to return.

Instead, they plan to replace them with new and more reliable voters from abroad and damn the consequences for the rest of us. That's why they are far more upset about DACA than they are about the Opioid crisis. It's why they care more about preventing a border wall than they do about raising the wages of American workers. It's not complicated. What's amazing is they are now saying it out loud.


Published  1 month ago

Only Watergate or the Teapot Dome scandal might come close.


Published  1 month ago

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

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

Democrats campaigned promising to be the party of solutions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Published  1 month ago

Strangely, the media have suddenly taken an intense interest in the case of pedophile and major Democratic donor Jeffrey Epstein.


Published  1 month ago

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

The Daily Beast

Published  1 month ago

A lawyer for one of Epstein’s victims claims he was part of sex-trafficking ring with Dershowitz and others—but the Harvard attorney says sealed documents will prove his innocence.

Published  1 month ago

The Planned Parenthood abortion business just filed a lawsuit against President Trump after he issued a new rule defunding it up as much as $60 million of taxpayer funds.

The new rule merely requires that Planned Parenthood separate out its abortion business from its family planning operations so Americans don’t have to fund the abortion industry. The abortion giant refuses to do that and the new lawsuit proves that it is more interested in abortion then it is women’s healthcare.

Leana Wen, Planned Parenthood’s president, called the rule “unethical, illegal, and dangerous.”

“Planned Parenthood will never force our doctors and nurses to withhold medical information from our patients, and we will fight the Trump administration in the courts to protect everyone’s fundamental right to healthcare,” she continued.

The lawsuit was filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court in Eugene, Oregon — located there because the abortion company uses judge-shopping methods to find liberal judges who will contort the law to side with Planned Parenthood. The abortion company is headquartered in New York. The Oregon Medical Association and the American Medical Association both joined Planned Parenthood in suing.

But the rule doesn’t require doctors or nurses to withhold any information. It merely prevents Planned Parenthood from promoting abortion using taxpayer funds.

The new lawsuit comes after 22 states with pro-abortion attorneys general filed suit agaisnt the Trump administration.

The first lawsuit, filed by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, asks the U.S. District Court in San Francisco to block the new Title X rule before it goes into effect, the Washington Post reports. A second lawsuit, representing 21 states including Oregon, is expected Tuesday, according to The Hill.

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

Title X funds help low-income women and men receive birth control, cancer screenings and other health care services. While the tax money cannot be used to pay for abortions, it funds Planned Parenthood’s vast abortion business.

The national pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List told LifeNews in response:

“For years abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood, which ends the lives of more than 332,000 unborn children a year, have treated the Title X program like their own multimillion-dollar slush fund,” said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “Now, Planned Parenthood’s allies are running to court to ensure taxpayers are forced to continue filling the coffers of the abortion industry. Contrary to pro-abortion misinformation, the Protect Life Rule does not cut Title X funding by a single dime – it simply enforces the existing statute that draws a bright line of separation between abortion and family planning. President Trump and Secretary Azar acted on the will of the American people by disentangling taxpayers from the big abortion industry. Similar regulations have already been upheld by the Supreme Court and we are confident the Trump administration will prevail.”

Catherine Glenn Foster, President and CEO of Americans United for Life, told LifeNews “Since it began in 1970, Title X has excluded elective abortions from its grant program, reflecting the commitment of the majority of Americans not to have their hard-earned tax dollars subsidize Planned Parenthood and other members of the abortion industry.”

“HHS’s new regulation makes this rule clearer for everyone involved, and its terms have already been upheld by the Supreme Court during the Reagan Administration. Furthermore, the new rule expands the scope of medical providers eligible to deliver Title X services, and adds critical new protections for victims of child trafficking and sexual exploitation. It’s a ‘win-win’ all around, so naturally, only Planned Parenthood and its apologists could object to it,” she added.

Last week, the Trump administration finalized a new Title X rule that requires health care entities to completely separate abortion from their taxpayer-funded services. Planned Parenthood, which receives about $60 million annually through the program, already has said it will not comply. Entities have 120 days to financially separate their family planning and abortion operations and one year to physically separate their family planning and abortion operations.

The other states involved in the lawsuit are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Washington, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin.

The abortion chain sees about 1.5 million a year through Title X, and its services through the program, including cancer screenings, birth control, etc., have been dropping steadily for years, according to its own annual reports. Meanwhile, its abortion numbers have been growing – a clear indication of its true focus.

It is Planned Parenthood that is choosing not to comply with the rule by making abortion its “core mission,” rather than real health care. The abortion chain could continue to receive Title X funds if it stops aborting unborn babies or if it completely separates its abortion business from the real health care services it provides. But Planned Parenthood made it clear that it will not.

Meanwhile, community health centers vastly outnumber Planned Parenthoods and provide far more comprehensive medical services to low-income and minority women across the country. They still have access to those funds, assuring that low-income individuals still will have a options for their medical needs.

What success the lawsuits will have remains uncertain. In 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a similar rule from President Ronald Reagan’s administration in Rust v. Sullivan. However, because of the lengthy legal challenge, the rule never went into effect; pro-abortion President Bill Clinton eliminated the rule when he took office soon after the Supreme Court decision.


Published  1 month ago

Tuesday on CNN’s “Newsroom,” network political commentator Ana Navarro said President Donald Trump’s 2016 election victory was “rigged” by the Russians.

Navarro said, “Look, the Trump campaign and the Trump world is — they are experts at pre-gaming and at spinning. Yes, remember when they talked about everything being rigged. It turns out they were right. Everything was rigged. It was rigged for them. They had the help of the Russians. They were rigging polls. We have now found out that in effect Donald Trump was saying the truth when he said that things were rigged. What he wasn’t saying is, that he was the beneficiary of that rigging.”

She added, “People remember Bill Clinton. Donald Trump is not going to get impeached, and people are not going to react to the payment of hush money to Stormy Daniels or to a Playboy Bunny, but if we’re talking about working together with Russia in order to hack democratic institutions in the United States and compromise the integrity of the election, I think that’s an entirely different array of crimes because that goes into a level of national security and treason. People think he’s committed crimes. I’m not sure they know exactly which crimes. The American people do not believe, the majority of them, that Donald Trump is honest and we have seen time and time again evidence of malfeasance, pushing the envelope, crossing the line, bending the laws to benefit them. To me, it’s about what crime, if any, is revealed under the investigation.”

The Federalist

Published  1 month ago

When are Republicans going to stop playing by two sets of rules?

Homeland Security

Published  1 month ago

Let's start by stipulating that not every newcomer to America is a violent criminal bringing old ethnic and religious conflicts to the New World; nor is he a predatory opportunist, happy to take advantage of the stable, trusting, and yes, welcoming culture he finds. Every country has its social customs and unwritten rules, and often newcomers misinterpret them as weakness.

When the Catholic Irish arrived in large number from the middle of the 19th century on, they brought with them a deep suspicion of the police, a distrust of the Protestant ascendancy, and a pent-up willingness to work the system to their advantage -- cultural survival skills they had learned during nearly a millennium of English occupation of their home country. It took them more than a full century to fully integrate into American society. Swaths of American cities, especially New York, had Irish no-go zones, into which even the Irish cops feared to tread, and even today we remember the names of the psychopath Mad Dog Coll and the suave but violent Owney Madden, chief of the Gopher Gang, who gave the world Mae West, Primo Carnera, the Cotton Club and Bill Clinton.

Similarly, the immigrant Jews from Russia and the Pale went through a short but violent gangster period (Monk Eastman, Lepke, Meyer Lansky, Benny Siegel), culminating, along with newly arrived Italians, as the triggermen for Murder, Inc. And the Sicilian contribution to urban mayhem has been well documented in print, stage, and screen.

That's largely in the past now: nobody fears a pack of Irish boys, unless they're drunk and it's St. Patrick's Day in Manhattan, or the Jewish kids studying at the yeshiva, or the Italian lawyers, chefs, and movie directors. But neither were any of these groups particularly welcomed upon arrival; instead, they were seen as cannon fodder for the Civil War, merchants, laborers, and settlers as America pushed west toward its Manifest Destiny.

Which brings us to Little Mogadishu, in the city soon to be formerly known as Minneapolis, where the good people of Minnesota -- of Scandinavian, German, and Irish stock -- have been busily importing people from perhaps the most culturally alien region of the world, Muslim East Africa, whose charming natives are unlikely to follow the traditional immigrant path outlined above. In Charles Dickens's masterpiece, Bleak House, Mrs. Jellyby ignores her own brood while busily organizing aid to Africa; today's Mrs. Jellybys have instead have brought East Africa to them.

East African community reeling from weekend violence, demands solutions

A group of Somali volunteers including Abdirahman Mukhtar, left, and Abdullahi Farah gave out pizza and tea to young people from a stand Friday in the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood.The men hope by connecting with youth and engaging them in conversation they can combat the shootings that have recently plagued the neighborhood. After the latest spasm of gang violence, Minneapolis' Somali residents and business owners on Monday stepped up their calls for help from City Hall and police headquarters to help curb the senseless shootings that they say too often go overlooked. On Friday alone, five men of Somali descent were shot in separate attacks, one fatally.

Police and community members pinned the blame for the bloodshed on an ongoing feud between Cedar-Riverside neighborhood gangs like 1627 and Madhiban With Attitude (MWA) and their rivals, the Somali Outlaws, whose territory includes the area around Karmel Mall. Friday's shootings were a repeat of a familiar pattern: a shooting on one gang's turf is usually followed hours, if not minutes later by an "eye-for-an-eye" response so as not to appear weak, community members say. Two shootings last month are also blamed on the conflict. As with other recent shootings, police immediately stepped up patrols in both neighborhoods to prevent further retaliation. But some in the community wondered whether they could be doing more.

What more, one wonders, can they do? If a bunch of white cops come pouring into Little Mogadishu, both coasts will be able to hear the howls unaided. Should they do nothing, then the likelihood is that the neighborhood -- represented by the ineffable Ilhan Omar in the United States Congress -- may well descend into the levels of violence that characterize, well, Mogadishu. Meanwhile, the media's Complaint Department is open for business:

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Loretta Lynch arrives on Capitol Hill in December Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch told GOP lawmakers in a closed-door testimony in December that she couldn’t recall anything about the Carter Page FISA warrant and three subsequent renewals despite the fact that the DOJ has to approve the warrants. Loretta Lynch “appeared to have amnesia” during […]

Published  1 month ago

President Donald Trump’s effort to defund the abortion giant Planned Parenthood is being challenged by 22 states in a series of lawsuits announced Monday.

The first lawsuit, filed by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, asks the U.S. District Court in San Francisco to block the new Title X rule before it goes into effect, the Washington Post reports. A second lawsuit, representing 21 states including Oregon, is expected Tuesday, according to The Hill.

Title X funds help low-income women and men receive birth control, cancer screenings and other health care services. While the tax money cannot be used to pay for abortions, it indirectly funds Planned Parenthood’s vast abortion business.

Last week, the Trump administration finalized a new Title X rule that requires health care entities to completely separate abortion from their taxpayer-funded services. Planned Parenthood, which receives about $60 million annually through the program, already has said it will not comply. Entities have 120 days to financially separate their family planning and abortion operations and one year to physically separate their family planning and abortion operations.

In the California lawsuit, Becerra argued that the rule violates a measure within the Affordable Care Act that prohibits “unreasonable barriers to the ability of individuals to obtain appropriate medical care.” About one fourth of all Title X recipients are in California, according to the report.

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown, a fellow pro-abortion Democrat, also slammed the Trump administration on Monday ahead of her state’s lawsuit.

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

“This is yet another attack from the Trump Administration on women and families, and it is appalling that the federal government wants to rob individuals of the right to complete medical information and full access to the critical health care services they rely on,” Brown said, Oregon Public Radio reports. “I will continue to fight back against this administration as they continue to undermine health care for those who need it most.”

The other states involved in the lawsuit are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Washington, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Vermont Attorney General T.J. Donovan added to the attacks with claims that the rule will “deprive Vermonters of basic healthcare” and impose an abortion “gag” on health care providers.

Donovan’s claims echo those of Planned Parenthood. The abortion chain sees about 1.5 million a year through Title X, and its services through the program, including cancer screenings, birth control, etc., have been dropping steadily for years, according to its own annual reports. Meanwhile, its abortion numbers have been growing – a clear indication of its true focus.

It is Planned Parenthood that is choosing not to comply with the rule by making abortion its “core mission,” rather than real health care. The abortion chain could continue to receive Title X funds if it stops aborting unborn babies or if it completely separates its abortion business from the real health care services it provides. But Planned Parenthood made it clear that it will not.

Meanwhile, community health centers vastly outnumber Planned Parenthoods and provide far more comprehensive medical services to low-income and minority women across the country. They still have access to those funds, assuring that low-income individuals still will have a options for their medical needs.

What success the lawsuits will have remains uncertain. In 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a similar rule from President Ronald Reagan’s administration in Rust v. Sullivan. However, because of the lengthy legal challenge, the rule never went into effect; pro-abortion President Bill Clinton eliminated the rule when he took office soon after the Supreme Court decision.

The Intercept

Published  1 month ago

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


Published  1 month ago

Tuesday on ABC’s “The View,” co-host Joy Behar said a possible impeachment of President Donald Trump would be different than the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton because she maintained the former president “was with one woman,” whereas Trump was “screwing the whole country.”

Behar said, “If you look at history, follow the money got Nixon, and it got Al Capone.”

Co-host Sunny Hostin said, “I’ve been saying it from the very beginning. I’ve been saying, this is about campaign finance law, you know the hush money, the workaround so he would sort of elude and, you know, the American public’s perception of having an affair with a porn star right after your wife just had a baby. He didn’t want the American people to know that about him. I think we need to look at the Emoluments Clause. The fact He’s lining his pockets and putting his financial interests before the interests of our country. I think that is where we need to go. If you’re the oversight committee, that’s what you need to look at.”

Co-host Abby Huntsman,” Yeah, then focus on that one thing. I think this is going to backfire on Democrats because it’s so broad. They threw the kitchen sink out there.”

Behar interjected, “He committed a lot of crimes possibly.”

Huntsman continued, “I think this are enough American people that don’t like Trump that will say this is too much. And the Democratic party needs to focus on what their —2020 is around the corner what is their main platform? How do they win an election? How are they going to be successful? How about you learn from history as we all said, this was not a winning solution for Republicans going against Bill Clinton.”

Behar shot back, “Bill Clinton was with one woman. This guy is screwing the whole country.”

She added, “It’s different.”


Published  1 month ago

The 2016 Democratic contender and her supporters are taking the offensive against her congressional nemesis.

Official Website World Tribune: Window on the Real World

Published  1 month ago

by WorldTribune Staff, February 20, 2019 The first “coup” in U.S. history in which government bureaucrats sought to overturn an election and to remove a sitting U.S. president has faile…

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

As seen on Fox & Friends

Fox News contributor and author Dan Bongino responded Monday to top House Democrats Jerrold Nadler and Adam Schiff accusing President Trump of obstructing justice and colluding with Russia.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Nadler, who would oversee any impeachment proceedings, said Sunday he will send more than 60 document requests to the White House and Justice Department.

"It's very clear that the president obstructed justice," Nadler told ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos.

Meantime, in a separate interview, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff said he believes there is "direct evidence" of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians in 2016.

"That is something that we will have to await Bob Mueller's report and the underlying evidence to determine. We will also have to look at the whole body of improper and criminal actions by the president including those campaign finance crimes to determine whether they rise to the level of removal from office," said Schiff.

Bongino said Democrats should learn a lesson from what happened to Republicans in the 1990s when impeachment proceedings were brought against President Bill Clinton and backfired politically.

"We live in a post-fact society now when it comes to the Democrats," he said on "Fox & Friends," accusing Democrats of continuing to "double down" regardless of the lack of evidence.

Bongino scoffed at the notion that there is evidence of collusion.

"Here's why he's doing this now. There's a reason. The Michael Cohen hearing was devastating for them. He was their star witness. ... And what did he do? ... He said the key component of their entire case - that Cohen was in Prague to coordinate whole conspiracy with Russians - Cohen said it wasn't true. He's their star witness, not Trump's and he decimated the entire collusion hoax," he argued.

He agreed that Democrats are now looking past the Mueller probe's conclusions, expecting it to be a "soft landing," and planning for new investigations into financial crimes and other matters.

Watch the full segment above.

Trump on Green New Deal: 'This Is the New Dem Platform, And I Don't Want to Talk Them Out of It'


Published  1 month ago

Since last week, the news media has been busy churning out content echoing a talking point propagated during Congressional testimony by President Trump’s disgraced and disbarred attorney Michael Cohen claiming that Trump will not allow a peaceful transition if he loses the 2020 election.

Liberty Freedom | United States | The Washington Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Police have arrested Bill Clinton’s faith healer for running Brazil’s largest ever child sex ring. Joao Teixeira de Faria – known as John of God – achieved international fame after being interviewed…

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Earlier this month communist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and fellow Democrats rolled out their Green New Deal — a national suicide pact to battle global warming junk science and bring communism to America. The plan will cost EVERY AMERICAN HOUSEHOLD $600,000. The Green New Deal will end gas, coal and oil industries, ban farting cows, end plane travel […]

Freedom Outpost

Published  1 month ago

"I will not commit suicide. I won't be bought off or drown in a bath tub, nor will I shoot myself in the head. So, if that happens, IT WASN'T ME. Save this tweet," she wrote.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Creepy John Podesta was Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager who was linked to the Clinton’s since before Bill Clinton’s impeachment.

New information implicates Podesta and Hillary in the attempted coup of President Trump.

John Podesta was implicated in numerous criminal acts related to the Clinton Foundation as a result of his own emails that were released by WikiLeaks before the 2016 election. The emails also revealed Hillary Clinton’s links with the media as well as her acceptance of campaign donations from foreign nations.

A summary of Podesta’s emails shows contempt for Americans and a desire for power at all costs.

Now, per a review of actions related to the corrupt Mueller investigation, Podesta and Hillary are implicated in the attempt to set up and frame candidate Trump with ties to Russia.

Former Hillary Campaign losing Campaign Manager, creepy John Podesta tweeted at 4:44pm on October 31st, 2016, a few days before the election, that per a report from Slate:

“Donald Trump has a secret email server set up to communicate privately with the Russian Alfa Bank”

However the far left Slate article wasn’t released at the time of Podesta’s tweet.

The Slate article came out at 5:36pm on October 31, 2016 – an hour after Podesta’s tweet.

Hillary tweeted out about the story at the same time as Slate’s article at 5:36pm on October 31, 2016, again, only a few days before the election :

The Trump Tower server story was another hoax that was later proven just another lie from the left.

This appears as more evidence that the corrupt and criminal Clinton Campaign led by creepy John Podesta and Crooked Hillary colluded with far left Slate to slander candidate Trump and implicate him in the fake Russian hoax only days before the 2016 Presidential election!

And yet they walk free today.

Hat tip D. Manny

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

While President Donald Trump spent the week in Vietnam trying to reach a peace deal with North Korea, Hillary Clinton went on a bitter rant trying to attack the president. During an interview with Tina Brown


Published  1 month ago

Thread by @LNW4Trump: "The Evil is real... People are being SUICIDED left & right for attempting to expose the TRUTH about these SICK Elite Pedos! Playboy Model Uncovers Elite Pedophile […]" #PedoGate #DarkToLight #GreatAwakening #SaveTheChildren

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Lanny Davis, the former Clinton attorney representing ex-Trump attorney Michael Cohen reportedly established a GoFundMe account for Cohen’s legal and other expenses last August after Cohen pled guilty in federal court to eight federal crimes. The account is named the Michael Cohen Truth Fund. Cohen told Congress at a hearing Wednesday that Cohen is representing […]


Published  1 month ago

(This is part of Reuters 'Comrade Capitalism' series)

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

The Senate on Tuesday confirmed President Trump's nominee to be a judge on the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a party-line vote -- and, in a historic snub, the White House ignored the input of the judge's two Democratic home-state senators in the process.

The aggressive and unprecedented move to give the so-called "blue slip" consultation process the slip comes as the Trump administration seeks to erode left-wing dominance on the key appellate court, which Trump has called "disgraceful" and politically biased.

With a sprawling purview representing nine Western states, the appellate court has long been a thorn in the side of the Trump White House, with rulings against his travel ban policy and limits on funding to "sanctuary cities."

The Seattle attorney, Eric Miller, was confirmed 53-46. Miller was one the 51 federal judicial nominees left over from the previous Congress whom the White House re-nominated last month.


Miller, currently the appellate chairman of the high-powered law firm Perkins Coie, will replace Judge Richard Tallman, a Bill Clinton appointee who assumed senior status March 2018. Miller is the fifth former clerk to Associate Justice Clarence Thomas to be nominated by Trump to a federal appellate court, including embattled D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Neomi Rao.

Among those objecting were Washington State's two Democratic senators, Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray. Aides say Miller's confirmation marks the first time the Senate has strayed from tradition and confirmed a judicial nominee over the dissent of both home-state senators.

“This is wrong. It is a dangerous road for the Senate to go down,” Murray said Tuesday on the Senate floor. “Confirming this Ninth Circuit court nominee without the consent or true input of both home-state senators, and after a sham hearing, would be a dangerous first for this Senate.”

Miller was nominated last year but faced opposition from Democrats, in part over his views on issues of tribal sovereignty.

The Sacramento Bee reported last year that White House officials had been negotiating with California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris about Ninth Circuit appointments, but the dialogue collapsed, and the White House proceeded to announce three nominees over their objections.

Those nominees -- Patrick Bumatay, Daniel Collins and Kenneth Kiyul Lee (all from the Golden State, and reportedly all members of the conservative Federalist Society) -- have yet to be confirmed.

GOP critics have branded the court the “Nutty Ninth,” in part because many of its rulings have been overturned by the Supreme Court.

Fox News' Bill Mears and Adam Shaw and The Associated Press contributed to this report.


Published  1 month ago

Lanny Davis never cared about Michael Cohen. He simply exploited a desperate man to pursue the Clinton world's vendetta against Trump.

Rolling Stone

Published  1 month ago

The Speaker of the House on outsmarting Republicans, skepticism of the Green New Deal and not having any regrets

Blunt Force Truth

Published  1 month ago

That’s fair.

Without the world’s oldest profession, Senator Kamala Harris might not be where she is in the world’s second oldest profession. (Or did I mix the two up?)

The two positions Brown appointed Harris to—on the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and the California Medical Assistance Commission—paid handsomely. SF Weekly reported back in 2003 that the two positions earned her more than $400,000 over five years.

Harris defended her decision to take the posts Brown got for her in her 2003 interview with SF Weekly despite her lack of experience.

“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.”

Brown also reportedly gifted Harris with a BMW in 1994. He is 31 years older than Harris.

Kamala might honestly point out that there’s not that much of a difference between getting a BMW from San Fran’s top boss and a crumpled hundred dollar bill from Bill Clinton in an Arkansas motel room. Only one of those puts you on the path to the White House.

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

Even as Donald Trump finally acknowledges that President Obama was born in the U.S., he shifts the blame for the claim that he has long championed, and which has been consistently debunked, to Hillary Clinton

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

A federal judge delivered a major blow to a swamp case and handed President Donald Trump a landmark victory.

As noted by Reuters, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit from an environmental group and two Pennsylvania boys over climate change.

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

U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond in Philadelphia ruled that the court did not have the legal authority to tell the White House what it can do.

The lawsuit sought to stop Trump from scaling back regulations, arguing that it was harming the environment.

Diamond ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee what the two boys and the Clean Air Council called a due process right to a “life-sustaining climate system.”

Here’s more from Reuters:

Diamond also said the boys, who were 7 and 11 when the lawsuit was filed in November 2017, could not trace their respective severe allergies and asthma to White House policies.

He said this meant the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue Trump, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt and other defendants who had moved to dismiss the case.

“Plaintiffs’ disagreement with defendants is a policy debate best left to the political process,” wrote Diamond, an appointee of President George W. Bush. “Because I have neither the authority nor the inclination to assume control of the Executive Branch, I will grant defendants’ motion.”

Joseph Minott, executie director of the Clean Air Council, said the plaintiffs will review their options as the White House’s “deliberate indifference” to climate change increases “the frequency and intensity of its life-threatening effects.”

The Eugene, Oregon case was brought by 21 children and young adults also challenging government policies affecting climate change.

Diamond accused U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken, the appointee of President Bill Clinton overseeing that case, of contravening or ignoring “longstanding authority” by finding a due process right to “a climate system capable of sustaining human life.”

The ruling is certainly a big blow to the Democrats and left-leaning groups who are desperate to push climate change.

The federal judge’s ruling also comes as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is pushing her socialist Green New Deal, which claims that it will combat climate change.

A new study reveals that the price tag for Green New Deal comes out to $7 trillion.

In fact, a recent study from PJ Media found that the estimated $7 trillion projected cost is painfully low, and that it could actually cost nearly $50 trillion, which would be roughly seven — SEVEN — times more than that.

The “Green New Deal” will cost approximately $49.109 trillion in the first ten years, enough to fund Trump’s border wall 8,616 times over. The president is requesting $5.7 billion for the wall.

Ocasio-Cortez has also called for a smart power grid to replace the U.S. power grid, an estimated cost of $338 billion on the low-end ($476 billion on the high-end), according to the Electric Power Research Institute.

All that “free” stuff Ocasio-Cortez keeps promising sure is expensive.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Democrats on Tuesday pushed unprecedented legislation through the House to block President Trump's national emergency declaration to steer billions of extra dollars to his southern border wall, raising the prospect that Trump might issue his first-ever veto to defeat the effort.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

Team Obama is hatching a new scheme to block President Donald Trump’s declaration of a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border.

A group of Democrats and a small handful of Republicans in the national security field issued a report on Monday calling for Congress to pass a resolution condemning the president over the declaration.

A vast majority of the members who signed the letter served under former President Barack Obama.

Get Your FREE ‘Build The Wall’ Coin While Supplies Last

In a report from The Washington Post, the letter calls on support for a Democrat lawsuit to block Trump’s emergency declaration.

A bipartisan group of 58 former senior national security officials will issue a statement Monday saying that “there is no factual basis” for President Trump’s proclamation of a national emergency to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

The joint statement, whose signatories include former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and former defense secretary Chuck Hagel, will come a day before the House is expected to vote on a resolution to block Trump’s Feb. 15 declaration.

The former officials’ statement, which will be entered into the Congressional Record, is intended to support lawsuits and other actions challenging the national emergency proclamation and to force the administration to set forth the legal and factual basis for it.

“Under no plausible assessment of the evidence is there a national emergency today that entitles the president to tap into funds appropriated for other purposes to build a wall at the southern border,” the group said.

Albright served under President Bill Clinton, and Hagel, a former Republican senator from Nebraska, served under President Barack Obama.

Also signing were Eliot A. Cohen, State Department counselor under President George W. Bush; Thomas R. Pickering, President George H.W. Bush’s ambassador to the United Nations; John F. Kerry, Obama’s second secretary of state; Susan E. Rice, Obama’s national security adviser; as well as former intelligence and security officials who served under Republican and Democratic administrations.

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

Trump has called the migrant caravans traveling from Central America toward the United States a “national emergency” and raged against Democrats for refusing to take action to secure the border.

To say that Trump is livid would be an understatement, and many Americans support his recent threats to send American troops and completely close the U.S. southern border if Mexico allows the caravan of migrants to reach the boundary between the two nations.

The president has also threatened to pull U.S. aid to Central America if the governments do not do more to prevent the group of migrants from traveling north to the U.S. border with Mexico.

“They’re not coming into this country,” Trump said recently, which will be a key issue in the 2020 presidential election.

[RELATED: Trump Unveils New Rule That Just Saved American Taxpayers $150 Billion]

US Liberty Wire

Published  1 month ago

A new skeleton just crawled out of Hillary Clinton’s closet and proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Hillary is one nasty customer.

Hillary, known as the queen of mean and a jerk of a boss is actually, if you can believe it, worse than previously imagined.

At least that is the word coming from Bernie Sanders camp. Sanders team is in a public feud with team Hillary over private air travel and Hillary comes out looking like the real bad guy.

From Politico: Michael Briggs, Sanders’ 2016 campaign spokesman who often traveled with Sanders on the private flights, said Clinton and her staff were “total ingrates” in light of the efforts the Vermont senator put in to try to help elect her in the general election.

“You can see why she’s one of the most disliked politicians in America. She’s not nice. Her people are not nice,” he said.

“[Sanders] busted his tail to fly all over the country to talk about why it made sense to elect Hillary Clinton and the thanks that [we] get is this kind of petty stupid sniping a couple years after the fact.”

“It doesn’t make me feel good to feel this way but they’re some of the biggest assholes in American politics,” he added.

Private jet travel on the campaign trail is not uncommon — either for candidates like Clinton or a top surrogate tasked with stumping for them. Often it is the most efficient mode of transportation, particularly when events are in locations where commercial air travel options are limited.

One veteran Democratic operative who oversaw surrogates for past presidential campaigns said providing private planes is standard practice for the most important surrogate of a presidential campaign in the general election.

In addition to Sanders, the Clinton campaign footed the private plane bill on occasion for several top celebrities, among them Beyonce, Jay Z and Katy Perry. But as a rule, when political surrogates made requests for private jets, the campaign’s answer was no — except when it came to Sanders, said one former Clinton staffer.

The Clinton campaign itself spent a total of $15.9 million on jet charter company Executive Flightways in the 2016 campaign, according to a review of FEC records. That money was used to ferry Hillary Clinton, former President Bill Clinton, vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine, Sanders, major celebrities, and Clinton’s traveling press corps.

The revelation of Sanders’ penchant for private jet travel, both in 2016 and in the subsequent years, could surface as an issue for him since he often demands the U.S. do its part to fight global climate change — to which CO2 emissions from aviation is a contributor.

“Climate change is not only real, it is already doing irreparable harm all over this planet, including the United States of America,” he told CBS’ “Face the Nation” last November. “What Congress has got to do is take Trump on, take the fossil fuel industry on, and transform our energy system away from fossil fuel, to energy efficiency and sustainable energies like solar and wind.”

But last year, when Sanders faced reelection but faced only token opposition, his Senate campaign committee spent $342,000 on Apollo Jets, a private jet service. That money was used primarily to pay for a nine-day, nine-state tour to support Democratic candidates across the country.

Sanders held 18 “large public events in those days,” said Jones. “A review of airline flight schedules shows that this tour itinerary simply could not have been completed with commercial flights — it required a charter.”

Praying Medic

Published  1 month ago

Is Loretta Lynch's tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton returning to the headlines?


Published  1 month ago

A leading Senate Republican said Sunday that any potential investigation by the chamber of President Donald Trump should remain narrowly focused on Russian collusion. His reasoning? Even George Washington’s financial record-keeping might not have withstood too-close scrutiny.

Sen. Roy Blunt, chair of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, made the argument during a CBS television interview. Asked on Face the Nation about the possibility of criminal wrongdoing in Trump’s business dealings and by his inaugural committee, the Missouri Republican suggested that the Senate should steer clear of such matters because investigations should not be overly broad.

“The problem will all these investigations… is not that they’re too narrow, but they get too broad,” Blunt explained. “I’m not sure that George Washington’s expense account could stand up against the entire force of the federal government, if you look at everything related to everything, as opposed to what was really supposed to be the charge here — which was collusion.”

Blunt, who serves on the Senate’s intelligence committee, then accused Trump critics of wanting to shift away from talking about his 2016 campaign’s alleged collusion with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s regime to other potential criminal wrongdoing — things that are “much more arguable than a pure finding of collusion would have been.”

Blunt has not always felt this way. In 1998, then-Rep. Blunt voted for four articles of impeachment against then-President Bill Clinton (D) — including two articles that did not even garner a majority in the Republican-controlled House. Each of the charges stemmed from Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr’s report on Clinton’s extramarital affair with an intern, even though Starr had been appointed to investigate a completely unrelated Arkansas land deal called Whitewater.

As is typically the case for outside investigators (and other prosecutors, for that matter), Mueller’s official mandate was to investigate both “any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump;” and “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.”


Published  1 month ago

The Vermont senator’s 2016 travel as a Clinton surrogate became “a running joke in the office.“

Published  1 month ago

He could have gone anywhere, but Robert Kraft — one of the 100 richest men in America, owner of the Super Bowl champion (sigh) New England Patriots — went to the Orchids of Asia Day Spa, in a less-than-nondescript strip mall in Jupiter, Fla. He was takin’ care of business, according to police, behind dark-tinted windows promising “Massage Therapy” and beige circa-1970s stucco, right there between the game shop and the nail salon and the newly renovated Thai restaurant.

Police said Kraft’s chauffeur would take the 77-year-old billionaire for the roughly 30-minute drive from Palm Beach, home to his newish $29.5 million Spanish-style mansion on Ocean Boulevard, as well as to Mar-a-Lago, where he’s known to socialize with President Trump.

Bob Kraft is reportedly worth $6.6 billion. The price for a half hour at Orchids of Asia — where authorities on Friday said Kraft solicited prostitution, the charges brought after cops filmed him allegedly having sex with workers on two separate occasions — is $59.

It’s easy to make the pathos of a pompous billionaire caught up in a sex sting into the butt of jokes — especially when every red-blooded American west of Hartford absolutely hates Kraft’s football team — and on social media thousands of people have been doing exactly that. Totally understandable. But it’s important to take a deep breath and remember — this isn’t really “a sex scandal.” The real scandal here is the gross imbalance of power involving women who were held in a form of human bondage to serve as objects of gratification for powerful men intoxicated by their belief they can get away with anything.

That’s because for decades, men — and that’s who we’re talking about here, men — with thick wads of bills and friends on the golf fairways of power have gotten away with everything. There’s a reason that a billionaire like Donald Trump could fantasize about shooting somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue in broad daylight and getting away with it, because everything short of that has already been gotten away with. But Kraft’s embarrassing arrest comes at one of those rarest of moments — when everyday people are suddenly realizing who doesn’t have power in America, who does, and that something can be done about this.

The women who serviced Bob Kraft were lured to America, typically from China, and promised a better life through legitimate massage-therapy work. According to local law-enforcement authorities who last week shut down not just the Orchids of Asia but five other spas and massage parlors along Florida’s Gold Coast, these women were brought to an alien land halfway across the world from home and then pressured into prostitution with no days off and “minimal" hygiene. They lived in spartan quarters right there on the premises, so they can work until all hours of the night, having sex with 1,500 men a year.

These modern-day sex slaves worked for a clientele that were the supposed pillars of the affluent zip codes in and around Palm Beach — members of the clergy and respectable business people, including, according to police, at least one other billionaire, Massachusetts equity fund owner John Childs. Childs has also donated a whopping $4.3 million to Republican causes, presumably to elect “family values” candidates. Did Childs, Kraft and these other paragons of civic virtue realize that they were subsidizing slavery? That doesn’t matter — what’s so galling is that they didn’t care, that the word wasn’t even in their vocabulary.

Will Kraft get away with this? If his case goes down anything like that of his Palm Beach neighbor Epstein, he just might. Epstein, a former Bear Stearns partner and billionaire financier, was accused of sexually abusing dozens of underage teen girls at his Palm Beach mansion between 2001 and 2006. The investigation began in 2005 with a tip to Palm Beach police about a 14-year-old girl who’d been brought there and paid $300 to strip and massage Epstein. A lengthy FBI investigation led to molestation allegations against Epstein from 36 different girls, many of whom were lured from troubled homes in what the Miami Herald later described as “a cultlike scheme.”

But the billionaire’s young victims were eventually abused not once but twice — first by Jeffrey Epstein, and then by the U.S. Justice Department. Its prosecutors — presented with a mound of evidence on the scale of a Jerry Sandusky or a Bill Cosby — agreed to a stunning slap on the wrist. Epstein was allowed to plead to just one state felony charge of soliciting prostitution and granted immunity from federal charges. Coconspirators — known and unknown, potentially including the rich and powerful of Palm Beach — also got immunity.

Incredibly, Epstein slept just 13 months in a county jail and was allowed to leave for work every day. Even worse, as the Herald’s Julie K. Brown (a former Daily News colleague and friend) reported in her Polk Award-winning series, Epstein’s victims were never informed of his sweetheart deal or allowed to weigh in. On Friday, a judge ruled that Justice Department lawyers broke the law in their handling of the deal. The man who oversaw all of this — the then-U.S. Attorney for Miami, Alex Acosta — has moved on. He is still the U.S. Secretary of Labor, appointed by Epstein’s friend President Trump.

Indeed, Epstein’s teen-sex-abuse equivalent of shooting a man on Fifth Avenue and getting away with it was clearly made possible by his many powerful friends — including not just Trump but also former president Bill Clinton, a frequent flier on Epstein’s plane that was dubbed (no, you can’t make these things up) “the Lolita Express.” His lawyers who negotiated his cushy deal included Alan Dershowitz (now also accused of Epstein-related sexual shenanigans) and Kenneth Starr. Their work only proved that there are two systems of justice in America — one for the 1 Percent and another for the rest of us.

Ironically, the escapades of Palm Beach’s Billionaires Gone Wild have played a key role in making more and more Americans woke to our three-ring circus of power imbalance — income inequality, the patriarchy, and white privilege — and how closely locked those circles have become. It’s not just sex crimes. Remember the failure to hold any rich folks accountable for crashing the world economy in 2008?

Or reflect, for just one moment, on Robert Kraft’s National Football League. Players linked to violence and abuse toward women are welcomed back into the NFL after Epstein-caliber wrist slaps, while the one player who dared question police brutality toward African Americans was blackballed for two years.

Yet the absolute peak for the tyranny of America’s billionaire patriarchy could also mean the beginning of its end. That would be the election of Trump in 2016. Like his friend Epstein, Trump got away with stunning sexual misconduct on the road to the White House — caught on tape bragging about groping women’s private parts and also accused of various sexual misconduct by 22 women. Only later did we learn that Trump’s fixer and now convicted felon Michael Cohen had engineered large payoffs to two women to keep their stories of extramarital affairs with Trump out of the media right before Election Day.

But the fact that such a man could be elected president woke up a slumbering giant. Millions of women took to the streets to protest on the morning after Trump’s inauguration. That show of solidarity helped encourage others who’d been abused by powerful men and shamed into silence to instead tell their stories in the #MeToo movement, bringing down men like Harvey Weinstein so accustomed to getting away with it. In November 2018, a surge of female voters elected a new Congress with a powerful core determined to do what once had seemed unthinkable: Hold America’s billionaires to account.

I don’t think it’s crazy to draw a straight line between the patriarchal abuses of men like Epstein and Trump to growing public support for not-so-radical ideas like Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax, a levy on those with a net worth of more than $50 million, or Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez’s suggestion of a 70 percent marginal tax rate similar to what was assessed in America in the booming 1950s and ’60s. It’s one side of an equation that seeks a fairer, just America where some folks aren’t forced into bankruptcy by a hospital bill or held back by massive college debts while a privileged class gets away with high crimes and misdemeanors.

But in addition to economic justice, America needs more justice, period. It’s not just revenge to say that Robert Kraft, Jeffrey Epstein. and — yes, Donald Trump — need to pay a price for what they’ve done. In the end, we won’t have the America we need until we listen to the women they abused and enslaved, restore their humanity, and help set them free.


Published  1 month ago

Hanlon’s razor states, “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity,” (or ignorance). This is a good philosophy that I strive to apply most days. Sometimes however in the face of as Thomas Jefferson put it, “a long train of abuses and usurpations,” we should indeed call out malice for what it is.

Yesterday, my good friend and writing mentor, Streiff, penned an excellent article asking an important question: Why won’t the leftists come out and admit that President Trump was right all along about the human trafficking taking place along our southern border? Said trafficking is causing hundreds of women and children to be cast into sexual and other bondage, many ending up dead in our southern desert. Streiff’s explanation and analysis is as always, right on point. However, I think he may have let the leftists off the moral hook on this one when he writes,

The #Resistance, both left and NeverTrump, can’t seem to get their heads around the fact that people are actually brought into the United States unwillingly and sometimes they are physically restrained.

From where I sit, he appears to presume that these people, these same people who are supporting the legalization of post-birth infanticide, somehow just can’t see or understand that women and children are being forced into brutal and barbaric bondage, eerily reminiscent of the Democrat historical institution of slavery. And when these innocents are no longer profitable, they are left to die, or killed outright. There’s a huge difference between having differing opinions as to the cause of a particular set of facts and circumstances and the abject denial or refusal to admit their very existence.

My position for example, is that while leftist policies are exacerbating this human nightmare, I can still see how the leftists might debate that. I cannot believe however, that they cannot see the facts, circumstances and even the very existence of this tragedy. Streiff gets close to an explanation as to why, in his final paragraph (emphasis mine).

Their willingness to consign people to a life of slavery or prostitution rather than give the President credit for acting to stamp out this trade says a lot about the people making fun of his argument. Contrary to their claims of “principles” what they are actually afraid of is President Trump succeeding, and that would be the worst possible fate for them.<

If anything, my good friend has understated what’s going on here. I would go him several degrees further. This is clearly an exception to Hanlon. This can and should indeed be attributed to malice, malice driven by an unbridled lust for power and control over other human beings. Malice that subjugated any and all human morality in search of that power. Malice towards Trump supporters, fueled by a burning rage at Trump for defeating their “designated President.”

And along with malice, fear—fear that this usurper, this cad, this boorish buffoon, this not-in-our-club, Donald J. Trump has pulled back the curtain far enough, that the entire house of cards the leftists have built to keep their constituencies fooled, dependent and in check, is about to come tumbling down. The leftists are genuinely afraid that their grip on power, as well as their presumed position at the center of the universe, is slipping through their fingers, and it’s Trump’s fault—and ours too.

They won’t give up easily. Like any cornered rat, the leftists are going to bare their fangs and come out fighting. They’ve already done so in some bizarre ways. They have openly supported the post-birth infanticide of children, a far cry from Bill Clinton’s “safe, legal and rare” trope. In their rabid desire to deny any success to Donald Trump and his signature campaign promise, the leftists are not only denying needed funding and authority to build a border wall, but more than one member of their declared Presidential field is actually advocating the removal of barriers that are already in existence, while publicly advocating for open borders.

President Trump made them livid when he defeated Hillary Clinton and her inevitable ascension to the throne of power. As he has piled success on success, Trump has driven them truly insane. As President Trump makes undeniable progress on the wall, look for the press and the rest of the leftists to denigrate or minimize this achievement or outright deny it. That won’t work for them, which will of course, foster even more malicious behavior going forward. 2019-2020 is gonna be exciting. Buckle Up.

Mike Ford is a retired Infantry Officer who writes on Military, Foreign Affairs and occasionally dabbles in Political and Economic matters.

You can find his other Red State work here.

He is also (reluctantly) on Twitter: @MikeFor10394583

True Pundit

Published  1 month ago

A federal judge ruled Thursday that a team of federal prosecutors that included Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta broke federal law when they brokered a plea deal with child molester and accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, The Miami Herald reported.

U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra reviewed Epstein’s case and concluded that the team of prosecutors violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act by keeping secret the terms of the plea agreement from Epstein’s victims until after a judge had signed off on the deal. Otherwise, the victims could have chosen to veto to the deal.

“Epstein used paid employees to find and bring minor girls to him,” Marra wrote, according to The Miami Herald. “Epstein worked in concert with others to obtain minors not only for his own sexual gratification, but also for the sexual gratification of others.”

“Particularly problematic was the Government’s decision to conceal the existence of the and mislead the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility,” Marra continued. “When the Government gives information to victims, it cannot be misleading. While the Government spent untold hours negotiating the terms and implications of the with Epstein’s attorneys, scant information was shared with victims.”

As part of the plea deal, Epstein pleaded guilty to two counts of soliciting prostitution from minors and served 13 months in a county jail. An ongoing FBI investigation into more victims of Epstein’s alleged child sex trafficking ring was halted and many of Epstein’s clients and accomplices went free without being identified publicly.

Epstein’s friends numbered many rich and powerful people including former President Bill Clinton and current President Donald Trump.

Trump nominated Acosta, who served as U.S. attorney in Miami and signed off on Epstein’s deal, to serve as secretary of Labor and Acosta was confirmed by the Senate 60-38 in April 2017.

News Punch

Published  1 month ago

President Trump has issued a final rule Friday that bans the federal funding of abortion in family planning clinics nationwide.

Washington Examiner

Published  1 month 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  1 month 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.

National Review

Published  1 month ago

D.C. has been delusional about the Kremlin since the 1990s.

Fox News

Published  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months 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.

Zero Hedge

Published  2 months ago

In an opinion that was 11 years in the making, a federal judge has ruled in a lawsuit brought by victims of disgraced billionaire Jeffrey Epstein - who infamously served 13 months in prison on state prostitution charges after scoring a plea deal with prosecutors led by now-Labor Secretary Alex Acosta - that Acosta and other attorneys with whom he worked at the US attorneys office of South Florida violated federal law when they sealed Epstein's plea deal, preventing any of his victims from challenging the deal, the Miami Herald reported.

The lawsuit was originally brought in 2008 after Epstein started serving his term. He was released in 2009. But is only now being resolved following renewed interest in the case following a series of reports in the Herald about how the wealthy and well-connected Epstein - who allegedly ferried Bill Clinton and actor Kevin Spacey to his "Orgy Island" aboard his plane, which has been termed "the Lolita Express" - received such a lenient sentence for offenses that some said should have elicited federal sex trafficking charges.

Marra agreed, saying that while prosecutors had the right to resolve the case in any way they saw fit, they violated the law by hiding the agreement from Epstein’s victims. Marra’s decision capped 11 years of litigation — which included the release of a trove of emails showing how Acosta and other prosecutors worked with Epstein’s high profile lawyers to conceal the deal — and the scope of Epstein’s crimes — from both his victims and the public.

"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.’"

Given that the determination was made in a civil court opinion, Acosta won't be facing any charges. But the ruling is certainly a black eye for his legacy as US attorney. But White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said the administration would be "looking into" Acosta's role in the plea deal.

In the opinion, the judge determined that Epstein helped recruit underage girls "for his own sexual gratification, but also for the sexual gratification of others".

The lawyer who brought the civil suit said he was relieved to read the opinion, and blasted the government attorneys for appearing to side with Epstein over his victims.

Brad Edwards, the Fort Lauderdale attorney who brought the case, said he was elated at the judge’s ruling, but admitted he is bitter that the case took 11 years to litigate, blaming federal prosecutors for needlessly dragging out the case when they could have remedied their error when it was brought to their attention in 2008.

"The Government aligned themselves with Epstein, working against his victims, for 11 years," Edwards said. "Yes, this is a huge victory, but to make his victims suffer for 11 years, this should not have happened. Instead of admitting what they did, and doing the right thing, they spent 11 years fighting these girls."

Still, Epstein will likely live out his life as a free man (unless new offenses are committed, or if other victims of his sex trafficking in different jurisdictions come forward. There's no statute of limitations on sex trafficking). The ruling comes after Senators on the Judiciary Committee asked that the DOJ open an investigation into the deal, which was offered at a time when Robert Mueller was running the FBI.

The Real News Network

Published  2 months 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


Published  2 months ago

President Donald Trump paid tribute to African American history month at the White House on Thursday. (Feb. 21) AP

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump's administration issued a rule Friday to cut federal funding for groups such as Planned Parenthood that provide abortion referrals.

The rule, first proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services last year, would ban organizations from providing abortions if they are performed in the same facilities as other services financed by federal funds. It would also block funding for organizations that refer women to another provider for the procedure.

More than a dozen Democratic governors have already threatened to sue to block the measure from being implemented.

Supporters say the rule will ensure federal money isn't used to pay for abortions, while opponents say it would restrict the ability of women to obtain an abortion and abortion counseling.

"The gag rule is unconscionable and unethical," said from Dr. Leana Wen, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "Imagine if the Trump administration prevented doctors from talking to our patients with diabetes about insulin."

The administration previously denied critics' claims that the new HHS policy is a "gag rule," saying it would "not prohibit counseling for clients about abortion."

Trump, who has drawn support from conservative voters on the issue, has been raising his opposition to abortion more forcefully in recent weeks. Trump discussed abortion during his State of the Union address this month, calling on lawmakers to "build a culture that cherishes innocent life," and he also made it part of a recent political rally.

"“The Protect Life Rule does not cut family planning funding by a single dime, and instead directs tax dollars to entities that provide health care to women but do not perform abortions," said Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser.

“Since day one, the Trump administration, along with its anti-abortion and anti-contraception allies, has made it clear that they want to undermine and restrict people’s access to family planning care," said Kinsey Hasstedt, senior policy manager at the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion-rights think tank.

The rule revives a policy President Ronald Reagan signed in 1988. Reagan’s effort was tied up in court, and was ultimately overturned in the first days of Bill Clinton’s presidency.

Contributing: David Jackson


Published  2 months ago

The Trump Health and Human Services (HHS) ruled that federal taxpayer funds for family planning services may not be used to support abortion.

I Love My Freedom

Published  2 months 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…

Published  2 months ago

The people of Alaska will hopefully see Sen. Lisa Murkowski for the Democrat that she is; she is not a conservative and consistently supports Democrat efforts to undermine the President, his policies and his promises to the American public regardless that they are in line with the agenda that got him voted into office.

Presidents have declared national emergencies since World War II. As The Washington Post reported, President Bill Clinton declared emergencies 17 times, George W. Bush – 12 and Barack Obama – 13.

Murkowski has been trying to show Democrats she is more aligned with them than the Republican platform for years now. The Democrat’s sole reason is to block Trump from keeping a campaign promise so they can claim victory. They don’t care about national security.

In an audio recording provided by an aide late Friday, Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, noted concerns she has raised about the precedent that could be set if the declaration stands.

House Democrats introduced a resolution Friday to block the national emergency declaration. If it passes the Democratic-controlled House, it would go to the Republican-held Senate. Trump on Friday promised a veto.

Read: It’s On! 16 States Sue President Trump Over National Emergency Declaration

“I want to make sure that the resolution of disapproval is exactly what I think it is, because if it is as I understand it to be, I will likely be supporting the resolution to disapprove of the action,” Murkowski said.

When pressed on her position during an appearance on Anchorage TV station KTUU Friday evening, she said: “If it’s what I have seen right now, I will support the resolution to disapprove.”

Did you know that 11 of the 16 states involved in the lawsuit to attempt to stop the United States National Emergency are at a minimum of 900 miles away( Illinois being the closet) from the nearest Mexican border? Alaska which is not involved in the lawsuit, but is now not willing to support, is 1,670 miles from Mexico. If I’m Alaskan as Murkowski claims to represent, I would be focusing on matters that affect my state, not an event that is 1,670 miles away.

Back in the day, we did not have the CARAVAN style invasion where thousands of immigrants are hitting our borders at the same time waving foreign flags as they approach. Nothing in our history like this has ever happened (unless you count the British and French wars) on top of that the Democrats manufactured this style of attack.

Read: Rush Limbaugh on Trump’s National Emergency: ‘It Is a Crisis’

The United States built a wall on Israel’s border over 200 miles, and it was passed with both sides agreeing to it because it works! The Federal Government has built “Sound Barriers” which are over 16ft tall to protect nearby homes and business from traffic noise from the interstate highways. But we can’t build a wall along our borders to protect American Lives and stop the drain on our social services?

The Democrats are reversing their decade’s long stance and have supported the wall several times in the past.

Why doesn’t Murkowski just come out as a Democrat? She is not a Republican. Maybe an independent, but if you run as a Republican you should try to support your party on most of its priorities, am I right?

Please consider making a donation to

and help our mission to make the world a better place

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

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

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

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 months 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 months 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  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months ago

Citing a “well-placed source” in the New York Police Department, Blackwater USA founder and retired Navy SEAL Erik Prince claims that among the 650,000 Huma Abedin emails on her estranged husband’s laptop is evidence Hillary Clinton, as well as former President Bill Clinton, was a visitor to convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s Caribbean hideaway, known as […]

Published  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months ago

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

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 months 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  2 months ago

Published  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months ago

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

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months ago

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

Fox News

Published  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months 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 months 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 months 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 months 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 months 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 months 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 months ago

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


Published  2 months 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 months ago

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

the Guardian

Published  2 months 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 months ago

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

Big League Politics

Published  2 months 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 months 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 months ago

This 6-year-old boy needs our help!

MAGA Daily Report

Published  2 months 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 months 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 months 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 months 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 months 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 months 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 months 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 months 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 months 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 months 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 months ago

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

Published  2 months 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 months 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 months 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 months 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 months 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 months 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 months 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  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months ago

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

News Punch

Published  2 months ago

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

American Greatness

Published  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months ago

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

Tiffany Fitzhenry

Published  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months ago

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

Published  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months 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  2 months ago

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

Conservative News Today

Published  2 months 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  2 months ago

Post by @theamgreatness.

Fox News

Published  2 months 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  2 months 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  3 months 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  3 months 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  3 months 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  3 months ago

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

Diamond & Silk

Published  3 months 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  3 months 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  3 months 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  3 months 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  3 months 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  3 months 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  3 months 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  3 months 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  3 months ago

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

Daily Wire

Published  3 months 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  3 months 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  3 months 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  3 months ago

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


Published  3 months 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  3 months ago

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

National Review

Published  3 months 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  3 months ago

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

The Atlantic

Published  3 months 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  3 months 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  3 months 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  3 months 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  3 months 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  3 months 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  3 months 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  3 months 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  3 months 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 assignm