Stories about
John F. Kennedy


John Fitzgerald "Jack" Kennedy (May 29, 1917 – November 22, 1963), commonly referred to by his initials JFK, was an American politician who served as the 35th President of the United States from January 1961 until his assassination in November 1963. He served at the height of the Cold War, and the majority of his presidency dealt with managing relations with the Soviet Union. As a member of the Democratic Party, Kennedy represented the state of Massachusetts in the United States House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate prior to becoming president.

WorldTruth.Tv

Published  1 month ago

“The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy America’s freedom and before I leave office, I must inform the citizen of this plight.” JFK Right before his death John F. Kennedy tried to warn the people of America about the highly secretive group known as the Illuminati but sadly he never got the chance because his assassination followed shortly there after… In truth this group has had their tentacles in almost every aspect of our lives in some way shape or form and they sit in the highest levels of governments secretly implementing their

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

President Donald Trump pointed to media bias against first lady Melania Trump on Monday, in an exclusive interview with Breitbart News.

“If Ivanka Trump were a Democrat or a liberal democrat, even better, she’d be the toast of the world,” the president said. “Same thing with our great first lady, who people love by the way. If our first lady, if I were a Democrat instead of a Republican, she’d be Jackie O times twenty. Instead, they go after her.”

Trump was referring to President John F. Kennedy’s wife Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis — frequently nicknamed “Jackie O” after she became a world-famous celebrity and fashion icon in the United States.

Trump was disgusted by the #FakeMelania conspiracy that trended on Twitter after the president and the first lady went to visit people affected by the deadly tornadoes in Alabama.

News outlets including ABC’s The View highlighted unverified Twitter claims featuring distorted photos of Trump and Melania to suggest that the first lady had a body double spend that time with the president.

First Lady Melania Trump’s spokeswoman, Stephanie Grisham, blasted the segment.

“The first lady and the president traveled to Alabama to pay their respects and comfort victims of the tornado devastation,” Grisham wrote on Twitter. “In typical fashion, The View chooses to laugh in the face of tragedy. Shameful.”

President Trump said that the first lady was moved by the stories in the wake of the storms and wanted to join him.

“The tornadoes were horrible, but she wanted to go, and I said, ‘Good, let’s go,'” he said, referring to the first lady. “And we went to pay our respects; it was a horrible thing. One woman lost ten people in her family because I saw all the people who were affected.”

The president was moved by the number of Alabama citizens who came out to show their support during the visit. Many wore Trump campaign “Make America Great Again” hats and waved signs of support.

“We went to Alabama and from the airplane to the site where the tornado was, there were people lined up five deep. You saw the pictures,” he said. “I mean like thousands and thousands of people from the plane all the way out to the site. It was like a Fifth Avenue parade.”

Alexander Marlow is the Editor-in-Chief of Breitbart News, Matthew Boyle is the Washington Political Editor of Breitbart News, Amanda House is the Deputy Political Editor of Breitbart News, and Charlie Spiering is the Senior White House Correspondent for Breitbart News.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

As seen on Hannity

Former Democratic U.S. Senator and vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman told Sean Hannity Monday that the Democratic Party's "loudest voices" cannot be seen as denigrating the United States and its economic system.

"Our economic system has worked for most of the American people. It's working for most of the American people today. Unemployment is at a very low level," said Lieberman, who was Al Gore's running mate in 2000 and served in the U.S. Senate until 2013.

Lieberman, who caucused with Democrats but was an independent in his final term, emphasized that some of the new voices in the party - including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) - are putting forth policies that are unrealistic.

"The government simply cannot afford everything they’re promising. ... Who’s going to pay for it? You can’t get enough money out of the top one percent to pay for this. It’s going to be the middle class," he said, adding that he doesn't recognize the party as the same one he joined when John F. Kennedy was president.

The Jewish Connecticut native also took issue with Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) for her recent criticism of Israel, labeling her rhetoric as "blatantly anti-Semitic."

He said Omar's "lies" do not represent how Democrats feel about Israel, but she was not strongly condemned by her House colleagues.

"If you let lies live unresponded to, they will spread," he warned.

Watch the full interview above.

'Yelp for Conservatives': New App Identifies Trump-Friendly Restaurants and Businesses

He's a 'Bent Two-by-Four': Sen. Kennedy Says McCabe 'Lucky He Hasn't Been Prosecuted'

Washington Examiner

Published  1 month ago

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., lied at this weekend’s South by Southwest Conference and Festivals when she implied that former President Reagan was a racist. Her claim that Reagan"pitted" white working class people against minorities in order "to screw over all working-class Americans,” particularly African-Americans and Hispanics, is both false and malicious. He did no such thing.

Had Ocasio-Cortez bothered to do her homework, she would have found otherwise.

As governor of California, Reagan appointed more African-Americans to government positions than any previous chief executive of the state. In the 1980 presidential campaign, Reagan was endorsed by civil rights leaders Ralph Abernathy, Charles Evers, and Hosea Williams.

It was Reagan who signed the bill that made the birthday of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. a national holiday. Here’s part of what he said at the signing ceremony:

In America, in the '50s and '60s, one of the important crises we faced was racial discrimination. The man whose words and deeds in that crisis stirred our nation to the very depths of its soul was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. … Now our nation has decided to honor Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., by setting aside a day each year to remember him and the just cause he stood for. We’ve made historic strides since Rosa Parks refused to go to the back of the bus. As a democratic people, we can take pride in the knowledge that we Americans recognized a grave injustice and took action to correct it. And we should remember that in far too many countries, people like Dr. King never have the opportunity to speak out at all. … But traces of bigotry still mar America. So, each year on Martin Luther King Day, let us not only recall Dr. King, but rededicate ourselves to the Commandments he believed in and sought to live every day.

President Reagan appointed the first African-American, Colin Powell, to be national security adviser, and the first Hispanic, Lauro Cavazos, to a cabinet position as the secretary of education.

In 1980, then-candidate Reagan received over 43 percent of the Hispanic vote.

Reagan supported statehood for Puerto Rico.

As for one most common story used to tar Reagan as a racist, the corruption of Linda Taylor — the Chicago “welfare queen” to whom Reagan referred in speeches — was documented in both the The Washington Post and The New York Times. He had not made this up.

The Reagan administration created more than 18 million jobs and kicked off a 26-year run of economic growth. Far from being a divisive force, Reagan left office with the support of 70 percent of the American people at large and 41 percent of African-Americans specifically. His was the most unifying president since John F. Kennedy.

Reagan supported enterprise zones as a means of bringing more prosperity to the inner city, but was blocked for eight years by Speakers Tip O’Neill, D-Mass., and Jim Wright, D-Texas.

Reagan has been accused of many things, but no one who knew or studied him ever suggested he was a racist. He never judged anyone on the basis of skin color because he was raised to treat everyone the same. His father, Jack, refused to allow his son to see “The Birth of a Nation” because of its racist content, even though it was one of Woodrow Wilson’s favorite movies. Reagan carried that feeling of equality in his heart for his entire life.

It is well known that while in college, on a football team road trip in 1931, Reagan’s team stayed at a hotel that did not allow African-Americans. So Reagan took two of his fellow players, who happened to be African-American, to his nearby home, where they spent the night with his family instead.

Ocasio-Cortez is entitled to advocate for whatever positions she wishes, no matter how antithetical they may be to American values and our way of life. That is the beauty of our system. But she is not entitled to lie; no one in public office is. She owes Ronald Reagan and the public an apology.

Craig Shirley is the author of four bestsellers on former President Reagan and is the Visiting Reagan Scholar at Eureka College. Mark Weinberg, a longtime aide to President Reagan both during and after his presidency, is the author of Movie Nights with the Reagans .

creators

Published  1 month ago

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

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

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

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

Slavery in America ended more than 150 years ago.

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

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

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

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

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

Photo credit: at Pixabay

The New Yorker

Published  1 month ago

In January, during the longest government shutdown in America’s history, President Donald Trump rode in a motorcade through Hidalgo County, Texas, eventually stopping on a grassy bluff overlooking the Rio Grande. The White House wanted to dramatize what Trump was portraying as a national emergency: the need to build a wall along the Mexican border. The presence of armored vehicles, bales of confiscated marijuana, and federal agents in flak jackets underscored the message.

But the photo op dramatized something else about the Administration. After members of the press pool got out of vans and headed over to where the President was about to speak, they noticed that Sean Hannity, the Fox News host, was already on location. Unlike them, he hadn’t been confined by the Secret Service, and was mingling with Administration officials, at one point hugging Kirstjen Nielsen, the Secretary of Homeland Security. The pool report noted that Hannity was seen “huddling” with the White House communications director, Bill Shine. After the photo op, Hannity had an exclusive on-air interview with Trump. Politico later reported that it was Hannity’s seventh interview with the President, and Fox’s forty-second. Since then, Trump has given Fox two more. He has granted only ten to the three other main television networks combined, and none to CNN, which he denounces as “fake news.”

Hannity was treated in Texas like a member of the Administration because he virtually is one. The same can be said of Fox’s chairman, Rupert Murdoch. Fox has long been a bane of liberals, but in the past two years many people who watch the network closely, including some Fox alumni, say that it has evolved into something that hasn’t existed before in the United States. Nicole Hemmer, an assistant professor of Presidential studies at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center and the author of “Messengers of the Right,” a history of the conservative media’s impact on American politics, says of Fox, “It’s the closest we’ve come to having state TV.”

Hemmer argues that Fox—which, as the most watched cable news network, generates about $2.7 billion a year for its parent company, 21st Century Fox—acts as a force multiplier for Trump, solidifying his hold over the Republican Party and intensifying his support. “Fox is not just taking the temperature of the base—it’s raising the temperature,” she says. “It’s a radicalization model.” For both Trump and Fox, “fear is a business strategy—it keeps people watching.” As the President has been beset by scandals, congressional hearings, and even talk of impeachment, Fox has been both his shield and his sword. The White House and Fox interact so seamlessly that it can be hard to determine, during a particular news cycle, which one is following the other’s lead. All day long, Trump retweets claims made on the network; his press secretary, Sarah Sanders, has largely stopped holding press conferences, but she has made some thirty appearances on such shows as “Fox & Friends” and “Hannity.” Trump, Hemmer says, has “almost become a programmer.”

Fox’s defenders view such criticism as unfounded and politically biased. Ken LaCorte, who was in senior management at Fox News for nearly twenty years, until 2016, and recently started his own news service, told me, “The people at Fox said the same thing about the press and Obama.” Fox’s public-relations department offers numerous examples of its reporters and talk-show hosts challenging the Administration. Chris Wallace, a tough-minded and ecumenical interviewer, recently grilled Stephen Miller, a senior Trump adviser, on the need for a border wall, given that virtually all drugs seized at the border are discovered at checkpoints. Trump is not the first President to have a favorite media organization; James Madison and Andrew Jackson were each boosted by partisan newspapers. But many people who have watched and worked with Fox over the years, including some leading conservatives, regard Fox’s deepening Trump orthodoxy with alarm. Bill Kristol, who was a paid contributor to Fox News until 2012 and is a prominent Never Trumper, said of the network, “It’s changed a lot. Before, it was conservative, but it wasn’t crazy. Now it’s just propaganda.” Joe Peyronnin, a professor of journalism at N.Y.U., was an early president of Fox News, in the mid-nineties. “I’ve never seen anything like it before,” he says of Fox. “It’s as if the President had his own press organization. It’s not healthy.”

Nothing has formalized the partnership between Fox and Trump more than the appointment, in July, 2018, of Bill Shine, the former co-president of Fox News, as director of communications and deputy chief of staff at the White House. Kristol says of Shine, “When I first met him, he was producing Hannity’s show at Fox, and the two were incredibly close.” Both come from white working-class families on Long Island, and they are godfathers to each other’s children, who refer to them as “Uncle Bill” and “Uncle Sean.” Another former colleague says, “They spend their vacations together.” A third recalls, “I was rarely in Shine’s office when Sean didn’t call. And I was in Shine’s office a lot. They talked all the time—many times a day.”

Shine led Fox News’ programming division for a dozen years, overseeing the morning and evening opinion shows, which collectively get the biggest ratings and define the network’s conservative brand. Straight news was not within his purview. In July, 2016, Roger Ailes, the co-founder and C.E.O. of Fox, was fired in the face of numerous allegations of chronic sexual harassment, and Shine became co-president. But within a year he, too, had been forced out, amid a second wave of sexual-harassment allegations, some of them against Fox’s biggest star at the time, Bill O’Reilly. Shine wasn’t personally accused of sexual harassment, but several lawsuits named him as complicit in a workplace culture of coverups, payoffs, and victim intimidation.

Shine, who has denied any wrongdoing, has kept a low profile at the White House, and rejects interview requests, including one from this magazine. But Kristol contends that Shine’s White House appointment is a scandal. “It’s been wildly under-covered,” he said. “It’s astounding that Shine—the guy who covered up Ailes’s horrible behavior—is the deputy chief of staff!”

The Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin, another conservative Never Trumper, used to appear on the network, but wouldn’t do so now. “Fox was begun as a good-faith effort to counter bias, but it’s morphed into something that is not even news,” she says. “It’s simply a mouthpiece for the President, repeating what the President says, no matter how false or contradictory.” The feedback loop is so strong, she notes, that Trump “will even pick up an error made by Fox,” as when he promoted on Twitter a bogus Fox story claiming that South Africa was “seizing land from white farmers.” Rubin told me, “It’s funny that Bill Shine went over to the White House. He could have stayed in his old job. The only difference is payroll.”

With Shine, the Fox and White House payrolls actually do overlap. The Hollywood Reporter obtained financial-disclosure forms revealing that Fox has been paying Shine millions of dollars since he joined the Administration. Last year, he collected the first half of a seven-million-dollar bonus that he was owed after resigning from Fox; this year, he will collect the remainder. That sum is in addition to an $8.4-million severance payment that he received upon leaving the network. In December, four Democratic senators sent a letter to the White House counsel’s office, demanding proof that Fox’s payments to Shine don’t violate federal ethics and conflict-of-interest statutes.

Shine is only the most recent Fox News alumnus to join the Trump Administration. Among others, Trump appointed the former Fox contributor Ben Carson to be his Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the former Fox commentator John Bolton to be his national-security adviser, and the former Fox commentator K. T. McFarland to be his deputy national-security adviser. (McFarland resigned after four months.) Trump recently picked the former Fox News anchor Heather Nauert to be the Ambassador to the United Nations, but she soon withdrew herself from consideration, reportedly because her nanny, an immigrant, lacked a work permit. The White House door swings both ways: Hope Hicks, Shine’s predecessor in the communications job, is now the top public-relations officer at 21st Century Fox. Several others who have left the Trump White House, including Sebastian Gorka, a former adviser on national security, regularly appear on Fox. Gorka recently insisted, on Fox Business, that one of Trump’s biggest setbacks—retreating from the shutdown without securing border-wall funds—was actually a “masterstroke.”

Other former Fox News celebrities have practically become part of the Trump family. Kimberly Guilfoyle, a former co-host of “The Five,” left Fox in July; she is now working on Trump’s reëlection campaign and dating Donald Trump, Jr. (Guilfoyle left the network mid-contract, after a former Fox employee threatened to sue the network for harassment and accused Guilfoyle of sharing lewd images, among other misconduct; Fox and the former employee reached a multimillion-dollar settlement. A lawyer who represents Guilfoyle said that “any suggestion” that she “engaged in misconduct at Fox is patently false.”) Pete Hegseth and Lou Dobbs, hosts on Fox Business, have each been patched into Oval Office meetings, by speakerphone, to offer policy advice. Sean Hannity has told colleagues that he speaks to the President virtually every night, after his show ends, at 10 P.M. According to the Washington Post, White House advisers have taken to calling Hannity the Shadow Chief of Staff. A Republican political expert who has a paid contract with Fox News told me that Hannity has essentially become a “West Wing adviser,” attributing this development, in part, to the “utter breakdown of any normal decision-making in the White House.” The expert added, “The place has gone off the rails. There is no ordinary policy-development system.” As a result, he said, Fox’s on-air personalities “are filling the vacuum.”

Axios recently reported that sixty per cent of Trump’s day is spent in unstructured “executive time,” much of it filled by television. Charlie Black, a longtime Republican lobbyist in Washington, whose former firm, Black, Manafort & Stone, advised Trump in the eighties and nineties, told me, “Trump gets up and watches ‘Fox & Friends’ and thinks these are his friends. He thinks anything on Fox is friendly. But the problem is he gets unvetted ideas.” Trump has told confidants that he has ranked the loyalty of many reporters, on a scale of 1 to 10. Bret Baier, Fox News’ chief political anchor, is a 6; Hannity a solid 10. Steve Doocy, the co-host of “Fox & Friends,” is so adoring that Trump gives him a 12.

It is hardly unprecedented for American media barons to go beyond their pages to try to influence the course of politics. At the 1960 Democratic National Convention, Philip Graham, the co-owner of the Washington Post, helped broker a deal in which John F. Kennedy selected Lyndon Johnson as his running mate. But now a direct pipeline has been established between the Oval Office and the office of Rupert Murdoch, the Australian-born billionaire who founded News Corp and 21st Century Fox. Multiple sources told me that Murdoch and Trump often talk on the phone. A former aide to Trump, who has been in the Oval Office when Murdoch has called, says, “It’s two men who’ve known each other for a very long time having frank conversations. The President certainly doesn’t kowtow to Murdoch, but Murdoch also doesn’t to him. He speaks to him the same way he would have five years ago.” According to Michael Wolff’s 2018 book, “Fire and Fury,” Murdoch derided Trump as “a fucking idiot” after a conversation about immigration. The aide says Trump knows that Murdoch has denigrated him behind his back, but “it doesn’t seem to matter” that much. Several sources confirmed to me that Murdoch regales friends with Trump’s latest inanities. But Murdoch, arguably the most powerful media mogul in the world, is an invaluable ally to any politician. Having Murdoch’s—and Fox’s—support is essential for Trump, the aide says: “It’s very important for the base.”

Murdoch may be even closer to Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Well-informed sources say that Kushner, an increasingly valued White House adviser, has worked hard to win over Murdoch, showing him respect and asking him for advice. Kushner has regularly assured Murdoch that the White House is a smooth-running operation, despite many reports suggesting that it is chaotic. Kushner now has an almost filial status with Murdoch, who turns eighty-eight this month, and numerous sources told me that they communicate frequently. “Like, every day,” one said.

Murdoch has cultivated heads of state in Australia and Great Britain, and someone close to him says that “he’s always wanted to have a relationship with a President—he’s a businessman and he sees benefits of having a chief of state doing your bidding.” Murdoch has met every American President since Kennedy, but, the close associate says, “until now a relationship has eluded him.” Still, Murdoch’s coziness with Trump may come at a cost. Roger Ailes, during his final days at Fox, apparently warned Murdoch of the perils. According to Gabriel Sherman, a biographer of Ailes who has written about Fox for New York and Vanity Fair, Ailes told Murdoch, “Trump gets great ratings, but if you’re not careful he’s going to end up totally controlling Fox News.”

The Federalist

Published  1 month ago

How many anti-Semitic comments can Rep. Ilhan Omar make before Democrats take any action to actually censure her behavior?

Medium

Published  1 month ago

In response to criticisms made by Congresswoman Ilhan Omar that US political leaders have too much allegiance to Israel and its lobbying…

The Daily Signal

Published  1 month ago

Throughout the 1950s and ’60s, Republicans were generally more unified than Democrats in support of civil rights legislation.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

The media’s apoplectic reaction to 2018 tax refunds displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the U.S. tax code and the very notion of what a refund actually is.

The fact is hard-working Americans now have more money in their paychecks thanks to the Trump tax cuts, though you would be hard-pressed to know this watching media coverage as we enter tax season.

News reports about people receiving “smaller tax refunds” fallaciously filled the airwaves last week. The clear insinuation in many of these articles is that the historic Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, passed by Republicans and signed by President Trump in 2017, is increasing the tax burden on ordinary Americans.

The entire premise is absurd, actually, because the focus on refunds is fundamentally misleading.

The reason many Americans are seeing a smaller refund this year is that they are paying less in taxes. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act significantly cut tax rates for middle class families, 80 percent of whom had a lower tax burden in 2018 than they did before the president’s tax cuts took effect.

The law also simplified the tax code and made changes to withholding rules that together served to reduce overpayment to the government by taxpayers, which is the only reason the IRS gives tax refunds.

Would you rather receive a bigger refund, or just keep more of your money in the first place?

Think about it this way: these reports about smaller refunds are every bit as disingenuous as headlines about Americans getting the biggest tax refunds of their lives would be in the wake of a massive tax increase. Higher tax burdens mean bigger refunds. Lower tax burdens mean smaller refunds, because the government got less of your money during the tax year.

Not only do smaller refund checks indicate that people have had access to more of their money throughout the year, they are also a sign that we’ve created a more efficient income tax system. In a perfectly efficient system, no one would get any refund, because they would have paid the exact amount that they owe.

It is clear that the radical left has taken over the Democratic Party, leaving behind the party of John F. Kennedy.

In fact, that’s the basic motivation behind using an income tax in the first place — it taxes people when they have it, not later on when they don’t.

That type of efficiency has been part of the basic philosophy of Republican tax policy since President Ronald Reagan’s 1981 and ‘86 tax cuts, which did away with the sky-high marginal rates like some Democrats are now advocating we bring back.

In the pre-Reagan days, it was all about the refunds, taking advantage of the thousands of complicated exemptions, deductions, and loopholes.

Maybe that’s what the Democrats who are pushing for 70-90 percent top tax rates really want: massive income tax bills throughout the year and plenty of deductions and loopholes so we can spend even more time pouring over our tax returns just to make sure we don’t pay more taxes than we owe. We’d get bigger refunds, but we’d be worse off because of it.

That certainly seems like their plan, with known mainstream figures like presidential hopeful Kamala Harris tweeting about how awful it is that fewer people are getting refunds.

In the 1980s, Democrats enthusiastically helped President Reagan pass his tax reforms, which made the tax system fairer and more efficient in addition to reducing rates.

Three decades later, not a single Democrat helped President Trump provide the same much-needed tax relief to middle class families, and politicians such as Kamala Harris are trying to pretend that people are worse off because their tax burden is now lower.

It is clear that the radical left has taken over the Democratic Party, leaving behind the party of John F. Kennedy.

Smaller tax refunds are not a bad thing — they’re a sign that people are keeping more of their money as they earn it, rather than letting Uncle Sam keep it under his mattress for them.

Kayleigh McEnany is the national press secretary for President Donald Trump’s 2020 reelection campaign. She was the former national spokesperson for the Republican National Committee. She has a J.D. from Harvard Law School and BSFS from Georgetown School of Foreign Service and is the author of "New American Revolution: The Making of a Populist Movement."

dailycaller

Published  2 months ago

Bernie Sanders reminisced in 1986 about watching the 1960 presidential debates between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon and how it made him sick to hear them talk tough about Fidel Castro’s uprising.

“But I remember, for some reason, being very excited when Fidel Castro made the revolution in Cuba. I was a kid and I remember reading that,” the Independent Vermont senator shared in a clip posted by The Reagan Battalion on Thursday. (RELATED: Rep. Meeks: Bernie Sanders Shouldn’t Be Allowed To Run In Democratic Primary)

Video: @BernieSanders, University of Vermont, 1986, recalls his excitement watching Castro’s revolution “rising up against the ugly rich people.” & his sick feeling watching JFK speak out against communism in Cuba.

Also bashes the @nytimes for lying about communism. pic.twitter.com/OUqzLFbsvz

— The Reagan Battalion (@ReaganBattalion) February 21, 2019

“And it just seemed right and appropriate that poor people were rising up against rather ugly rich people,” he added. “And I remember…I was watching the debates, remember the famous Nixon-Kennedy debates. That was the first time the presidential candidates actually debated.” (RELATED: Bernie Sanders Emerges As Early Frontrunner As Democrats Line Up To Announce For 2020 Race)

Sanders continued, “And I was becoming increasingly interested in politics. And at that time, I was very excited and impressed by the Cuban Revolution. And there was Kennedy and Nixon talking about which particular method they should use about destroying the revolution.”

“Kennedy was saying that Nixon was too soft on communism…we should deal firmly with Fidel Castro,” Sanders shared. “And Nixon was playing the role of ‘Hey, you got to be patient. You can’t do these things. You go to negotiate.'” (RELATED: Bernie Sanders Announces He’s Jumping In The 2020 Presidential Race)

The 2020 hopeful then goes on to suggest that what Nixon was really “upset about” was that “secretly they were planning the Bay of Pigs invasion, right then.”

“So, he was the liberal and Kennedy was playing the conservative,” Sanders shared. “But I actually got up from the room and almost left to puke because, for the first time in my adult life, what I was seeing is the Democrats and Republicans, both of them…that clearly there wasn’t a hold lot of difference between the two.”

MintPress News

Published  2 months ago

A Venezuela aid concert funded by billionaire Richard Branson is nothing short of a ruse, according to Pink Floyd's Roger Waters.

thenevadaindependent

Published  2 months ago

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Sunday in Las Vegas that Trump administration officials have an obligation to invoke the 25th Amendment if they believe the president cannot fulfill his duties.

Fox News

Published  2 months ago

Ever wonder why people hate lawyers? Consider Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s non-denial denial of his participation in discussions of an attempted coup against the duly elected president of the United States.

Fox News

Published  2 months ago

Jews should stop supporting the Democratic Party in the wake of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel comments by freshmen Democratic House members. Trump and Republicans are now the true friends of Israel and the Jewish people.

Western Free Press

Published  2 months ago

The Benghazi scandal is back in the headlines. This time, some unlikely players were added to the fray. One of the players, Nancy Pelosi, was added to the scandal due to a hack leak released by Guccifer 2.0.

The hacker or hackers known as Guccifer 2.0 publicly released documents claiming to come from the computer of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). As you may recall, the Original Guccifer, Marcel Lazăr Lehel, is a Romanian hacker responsible for high-level computer security breaches in the U.S. and Romania. Lehel targeted celebrities, Romanian and U.S. government officials, and other prominent persons. (RELATED: Margaret Hoover Grills Democrat Eric Swalwell Over Russia Obsession)

Lehel was jailed in January 2014 in Romania, then later transferred to the US. Lehal’s arrest was the beginning of his predecessor, Guccifer 2.0. Guccifer 2.0’s identity is still unidentified.

Guccifer 2.0, who allegedly breached the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and Democratic National Committee (DNC), released the documents to the WordPress blog used in other public releases. The information includes a cache of documents on congressional races in Florida and Pennsylvania.

According to The Daily Caller, The documents show the Democrat party trying to call the Benghazi scandal “conspiracy theory.”

The Daily Caller wrote:

“The document casts the controversy surrounding Benghazi as “Legitimate outrage over the deaths of American diplomats mixed with partisanship.” The document also admits that then Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice “gave incorrect information on television” in the immediate aftermath of the attack.

The document’s central talking points revolve around ignoring the facts revealed by congressional investigations, and instead on rhetorical flourishes that emphasize patriotism.”

Interestingly, the Democrats were trying to paint the Benghazi incident as a “right-wing conspiracy theory.” This would fit with all the other things that the Democrats do to hide information. By having all the Democrats on the same page, if the Benghazi scandal was ever investigated again, they would all claim the scandal was a “right-wing conspiracy to use against Hillary Clinton and Suzan Rice.” (RELATED: Exclusive: Roger Stone Interview on Legal Battle With Bob Mueller)

In the leaked document, the following information is available.

“This tragedy highlights the challenges our diplomats face when they serve as frontline civilians, representing our nation in harm’s way. Isolating America and sequestering these professionals in fortress embassies is not a solution. We must value and support their important work, as well as protecting their physical security.”

The second section highlights the many attempts at calling for accountability as “pandering to conspiracy theorists.”

“Benghazi is a tragedy, not a scandal. At this point, most public discussion is pandering to conspiracy theorists or harping on the death of an American ambassador to score political points.”

Finally, the third section denigrates the Republican-led Congress for investigating the specific circumstances involving the events of Benghazi.

“These tragic events have been investigated more than the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Reports ordered by a Republican-led Congress have repeatedly debunked conspiracy theories of criminal negligence or cover-ups, and media coverage has exhausted the issue from every angle. Even incoming House Speaker McCarthy admitted the investigations were more about hurting Hillary Clinton than finding truth. We should remember the sacrifice of these Americans, not reduce their names to political talking points.”

This document, if it was truly taken from Nancy Pelosi’s laptop, leaves more room for additional questions about the tragedy. No more information is available. We will inform you as this story develops. (RELATED: Voluminous Amount of Dems Beginning to Support Border Wall)

GOP

Published  2 months ago

Warren’s entrance into the 2020 field was a disaster before it even started, and is now a full-fledged apology tour

National Review

Published  2 months ago

Cory Booker has transformed his brand in the Trump-era, but in order to win the presidential nomination as a Democrat, he’ll need to play the part.

America First with Sebastian Gorka

Published  3 months ago

The charge of racism and bigotry is almost uniformly lobbed by militant Leftists at their political rivals on the Right. Yet, the history of racist ideological politics can be better attributed to the Left than to anyone on the Right. Naturally, as with all national political movements, there are fringe figures on the Right. Although, these fanatics are exactly that: isolated figures who few take seriously. But, going back to the era of chattel slavery, when Africans were shipped en masse from Africa aboard European and American cargo ships and then sold to plantation owners in the American South, it was the Democratic Party—not the Republican Party—that represented the interests of the slave-owning elite in the United States.

Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War was previously the highest-ranking elected Democrat in the United States before the war tore the nation asunder (he was the Speaker of the House). Those notable Americans who remained fighting for the Union, but who held sympathy toward the Southern cause—such as the hapless Union Army General George B. McClellan—were not committed to defeating the secessionists in the South. Instead, McClellan and those like him in the Democratic Party cared little for the moral issue of slavery; they wanted to make peace with the South and were willing to allow for slavery to continue as it had before the war.

In fact, the Republican Party was birthed during the contentious American presidential election of 1864 in order to better resist the racist fanaticism of the slave-owning Democrats in the American South. While in office, President Abraham Lincoln befriended the freed slave-turned-moral-philosopher, Frederick Douglas, as Lincoln had become increasingly committed to freeing the slaves as the Civil War dragged on. Another influential African-American thinker, Booker T. Washington was a proud member of the Republican Party, who often extolled the virtues of hard-work and lamented the plantation politics that the Democratic Party clung onto even after the South had lost the Civil War.

At the turn of the twentieth century, as the country reaped exponential rewards for itself during the Industrial Revolution, yet suffered horrendous income inequality, the Progressive Movement came into vogue. Most Progressives tended to share sympathies with working-class Americans and claimed to support greater civil rights for oppressed minorities. Yet, the Progressives—notably former President Woodrow Wilson, who was born and raised in the American South during Reconstruction following the Civil War—were also social engineers by nature. They favored the politics of eugenics and believed that African-Americans were too ignorant to live as fully free Americans, as Lincoln had wished. So racist were the Democrats that, during the Wilson Administration, the incredibly racist film, “Birth of a Nation” film was screened at the White House in 1915.

From the end of the Civil War until the rise of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933, the majority of African-Americans were members of the Republican Party since that was the party that had freed their people from the vile clutches of Democratic Party-sanctioned slavery. During the Reconstruction Era in the American South all of the way through to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, laws were enacted by racist Democratic Party leaders in the South intended to keep black and white Americans separated and designed to perpetuate true White Privilege—another term that the David Hogg-type Leftist social justice warriors today use with wanton abandon against Republicans.

During the Great Depression many African-Americans were hit hardest by the economic dislocations. Under the promise of alleviating their economic plight, the African-American community started slowly turning to the Democrats. This trend continued throughout the postwar era until, after Lyndon B. Johnson’s presidency, nearly 93 percent of all African-Americans were voting Democratic. Yet, Democratic Party policies never once alleviated the suffering of African-Americans. It merely compounded their woes. This is something that scholars, such as the preeminent African-American conservative economist, Thomas Sowell, and the rapper, Kanye West, have pointed out more recently.

So opposed to the African-American community was the Democratic Party that they formed a militant arm—the Ku Klux Klan (KKK)—in the early twentieth century to intimidate and prevent black Americans from exercising their rights as citizens of the United States. The KKK’s preferred intimidation tactics involved violence of varying degrees. Lynchings of young black men, bombings of African-American churches full of women and children, and racially-motivated beatings were rampant in the Democratic Party-controlled parts of the country. One of the most respected Democratic Party Senators, the late Robert Byrd of Virginia, was a KKK leader in his youth. Although he seemingly renounced his racial animus later in life, the damage was still done.

Even during the Civil Rights Era, when Democrats argue they became the party of minority rights in the country, few elected Republicans ever fathomed challenging the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In fact, most Republicans were committed advocates of civil rights. 80 percent of Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act, whereas only 63 percent of Democrats supported the law. The Civil Rights Act was one of the pieces of legislation that President Johnson crafted to honor his slain predecessor, John F. Kennedy. Yet, most elected Democrats were viscerally opposed to the legislation. Moreover, Martin Luther King, Jr. and other civil rights leaders grew disenchanted with President Johnson when they realized he was more interested in fighting the failed Vietnam War rather than protecting the rights of black Americans. Also, Martin Luther King, Jr. routinely defended the Republican Party from charges of racism during his lifetime.

It is true that a large cohort of southern Democrats defected over to the Republican Party in protest over the Democratic Party’s support of the Civil Rights Act, although, these so-called “Dixiecrats” never held the kind of sway over Republican Party politics that they had enjoyed in the Democratic Party. What’s more, the Republican Party’s embrace of the Dixiecrats was always tepid at best.

And finally, look at the disproportionate suffering that modern African-Americans are made to endure. Almost all of the pain that black Americans experience today is felt in the major cities around the country. And, almost every one of these cities—from Baltimore to Chicago to Los Angeles—are run Democratic Party fiefdoms. Compare how poorly the African-American community has done under decades of “caring” Democratic leadership to the kind of bold, color-blind leadership exemplified by President Donald J. Trump in just the last two years. Presently, according to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, the unemployment rate for African-Americans has hit an all-time low at 5.9 percent! Under Republican leaders, the black community routinely does better than they do under Democratic leaders.

Candace Owens and Kanye West are correct: the Democratic Party is the party of the plantation; the Democrats are still the real racists.

Zero Hedge

Published  3 months ago

On the occasion of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, a group of over 60 prominent American citizens is calling upon Congress to reopen the investigations into the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr., and Senator Robert F. Kennedy.

TMZ

Published  3 months ago

Celebs and Fams of Kennedy, MLK Demand New Probes ...

Sixty prominent citizens are marking Martin Luther King Jr. Day by calling for new investigations into the assassinations of 4 men -- assassinations that changed the world -- John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X.

The group -- The Truth and Reconciliation Committee (TRC) -- believes all 4 assassinations were the result of conspiracies that were covered up by the government.

Members of TRC include Oliver Stone, Alec Baldwin, Martin Sheen, Rob Reiner, David Crosby, Mort Sahl, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and MLK's nephew Isaac Newton Farris Jr.

TRC claims, "The conviction of James Earl Ray [MLK's convicted killer] has steadily lost credibility over the years." They note following the verdict, Coretta Scott King said, "There is abundant evidence of a major, high-level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband."

The JFK assassination has long been controversial and scores of experts and others including Dr. Robert McClelland, one of the surgeons who tried to save JFK's life, believe Oswald did not act alone.

As for Robert Kennedy, TRC calls the trial of Sirhan Sirhan, "A mockery of a trial that has been demolished by numerous eyewitnesses, investigators and experts," including the then L.A. County Coroner. TRC says forensic evidence proves the fatal shot was not at the hands of Sirhan.

TRC wants Congress to establish real oversight and document release, including a public inquest which will be modeled on the Truth and Reconciliation process in post-apartheid South Africa.

Time

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 editors@time.com.

Consortiumnews

Published  3 months ago

To mark Martin Luther King Jr. Day a group of academics, journalists, lawyers, Hollywood artists, activists and intellectuals, including two of Robert F. Kennedy's children, are calling for new investigations into four assassinations of the 1960s. On the occasion of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, a gr

Washington Free Beacon

Published  3 months ago

Beto O'Rourke is lost. The former Democratic congressman, who unsuccessfully challenged Ted Cruz in last year's election, has spent the last few weeks in a confused and melancholy state. Something possessed him to share images from a recent dental cleaning, perhaps the grossest introduction of a potential presidential candidate in the nation's history. He gave an interview to the Washington Post where the only specific plank in his immigration platform was opposition to President Trump's border wall. In the same interview, he mused that the Constitution may no longer apply to the United States, since we're an "empire" with troops deployed around the globe and "trading agreements." Then he published a blog post that read like wannabe Kerouac. "Learned about pump storage, battery technology, the role that production tax credits have had in making New Mexico a leader in wind energy production," he wrote. O'Rourke himself has no trouble generating hot air.

Beto isn't merely the slightly flaky, out-of-work husband of a real-estate heiress. He's running third in polls of the 2020 Democratic presidential field. His emo style and recent missteps exemplify the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of the likely Democratic contenders. Judging from polls, Donald Trump is headed toward a one-term presidency. His best chance for reelection is pulling an opponent he can make as unpopular as he is. The Democrats seem more than willing to help him. In 1988, Democrats fielded the "seven dwarves" against George H.W. Bush. The 2020 cycle is shaping up to include 20 Smurfs. Trump is Gargamel.

The possible candidacy of Joe Biden links the two elections. His 1988 bid went nowhere, much his like run two decades later. Today, after eight years as Barack Obama's vice president, Biden is among the most popular Democrats in the country and leads the 2020 field. A poll last August had him beating Trump by seven points. But Biden faces significant hurdles before he reaches the general election. As much as Democrats like him, they'd also like to see "someone new." Biden's age (76), record of bipartisanship, insider status, and white hetero-normative cisgendered male identity might hinder his chances in the primary. It's noteworthy that former Obama advisers haven't swung behind him. Some have been talking up Beto, and others have encouraged additional candidates to enter the race. There's a reluctance to embrace Biden reminiscent of Republican wariness toward Mitt Romney in 2012.

Bernie Sanders, number two in the polls, has had one of the worst months of his career. Reports of sexual misconduct during his 2016 campaign have hurt him in a party where the #MeToo movement is sacrosanct. Sanders flubbed his response to the controversy when he told Anderson Cooper he was too busy running for president to address the bad behavior. Several members of his team don't want to join him this time. Bernie, like Donald Trump, benefited in 2016 from being the only alternative to Hillary Clinton. With Clinton gone and the Democratic field wide open, many Democrats expect his poll position to erode.

Elizabeth Warren has had a successful launch. She got out ahead of the competition. She seems to have put the controversy over her DNA test behind her by pretending it didn't happen. She's recruiting top party talent. She also has something most of the 2020 candidates lack—an actual policy agenda and story she wants to tell about the country. She'll have no trouble raising money. Her problem is consistently low favorability. That's led some Democrats to call Americans sexist, but there are plenty of liberal Democratic women more popular than Warren. For her to win the primary, much less the general, she needs to be more likable. Her grabbing a beer on Instagram didn't do the trick. But there's plenty of time and, after the American Indian heritage fiasco, Warren seems to be pulling together a professional campaign.

The election nerds are convinced Kamala Harris is the real frontrunner. She trails nationwide and suffers from low name id, but she's popular among women of color. At 54, she's at the low end of the age spectrum for this Democratic field. Her book tour and "Mood Mix" are meant to raise her profile and emphasize her likability. But I won't be convinced of Harris's potential until she starts rising in the polls. She's never faced a competitive race. She's never encountered real scrutiny. She laughs too often at her own jokes. Her handling of a top staffer accused of sexual improprieties was far from flawless. Her record as a prosecutor is out of step with the party base. Does she have reasons for running beyond the abstract notion that she's the right fit for her party, and that victory against Trump appears guaranteed?

The other senators—Booker, Brown, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Merkley—are no more impressive. There are plenty of theories that purport to explain why each of them should run, but politics doesn't conform to rational expectations. They also share the burden of running for president from the U.S. Senate. Barack Obama was the exception to the rule. He, John F. Kennedy, and Warren G. Harding are the only presidents elected directly from the Senate in 230 years of elections. None of the senators thinking of 2020 possess the political talent and cultural power of Barack Obama. None.

That leaves the governors and mayors. Jay Inslee, John Hickenlooper, Steve Bullock, Terry McAuliffe, aouigoiangoingogn—sorry, I just fell asleep.

The mayors are slightly more interesting: Mitch Landrieu, Eric Garcetti, Pete Buttigieg are novel and unpredictable in different ways. Unfortunately for them, a mayor has never been directly elected president of the United States. In fact, the only former mayor to become president was Grover Cleveland. Having covered a former mayor's presidential campaign in 2008, my message to these candidates is: Keep your day jobs. I am watching Michael Bloomberg, however. He doesn't mesh with the Democratic Party we see every day in the national media, but he's intelligent, shrewd, and willing to spend more money than Croesus on securing the nomination and defeating Trump. Only a fool would dismiss him.

Democrats go into 2020 with the advantage. They've won the popular vote in all but one election since 1992. The incumbent Republican is unpopular. But the perception of Trump's vulnerability is contributing to an unpredictable, grueling, and possibly self-defeating primary among up to two-dozen liberals of middling accomplishments. Recently I flipped through my dog-eared copy of Allan Lichtman's 13 Keys to the White House. Lichtman has an excellent prediction track record, including calling Trump's victory. (He opposes Trump.) When you look at the keys, which involve true-or-false statements regarding economic performance, corruption, social unrest, and foreign policy, 2020 remains too far away to call. Trump isn't out of the game. If the economy holds up, he'll be that much closer to reelection. Democrats need to understand: lightning can strike the same place—and the same party—twice.

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.

THE 2020 ELECTION IS HERE AND GUESS WHO THE DEMOCRATS' FRONTRUNNER IS?

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.

Breitbart

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.

Fox News

Published  3 months ago

There are a disturbing number of Democrat lawmakers who believe Christians must renounce their religious beliefs and affiliations in religious-based organizations if they want to hold public office.

USA TODAY

Published  3 months ago

New York, Chicago and Los Angeles are all have efforts underway to name things after America's first African-American president

The Daily Signal

Published  3 months ago

Until recently, only Republicans had cried foul when Democrats pried into the religious views of nominees.

Gingrich Productions

Published  3 months ago

To receive Newt’s weekly newsletters, click here.

The result was not as lopsided as the Clemson annihilation of Alabama in the National Championship game Monday night, but the outcome of the first head-to-head television effort of the new Congress was decisive. President Donald Trump clearly gained ground and Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer lost ground.

Part of President Trump’s advantage was structural. Presidents almost always do better than Congressional leaders in a nationally televised setting. The emotional power of the Oval Office and the authority of the presidency have given every president in my lifetime a huge advantage over their congressional opponents.

Smart congressional leaders never pick themselves to respond. Ideally, they pick someone who offsets the president’s strengths. Last night, a young Latina freshman congresswoman speaking with intensity and sincerity would have been 100 times better than the Nancy and Chuck show.

To a degree no one could have anticipated, the two Democrats just looked bad. A friend of mine who consults on political media wrote me: “Trump should pay these guys to speak to the nation. They look like mummies risen from an ancient tomb. It’s like [an] SNL sketch.”

The self-destructive appearance of Pelosi and Schumer reminded me of “The Ev and Charlie Show” named for Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen and House Republican leader Charles Halleck. They tried to compete with President John F. Kennedy, who was a young charismatic master of television, and they ended up being ridiculed and becoming a symbol of ineffective old politics. Nancy and Chuck were building that reputation last night with their appearance.

President Trump had an advantage in simply having the clearer, better case. He used facts and references that built the argument for protecting our southern border as a matter of protecting Americans. The party that wants to protect Americans will almost always win against a party that wants to risk American lives for ideological and political objectives.

When the President asserted that, “In the last two years, ICE officers made 266,000 arrests of aliens with criminal records – including those charged or convicted of 100,000 assaults, 30,000 sex crimes and 4,000 violent killings,” he was being the commander in chief defending Americans from danger. The liberal media will do all it can to debunk and undermine this claim. However, every time an illegal immigrant kills or attacks an American, the public will move a step closer to President Trump.

The President’s claim that we need a physical barrier for our national security was also reinforced by professionals with years of experience on the border. When President Obama’s chief of U.S. Border Patrol, Mark Morgan, goes on Tucker Carlson Tonight to defend Trump, it is clear where the argument is heading. Consider what Morgan said:

MORGAN: The President is right, the President of [the] Border Patrol council is right, [and] the other day when they had the national press conference and they got up and they said the wall works, they’re [sic] right. And it’s not based on a personal political ideology. That’s based on historical data and facts that can be proven.

CARLSON: So why do you think people oppose it?

MORGAN: That, I think, is a political point that they are trying to make. I personally, in my experience and I was also with The FBI for 20 years, I was special agent in charge of the El Paso Division right on the border. Tucker, I cannot think of a legitimate argument why anyone would not support the wall as part of the multilayered border security.

When President Obama’s head of the Border Patrol says the argument Pelosi and Schumer are making is not legitimate and only serves a political point, the Democrats are walking on very thin ground. They could rapidly find themselves in quicksand as the party which is unwilling to protect Americans.

There is more law enforcement support for President Trump’s proposed control of the southern border. Yuma County Sheriff Leon Wilmot said that the fence and other security measures under the Secure Fence Act of 2006 dramatically impacted crime. “We were able to reduce [ancillary crimes] by 91 percent,” Wilmot told the Epoch Times. “The deaths in the desert, the rapes, the robberies, the homicides, the burglaries, the thefts.”

President Trump gained ground when he alluded to Senator Schumer’s vote in favor of the Secure Fence Act (which was also supported by Senators Clinton and Obama and has substantially reduced crime in Yuma, Arizona). Schumer can claim it was a different time and different circumstances, but it undermines his own hostility to a fence and makes it look like opposition to Trump rather than a principled position.

The President also helped his cause when he drew a strong distinction between legal migration and law breaking: “America proudly welcomes millions of lawful immigrants who enrich our society and contribute to our nation. But all Americans are hurt by uncontrolled, illegal migration.”

This was the President’s first Oval Office Address to the nation. Compared to the debut of the Nancy and Chuck Show, the President can feel good that he has advanced the cause of securing the border while his opponents have further driven home how negative and lacking in solutions they are.

Clearly, on balance, it’s Trump 1, Pelosi-Schumer 0. Not a bad start on this new Congress.

Sign up for Newt’s free weekly newsletters here:

Fox News

Published  3 months ago

The result was not as lopsided as the Clemson annihilation of Alabama in the National Championship game Monday night, but the outcome of the first head-to-head television effort of the new Congress was decisive. President Trump clearly gained ground and Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer lost ground.

Part of President Trump’s advantage was structural. Presidents almost always do better than Congressional leaders in a nationally televised setting. The emotional power of the Oval Office and the authority of the presidency have given every president in my lifetime a huge advantage over their congressional opponents.

Smart congressional leaders never pick themselves to respond. Ideally, they pick someone who offsets the president’s strengths. On Tuesday night, a young Hispanic member of Congress or representatives from border states, speaking with intensity and sincerity would have been 100 times better than the Nancy and Chuck show.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM NEWT GINGRICH

To a degree no one could have anticipated, the two Democrats just looked bad. A friend of mine who consults on political media wrote me: “Trump should pay these guys to speak to the nation. They look like mummies risen from an ancient tomb. It’s like [an] SNL sketch.”

The self-destructive appearance of Pelosi and Schumer reminded me of “The Ev and Charlie Show” named for Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen and House Republican leader Charles Halleck. They tried to compete with President John F. Kennedy, who was a young charismatic master of television, and they ended up being ridiculed and becoming a symbol of ineffective old politics. Nancy and Chuck were building that reputation last night with their appearance.

President Trump had an advantage in simply having the clearer, better case. He used facts and references that built the argument for protecting our southern border as a matter of protecting Americans. The party that wants to protect Americans will almost always win against a party that wants to risk American lives for ideological and political objectives.

When the president asserted that, “In the last two years, ICE officers made 266,000 arrests of aliens with criminal records – including those charged or convicted of 100,000 assaults, 30,000 sex crimes and 4,000 violent killings,” he was being the commander-in-chief defending Americans from danger. The liberal media will do all it can to debunk and undermine this claim. However, every time an illegal immigrant kills or attacks an American, the public will move a step closer to President Trump.

The president’s claim that we need a physical barrier for our national security was also reinforced by professionals with years of experience on the border. When President Obama’s chief of U.S. Border Patrol, Mark Morgan, goes on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” to defend Trump, it is clear where the argument is heading. Consider what Morgan said:

MORGAN: The President is right, the President of [the] Border Patrol council is right, [and] the other day when they had the national press conference and they got up and they said the wall works, they’re [sic] right. And it’s not based on a personal political ideology. That’s based on historical data and facts that can be proven.

CARLSON: So why do you think people oppose it?

MORGAN: That, I think, is a political point that they are trying to make. I personally, in my experience and I was also with The FBI for 20 years, I was special agent in charge of the El Paso Division right on the border. Tucker, I cannot think of a legitimate argument why anyone would not support the wall as part of the multilayered border security.

When President Obama’s head of the Border Patrol says the argument Pelosi and Schumer are making is not legitimate and only serves a political point, the Democrats are walking on very thin ground. They could rapidly find themselves in quicksand as the party which is unwilling to protect Americans.

There is more law enforcement support for President Trump’s proposed control of the southern border. Yuma County Sheriff Leon Wilmot said that the fence and other security measures under the Secure Fence Act of 2006 dramatically impacted crime. “We were able to reduce [ancillary crimes] by 91 percent,” Wilmot told the Epoch Times. “The deaths in the desert, the rapes, the robberies, the homicides, the burglaries, the thefts.”

President Trump gained ground when he alluded to Senator Schumer’s vote in favor of the Secure Fence Act (which was also supported by Senators Clinton and Obama and has substantially reduced crime in Yuma, Arizona). Schumer can claim it was a different time and different circumstances, but it undermines his own hostility to a fence and makes it look like opposition to Trump rather than a principled position.

The president also helped his cause when he drew a strong distinction between legal migration and lawbreaking: “America proudly welcomes millions of lawful immigrants who enrich our society and contribute to our nation. But all Americans are hurt by uncontrolled, illegal migration.”

This was the president’s first Oval Office address to the nation. Compared to the debut of the Nancy and Chuck Show, the president can feel good that he has advanced the cause of securing the border while his opponents have further driven home how negative and lacking in solutions they are.

Clearly, on balance, it’s Trump 1, Pelosi-Schumer 0. Not a bad start on this new Congress.

National Review

Published  3 months ago

Representative Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat from Hawaii, published an op-ed in The Hill yesterday, implicitly criticizing two of her fellow Democratic congresswomen for subjecting a judicial nominee to a religious test as a result of his Catholic faith and his long-time membership in the Knights of Columbus.

Though she doesn’t mention them by name, Gabbard was referring to Democratic senators Kamala Harris (Calif.) and Mazie Hirono (Hawaii), both of whom have targeted federal judicial nominee Brian Buescher for his Catholicism, and the latter of whom has demanded that he drop his membership in the Knights and recuse himself from any case on which the organization has taken a position.

Gabbard does explicitly cite the controversial comments of Senator Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.), who in the fall of 2017 questioned circuit-court nominee Amy Coney Barrett about her Catholic faith during her confirmation hearing, saying, “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.” Feinstein’s remark received significant backlash from the right, and from Catholics in particular, who rightly noted the senator’s obvious implication that practicing Catholics are not suited to serve on U.S. courts as a result of their faith.

“While I oppose the nomination of Brian Buescher to the U.S. District Court in Nebraska, I stand strongly against those who are fomenting religious bigotry, citing as disqualifiers Buescher’s Catholicism and his affiliation with the Knights of Columbus,” Gabbard went on. More from her op-ed:

The party that worked so hard to convince people that Catholics and Knights of Columbus like Al Smith and John F. Kennedy could be both good Catholics and good public servants shows an alarming disregard of its own history in making such attacks today. We must call this out for what it is – religious bigotry. . . . Elected leaders engaging in religion-baiting are playing with fire.

Predictably, the Democratic congresswoman has come under fire from at least one progressive commentator for making this argument:

Tulsi Gabbard is accusing female senators of anti-Catholic bigotry for (rightly) questioning a judicial nominee's membership in an extreme right-wing anti-choice anti-LGBT all-male organization. Gabbard is not a progressive, she's a fraud. https://t.co/Be5uHYTxp2

— Jill Filipovic (@JillFilipovic) January 9, 2019

For his part, Washington Post reporter Dave Weigel explained the reaction to Gabbard’s op-ed this way: “Gabbard began her political career as a social conservative, has made amends, but her reaction to conservative media coverage of ‘anti-Catholic’ Dems is leaving a mark. This *really* gets under Dems’ skin. Many are Catholic themselves and are accused of religious bigotry if they ask conservative Catholic nominees about their on-record ideology.

Meanwhile, the Post’s Jennifer Rubin, whose Twitter bio describes her as a “conservative blogger,” blithely dismissed Gabbard’s concerns about religious tests, tweeting, “I cannot imagine a stupider issue that impacts no one’s real life. anywhere. ever.” Perhaps Rubin is unaware of the fact that the Knights boast nearly 2 million members, most of whom are American, and one of whom is Gabbard’s own father, according to Hawaii News Now.

And Rubin, along with Gabbard’s other critics, seems to care little for the reality that Democrats who buy into rhetoric such as that of Feinstein and Harris and Hirono are telling American Catholics that their religious beliefs disqualify them from public service.

Breitbart

Published  3 months ago

President Donald Trump will speak directly to the nation on Tuesday evening as a government shutdown enters its third week, and Democrats on Capitol Hill continue to refuse to fund border security and a border wall that Trump promised the American people.

Trump’s planned Oval Office address, which will be nationally televised on every major network and is expected to last approximately eight minutes, raises the stakes of this current political impasse to one of the biggest moments of Trump’s presidency.

The government shut down in late 2018, before Christmas, when Senate Democrats refused to back a House-passed government funding bill that would have provided more than $5 billion in funding for the wall. The House had passed the measure as one of its last acts at the end of eight years of GOP control of the lower chamber of Congress, but the Senate could not pass it because Senate Democrats lined up to prevent it from reaching the necessary 60-vote threshold.

The impasse led to a funding lapse, causing a partial government shutdown that has seen hundreds of thousands of federal workers furloughed and several departments and agencies of the federal government partially closed except for essential services.

The shutdown lingered through the Christmas and New Years holidays into 2019. Then, on Jan. 3, at the beginning of this year, the Democrats took over the House of Representatives with the majority they won in November’s midterm elections.

When Democrats took over, they passed funding measures without border wall money, but the White House – through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) – has threatened to veto those. The Senate, meanwhile, which remains under GOP control, has per Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to take up any legislation that the president will not support–and the president is standing by his demand for border wall funding.

Trump will take to the airwaves at 9:00 p.m. Eastern time on Tuesday evening, when he will make what White House officials say will be an approximately eight-minute-long address directly to the American people as the commander-in-chief, arguing that there is a national emergency and crisis that demands a solution including a wall or barrier along the U.S. border with Mexico.

Previously, support for a barrier along the border was not something that was controversial or partisan–Democrats backed, during the George W. Bush administration, the Secure Fence Act en masse. Democrats have also previously said they support securing the border, but many of them will not explain how they intend to do so without a barrier.

Trump’s crusade for a wall along the border began in the early days of his campaign for the White House, which he launched from Trump Tower in New York City in the summer of 2015. It became the central theme of his campaign for the presidency, and crowds at his rallies would chant “build the wall!” repeatedly in sold-out venues across the country.

In an Oval Office interview with Breitbart News at the beginning of his presidency, President Trump explained the importance of a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico in order to prevent drugs and crime from flowing freely across the barrier-less border, as they do now.

“We’re going to have a wall,” Trump told Breitbart News. “The wall is ahead of schedule. We’re going to have a wall and it will be a great wall and it will stop the drugs from pouring in and destroying our youth. And it will stop people from coming in that aren’t allowed to come in.”

Trump has maintained throughout his presidency his commitment to building the wall, and he has battled with Democrats hellbent on opposing it every step of the way. Three weeks into the shutdown, Trump now takes his most dramatic step in the push for the wall: an Oval Office address, televised directly to the American people.

The power of the backdrop of the Oval Office, when used effectively, has helped presidents in the modern era deliver major speeches, such as when Ronald Reagan soothed the nation after the Challenger crash or when John F. Kennedy delivered news of the Cuban Missile Crisis to the country.

The Oval Office is viewed as the power center of the world, as it is where U.S. presidents make decisions, and it is a physical representation of the office they hold. One of the key powers of a president is that of what is called the bully pulpit, something that allows a president through actions like this and other types of speeches and communications to draw attention to things the president wants the country and the world to focus on.

An Oval Office address is the most extreme and intensified version of the use of the bully pulpit power and aims at swaying public opinion in the president’s direction and rallying the nation together behind a unified cause.

Trump taking this drastic step also means he’s betting it all on the wall. To win, he has to come out the other end of a divided Washington with a border wall in tow–or having given an Oval Office address and then failing would mark a significant defeat for a president.

The president has said he is willing to drag this fight out for months or even years if necessary to get the border wall from the Democrats on Capitol Hill. The Democrats say they are not willing to give him the wall.

It is unclear where this battle goes from here, but the president is scheduled to tour the U.S. border with Mexico on Thursday–just two days after he delivers this historic address from the Oval Office.

Newsweek

Published  3 months ago

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has responded to more criticism of her suggested plan to implement a 60 to 70 percent tax on Americans with an income over $10 million a year in order to fund the New Green Deal.

House Minority Whip Steve Scalise was on the receiving end of her tweet, after Scalise shared a link from his account on Saturday morning.

"Republicans: Let Americans keep more of their own hard-earned money Democrats: Take away 70% of your income and give it to leftist fantasy programs," Scalise tweeted, including a link to an article from conservative blog Hot Air.

Ocasio-Cortez's response came 12 hours later, with the congresswoman writing, "You’re the GOP Minority Whip. How do you not know how marginal tax rates work?"

"Oh that’s right, almost forgot: GOP works for the corporate CEOs showering themselves in multi-million bonuses; not the actual working people whose wages + healthcare they’re ripping off for profit."

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez also took aim at GOP strategist Ed Rollins earlier on Saturday after Collins referred to her as a "little girl" during an appearance on the Fox Business Network.

"If you’re going to put her out front with her mouth ... the little girl who wants pre-Reagan economics of 70 percent taxes, the Democratic women are basically going to be damaged," Rollins said.

In response, Ocasio-Cortez said, "GOP loves to insult my intelligence, yet offers *this* as their best + most seasoned opposition to my policy proposals. If anything, this dude is a walking argument to tax misogyny at 100% Republicans rob everyone the opportunity of real policy debate by resorting to this."

While many have balked at the suggestion Ocasio-Cortez made during her interview with 60 Minutes, which is set to air Sunday, a 70 percent tax on wealthy Americans is not unheard of.

New York Times opinion columnist Paul Krugman outlined the previous policy in an article published Saturday. In the column, Krugman cites a post-World War II policy that taxed wealthy Americans at a rate between 73 and 80 percent.

"The controversy of the moment involves AOC’s advocacy of a tax rate of 70-80 percent on very high incomes, which is obviously crazy, right? I mean, who thinks that makes sense? Only ignorant people like … um, Peter Diamond, Nobel laureate in economics and arguably the world’s leading expert on public finance (although Republicans blocked him from an appointment to the Federal Reserve Board with claims that he was unqualified. Really.) And it’s a policy nobody has ever implemented, aside from … the United States, for 35 years after World War II — including the most successful period of economic growth in our history," Krugman wrote.

A similar article, published by Vox, cites a 90 percent rate for top-earners under President Dwight Eisenhower, and a 70 percent tax rate under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson.

Hot Air

Published  3 months ago

"Only radicals have changed this country."

American Greatness

Published  3 months ago

Post by @DownStreamPols.

Vox

Published  3 months ago

And why 2018 was a highly conspiratorial year.

Conservative Tribune

Published  3 months ago

The Knights of Columbus is anything but “extreme.” To even suggest the idea is ridiculous.  The KofC is a charitable organization that’s been around since the late 1800’s, boasting chapters in all 50 states and 12 countries around the globe.  Its current membership sits at roughly two million, and each year it generates somewhere near…

Fox News

Published  3 months ago

Following questions from multiple Democratic senators over the impartiality of Trump judicial nominee Brian Buescher and his ties to the Knights of Columbus, a charitable Catholic organization, Republicans and various religious leaders hit back Monday against “religious bigotry.”

Yahoo

Published  4 months ago

A plurality of Americans named Barack Obama the best president of their lifetimes.

In a survey by the Pew Research Center, 44% named Obama the best or second-best president of their lifetimes, followed by 33% who named Bill Clinton and 32% who named Ronald Reagan.

Respondents mentioned Donald Trump only 19% of the time, putting him in fourth place. Notably, that was roughly equivalent to Obama’s figure at a similar point in his presidency — in a similar survey in 2011, Obama was listed as the first or second choice by 20% of Americans.

In the survey, conducted from June 5 to 12, 2,002 adults were asked in an open-ended question, “Which president has done the best job during your lifetime?” They were asked to name both their first and second choices.

Both presidents Bush fell lower on the list. George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush were named the best or second-best by 14% and 10% of Americans, respectively.

Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman and Franklin Roosevelt are named by less than 5% of respondents.

In general, the age of respondents was highly correlated with their responses. A majority of millenials mentioned Obama at 62% — a higher number than any other generation. Reagan, on the other hand, was the most common answer among the Baby Boomer and Silent generations.

The comparatively higher popularity of recent presidents is likely due to changing demographics, since the question asked respondents for presidents during their lifetimes. For example, only about a tenth of adults named John F. Kennedy — but that number is around a quarter for those who were alive to see his presidency.

WSJ

Published  4 months ago

In more than one profile, Ms. Nauert’s prior role at Fox News is referred to as “talking head.” It’s an unfair and inadequate characterization of her full record in the profession.

There’s a certain irony in journalists leading a campaign to depict journalistic experience as deficient preparation for government work. This view of journalism as a dead-end job whose skills aren’t transferable to other professions isn’t at all accurate. It certainly didn’t deter Al Gore, who was a reporter for Nashville’s Tennessean; John F. Kennedy, who covered the creation of the U.N. for Hearst Newspapers; or Boris Johnson, a journalist for England’s Telegraph and Spectator who became mayor of London and foreign secretary. At least 24 journalists went to work in the Obama administration, by the Atlantic’s count.

It won’t even be the first time a former TV journalist goes to Turtle Bay. In 1973 President Nixon sent former ABC News correspondent John A. Scali to the U.N. after he had served for two years as a special consultant to the president for foreign affairs and communications.

Ms. Nauert’s two decades in journalism may help her understand the practical consequences of the U.N.’s many failures and rare successes. In 2009, as war raged, she spent weeks in Sudan, visiting refugee camps in Darfur and interviewing local leaders, including Ali Osman Taha, then a Sudanese vice president. She covered Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 from Jordan and Iraq. She reported on the first free elections in Iraq and on the subsequent U.S. rebuilding efforts in the region. She also extensively reported on the aftermath of 9/11 in New York and on Islamist terror groups in the Netherlands.

For the past two years, Ms. Nauert has worked in the upper echelons of the State Department. Week after week she’s stood before leading correspondents from international media outlets and articulated complex policies. She also has taken fact-finding trips to Bangladesh, Myanmar and Israel.

Over the past seven months she has served as the fourth-highest official at State and has traveled the globe with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. The list of her recent overseas destinations includes at least 20 countries on four continents. She participated in three separate trips to North Korea, high-level NATO meetings and the Group of 20 summit.

It’s no coincidence that the negative reaction to Ms. Nauert has mostly ignored the case of Samantha Power, who was American ambassador at the U.N. from August 2013 until President Trump came to office.

Like Ms. Nauert, Ms. Power started her career as a journalist. It would be hard to make the case that when Ms. Power was confirmed by the Senate she had any more diplomatic, negotiating, or policy-making experience than Ms. Nauert has today. While Ms. Power’s appointment did face opposition, it came in the form of objections to her stated policy prescriptions. The Senate nonetheless confirmed her nomination, 87-10.

Ms. Nauert deserves the same benefit of the doubt. She has shown herself to be a dedicated and articulate patriot. Senators who confirm her should expect to look back favorably at their decision once they see her at work at the U.N.

And if one small side effect of a positive Senate vote is that it expands the career horizons of journalists by demonstrating that their skills are both valuable and transferable—well, that will only be an added benefit to democracy.

Mr. Efune is editor in chief and CEO of the Algemeiner, a New York-based newspaper.

Appeared in the December 13, 2018, print edition.

Mail Online

Published  4 months ago

Ocasio-Cortez's heavily liberal district includes 214,750 active registered Democratic voters; fewer than 16,000 voted for her in the June primary that made her November win a foregone conclusion.

The Daily Signal

Published  4 months ago

“We will close the border permanently if need be,” President Donald Trump says.

Time

Published  5 months ago

And she isn’t going anywhere

Fox News

Published  5 months ago

The integrity of our elections is imperiled. We may be witnessing yet another in a series of stolen elections in Florida.

LifeZette

Published  5 months ago

The Florida recount travesty, in which supervisor Brenda Snipes is involved, has now spurred seven lawsuits so far

latimes.com

Published  5 months ago

President Trump, brooding over midterm losses and the Mueller probe, has cancelled a number of events that presidents normally attend, including a visit to Arlington National Cemetery. Behind the scenes, he has lashed out at aides, from low level press assistants to senior officials.

Washington Examiner

Published  5 months ago

Matt Rourke

Hillary Clinton will run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, according to a former adviser and a top Democrat in New York.

Mark Penn, a pollster and senior adviser to former President Bill Clinton and ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from 1995-2008, and Andrew Stein, a former Manhattan Democratic party figure and New York City Council president, wrote Sunday in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece that the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee would not let "two stunning defeats stand in the way of her claim to the White House."

"Mrs. Clinton has come unbound. She will not allow this humiliating loss at the hands of an amateur to end the story of her career," Penn and Stein wrote of President Trump, explaining how Clinton would re-package herself as a more liberal "Hillary Clinton 4.0." "You can expect her to run for president once again. Maybe not at first, when the legions of Senate Democrats make their announcements, but definitely by the time the primaries are in full swing."

"Mrs. Clinton has a 75% approval rating among Democrats, an unfinished mission to be the first female president, and a personal grievance against Mr. Trump, whose supporters pilloried her with chants of 'Lock her up!' This must be avenged," the pair continued.

Penn and Stein recommended basing a strategy for Clinton's do-over on former President Richard Nixon's second tilt at the White House in 1968 after losing to the late President John F. Kennedy in 1960. The duo also said potential Democratic presidential candidates were "bungling amateurs" in their handling of the Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanuagh's confirmation hearings.

"She will enter through the front door, mobilizing the army of professional women behind her, leveraging her social networks, and raking in donation. She will hope to emerge as an unstoppable force to undo Mr. Trump, running on the #MeToo movement, universal health care and gun control. Proud and independent, this time she will sideline Bill and Mr. Obama, limiting their role to fundraising," they wrote of Clinton.

Penn and Stein's op-ed follows Clinton herself vaguely hint she was considering another presidential run.

"Well I’d like to be president. I think, hopefully, when we have a Democrat in the Oval Office in January of 2021, there’s going to be so much work to be done," Clinton told Recode in October.

Penn has gained a reputation for being critical of Democrats and special counsel Robert Muller's federal Russia investigation, despite still considering himself a member of the party. He additionally has argued that Democratic voters largely lean toward the center of the political spectrum, rather than to the far-left.

“I haven’t flipped at all,” he told Politico in August. “I’m not in politics. If my goal was to please people in politics, it would have been easy as pie to go out there and get some talking points every day about why we should be impeaching the president. Those aren’t my values, and they aren’t how I got my job with the Clintons in the first place.”

TheHill

Published  5 months ago

Democrat Ayanna Pressley won an uncontested race to represent a deep-blue district in the Boston area, after defeating a veteran Congressman in her primary two months ago.

Pressley, the first woman of color ever elected to the Boston City Council, made national headlines when she toppled veteran Rep. Mike Capuano (D-Mass.) in the state’s primary race in September.

Her primary victory in Massachusetts's 7th District drew comparisons to Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old Latina and self-described democratic socialist who defeated Rep. Joe Crowley (D) in a New York primary that stunned the political world.

Pressley, 44, ran on a fiercely progressive platform, including rejecting corporate PAC money, abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and supporting Medicare for All.

She also made the argument that she was a better fit to represent the liberal district, which has grown increasingly diverse over the years and was once represented by former President John F. Kennedy.

Pressley has been involved in Boston politics for years, and served as a Hillary Clinton surrogate in the 2016 presidential election.

The Chicago-native openly talks about overcoming hardships, from suffering sexual assault to being raised by a single mother, who was a community activist and passed away from leukemia.

WSJ

Published  5 months ago

Riven by drugs, gangs, weak institutions and lawlessness, the region accounts 8% of the world’s population but a third of its murders. It’s the only region where lethal violence has grown steadily since 2000.

RickWells.US

Published  5 months ago

Obama lamented the state of political rhetoric in the U.S. at a rally in Wisconsin on Friday, saying politicians are “just blatantly, repeatedly, baldly, shamelessly lying.”..

Daily Caller: Former President Barack Obama lamented the state of political rhetoric in the U.S. at a rally in Wisconsin on Friday, saying politicians are “just blatantly, repeatedly, baldly, shamelessly lying.”

Obama traveled to Wisconsin to campaign for Democratic candidates including Sen. Tammy Baldwin, gubernatorial candidate Tony Evers and others. He accused Republicans of lying about healthcare, namely that GOP politicians would protect coverage of pre-existing conditions.

“Listen throughout human history, certainly throughout American history, politicians have exaggerated. They make promises that they may try to fulfill, but then it turns out to be harder than they expected,” he told the crowd assembled in Milwaukee. “They pump up the things that they did that are good.”

“They downplay the things that they did that aren’t so good. They try to put a positive spin on things,” he continued. “But what we have not seen before, in our recent public life, at least, is politicians just blatantly, repeatedly, baldly, shamelessly lying.” Obama spun news, evaded questions, contradicted himself and made false statements a number of times while he was in office.

In 2011, Obama claimed he “signed into law the biggest middle-class tax cut in history,” referring to the Making Work Pay provision in his stimulus package. Obama’s calculation for his claim was based on “dubious math,” according to The Washington Post. Former-presidents John F. Kennedy and George W. Bush signed larger tax cuts into law.

When campaigning for the Affordable Care Act, Obama claimed, “If you like your health-care plan, you can keep it.” After his bill passed, cancellation notices hit at least two million Americans’ mailboxes because of a short cutoff to bring existing plans in compliance with the new law, The Washington Post reported.

Terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, killing four Americans including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Obama and his administration downplayed the terrorist aspect of the attack in the immediate aftermath of the event, but the then-president later tried to spin his comments, saying, “the day after Benghazi happened, I acknowledged this was an act of terrorism.”

Obama referred vaguely to an “act of terror” immediately after the attack, but “over a period of two weeks, given three opportunities in interviews to affirmatively agree that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, the president obfuscated or ducked the question,” The Washington Post reports.

Please SUBSCRIBE in the right sidebar at RickWells.US to receive my posts directly by email, safely beyond the censorship of little comrade Zuckerberg. Thank you

dailycaller

Published  5 months ago

Former President Barack Obama lamented the state of political rhetoric in the U.S. at a rally in Wisconsin on Friday, saying politicians are “just blatantly, repeatedly, baldly, shamelessly lying.”

Obama traveled to Wisconsin to campaign for Democratic candidates including Sen. Tammy Baldwin, gubernatorial candidate Tony Evers and others. Obama accused Republicans of lying about healthcare, namely that GOP politicians would protect coverage of pre-existing conditions. (RELATED: Obama Prepares For The Campaign Trail, But Some Democrats Want Him To Back Off)

“Listen throughout human history, certainly throughout American history, politicians have exaggerated, they make promises that they may try to fulfill, but then it turns out to be harder than they expected,” Obama told the crowd assembled in Milwaukee. “They pump up the things that they did that are good.”

“They downplay the things that they did that aren’t so good. They try to put a positive spin on things,” Obama continued. “But what we have not seen before, in our recent public life, at least, is politicians just blatantly, repeatedly, baldly, shamelessly lying.”

Obama spun news, evaded questions, contradicted himself and made false statements a number of times while he was in office.

In 2011, Obama claimed he “signed into law the biggest middle-class tax cut in history,” referring to the Making Work Pay provision in his stimulus package.

Obama’s calculation for his claim was based on “dubious math,” according to The Washington Post. Former-presidents John F. Kennedy and George W. Bush signed larger tax cuts into law.

When campaigning for the Affordable Care Act, Obama claimed, “If you like your health-care plan, you can keep it.”

After his bill passed, cancellation notices hit at least two million Americans’ mailboxes because of a short cutoff to bring existing plans in compliance with the new law, The Washington Post reported.

Terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, killing four Americans including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Obama and his administration downplayed the terrorist aspect of the attack in the immediate aftermath of the event, but the then-president later tried to spin his comments, saying, “the day after Benghazi happened, I acknowledged this was an act of terrorism.”

Obama referred vaguely to an “act of terror” immediately after the attack, but “over a period of two weeks, given three opportunities in interviews to affirmatively agree that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, the president obfuscated or ducked the question,” The Washington Post reports.

Breitbart

Published  5 months ago

Americans should welcome the migrants in the Honduran caravan because they will make the federal government more powerful, Democratic Rep. Joe Kennedy demands in an article for Time Magazine.

Kennedy writes:

Today thousands more families fleeing unspeakable violence at home are marching towards our southern border. And all this government has summoned to meet them is cruel words, course threats and the specter of more innocent children forced to watch their parents dragged away.

This is the human wreckage of American immigration policy. This is the trauma and torture that dark forces of nativism, supremacy, and prejudice have brought to bear in a land that staked its name on brighter, better things: equality, dignity and freedom.

Rep. Joe Kennedy is being groomed by Democrats for a future White House run, and he tries to blame President Donald Trump for the migration, even though the poor Honduran migrants are exploiting border loopholes created by Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Ads by Revcontent

“We should not worry when the striving and suffering arrive on our shores; we should worry when they stop coming at all,” he writes in the article which is also intended to tout his Kennedy brand by advertising the re-re-release of President John Kennedy’s 1964 book, “A Nation of Immigrants.”

President Kennedy argued that 1960s Americans were just not having enough kids to meet the federal government’s demand for greater economic, military and political power, according to Joe Kennedy. So President Kennedy junked Americans’ history — the pilgrims, colonists, settlers and their prosperous, self-reliant children — to help portray America merely as a “Nation of Immigrants” who work to make the State more powerful.

Joe Kennedy writes:

Few felt it as deeply as President John F. Kennedy. In his 1964 book A Nation of Immigrants, recently re-released, my great-uncle outlines the compelling case for immigration, in economic, moral, and global terms. “The abundant resources of this land provided the foundation for a great nation,” he writes. “But only people could make the opportunity a reality. Immigration provided the human resources.”

This “More Migrants!” demand of the dead President and the live Democrat treat the preferences of actual Americans as entirely subordinate to the ambitious State’s desire for more “human resources.”

President Kennedy’s plan was implemented in 1965 by his brother, Sen. Ted Kennedy, and the result is that one in five people in America are either immigrants or the children of immigrants.

In turn, this vast immigration allowed the Kennedys and their bipartisan allies to impose divide-and-rule diversity on Americans’ once-cohesive culture and politics, to shift a huge percentage of Americans’ wages towards wealthy real-estate owners and Wall Street investors, and to expand the power and reach of the federal government.

Joe Kennedy is now trying to discard President Trump’s popular American-first policies which shift power and wages back towards Americans and their children,

Joe Kennedy uses his Time article to urge his progressive and business allies to import more ill-educated Honduran laborers and consumers, whatever the impact on Americans’ ability to win good jobs, buy homes, afford children, and heal their widening political divisions.

Joe Kennedy writes:

We find our voices — like the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have risen up in response to the current immigration policies and said: No. Not on my land. Not in my name.

Unfortunately for Joe Kennedy, America is a still nation of almost 300 million Americans. So his few supporters – “Hundreds of thousands of Americans” — are not a mandate for the Kennedy clan to continue converting Americans’ homeland into a Nation of Human Resources.

Overall, the Washington-imposed economic policy of economic growth via immigration shifts wealth from young people towards older people by flooding the market with cheap white-collar and blue-collar foreign labor.

Conservative Fighters

Published  5 months ago

Laura Ingraham is sounding the alarm for the GOP to fix voter fraud or else risk losing the 2020 election at their own peril.

In an op-ed for Fox News, Ingraham began by recalling the John F. Kennedy victory over Nixon, where voter fraud in Illinois and Texas is believed to have been what propelled the young Democrat to victory in 1960.

“We may be witnessing yet another in a series of stolen elections in Florida,” she began. “Democrats are experts at pulling swifties at the ballot box, you know, it is widely believed that they resorted to voter fraud in Illinois and Texas to tilt the election of John F. Kennedy over Nixon in 1960. And they may be up to their old tricks again.”

Since last week’s mid-term election, all eyes have been focused on Broward County in Florida, where County Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes has been exposed as a woman of either gross incompetence or shrewd machinations. Finding ballots in the trunks of people’s cars, lack of transparency with officials on the ballot counting process, and mixing illegal provisional ballots in with legal ones are just a few of the allegations leveled against her. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has even called for Snipes to step down.

Ingraham rightly noted that Republicans who raised the issue of voter fraud in Florida were roundly dismissed by the media, with both The New York Times and Chris Cuomo of CNN asserting that no proof exists of voter fraud. She provides some helpful facts:

Things are so bad in Palm Beach that Governor Rick Scott, who is in a tight Senate race there, sued the county election supervisor, Susan Bucher.

The judge determined that she had illegally withheld over voted and under voted ballots from the canvassing board. And worse, she has refused to allow public scrutiny of the ballots.​

And the governor has also sued Broward County election supervisor — something of, kind of her own rock star, these days, Brenda Snipes. Now, Snipes is a piece of work. Her predecessor literally walked out of her office in 2003 for a grave and neglect mismanagement and incompetence. Practically a tradition down there in Broward. And in May, a judge found Brenda Snipes guilty of illegally destroying ballots during a primary election in 2016. Then in August, a court found her guilty of secretly opening mail-in ballots, which is illegal in her state.

Then on Friday, Governor Scott won his lawsuit against Snipes. The court found that in this election, she continued to “discover” new ballots. She was found in violation of the state’s public records law and has been ordered to release information to Governor Scott. So far, she hasn’t complied with the order.

Ingraham concluded her piece by warning the GOP that they have to take voter fraud seriously or risk losing the 2020 election, which could come down to close calls in key swing states.

“We cannot allow this flouting of the rules and procedures by corrupt officials or political hacks,” Ingraham asserted. “We can’t let it stand. If we allow this to go unchecked, it will undermine our democracy, and like a contagion, it’s going to spread across the nation.”

“If this isn’t cleaned up, I’m telling you, the GOP can kiss any hopes of restoring their majority, let alone a presidential victory, well, they can kiss it bye-bye in 2020,” she concluded.

Breitbart

Published  6 months ago

First Man tanked at the box office, coming in well below expectations, with just a $16.2 million opening weekend.

Texas Monthly

Published  6 months ago

Sue Ogrocki/AP

On Wednesday night in Conroe, Ted Cruz was the featured speaker at a political rally for President Donald Trump. At least that’s how it must have seemed to a political innocent accidentally wandering into the 22,000-square-foot ballroom of the Lone Star Convention and Expo Center, which was packed wall-to-wall with thousands of the MAGA-cap-wearing, American-flag-bedecked Trump faithful.

In reality, of course, this was a rally for Cruz’s campaign to be reelected to the U.S. Senate. Cruz had come to Conroe, the sprawling exurb an hour’s drive north of Houston, at the end of a long day of barnstorming the state in the company of one Donald Trump Jr. and his girlfriend, former Fox News host Kimberly Guilfoyle. But beginning with the event’s first speaker, Congressman Kevin Brady, the rally’s focus was squarely on the commander-in-chief.

“We know he’s fighting for us, and we know he’s fighting for the working man!” Brady said of POTUS. As chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Brady worked closely with Trump to pass the 2017 tax cut, and regaled the Montgomery County audience with stories of 3 a.m. calls from the White House to discuss the ways and means of getting the bill to the president’s desk. “After an hour, I had to tell him, Mr. President, you need to sleep!”

Next up was Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, who at least had the decency to take a short break from praising Trump to assail the ethnic heritage of Cruz’s opponent, Democratic Congressman Beto O’Rourke. “Are we going to let Beto O’Rourke, that Irishman, win this election?” he asked the already-booing crowd. Attacking O’Rourke’s name was something of a leitmotif of the event. State senator Brandon Creighton, who served as emcee, kicked things off by asking if there was a Francis O’Rourke in the building. “Because that’s his real name!”

But Brady and Patrick (who was born Dannie Scott Goeb) were just the warm-up acts for the true stars of the show, GOP super-couple Trump Jr. and Guilfoyle. (GuilTrump? TruFoyle?) Guilfoyle came out guns blazing: “We’re here to make sure you don’t put a Beto male in the U.S. Senate!” she declared to delirious applause. “Let me tell you, from a real Hispanic, that Texas deserves better than what Beto O’Rourke is selling. Texas deserves Ted Cruz.”

Don Jr. introduced himself to the crowd by saying how odd it felt to be wearing a suit in a state that he usually visited for the sole purpose of hunting deer. But this self-described “Fifth Avenue redneck” had different prey in mind on this trip, namely, the “elephant in the room”: the nasty 2016 primary contest between Cruz and his father, during which Cruz called Trump a “pathological liar” and Trump suggested that Cruz’s father may have played a role in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Don Jr. told the crowd that he and the Texas senator patched things up after the election when they were seated at the same table for a fancy dinner, at the conclusion of which they repaired to a nearby bar, emerging the best of friends. Having delivered this testimonial to Cruz’s good sportsmanship, Trump fils proceeded to spend the rest of his speech extolling the achievements of his beloved father, from record unemployment to cutting regulations to pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal.

“You better show up [at the polls],” Don Jr. admonished the crowd. “For all of the accomplishments that are being checked off, there’s a lot left. We need guys like Ted Cruz. You can’t just be excited for Donald Trump, because he can’t do it alone. He can’t do it without these guys, and they can’t do it without you.”

Finally, the man without whom Trump could not do it took the stage. “These are crazy, crazy times,” said an almost wistful Cruz. “By the way, if anyone would like advice on a nice, romantic restaurant, Heidi and I have an idea”—a reference to the senator and his wife being chased out of a D.C. restaurant by protesters last month. Cruz then launched into his stump speech, filled with the usual bromides about cutting taxes, securing the border, repealing every word of Obamacare, protecting the Second Amendment, and, perhaps most important, confirming Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court as soon as humanly possible.

Cruz ended his speech with good news and bad news. The good news: His own campaign had raised an astonishing $12 million in the third quarter of 2018—the most ever raised in a single quarter by a Texas senatorial candidate. The audience cheered. Then Cruz followed with the bad news: his opponent was out-raising him three to one thanks to angry, far-left donors “filled with hate for President Trump.”

O’Rourke, he estimated, had raised $30 million.

Sign up for the Armadillo

Weekly dispatches from the middle of the road of Texas politics.

Diamond & Silk

Published  7 months ago

Academy Award-winning actor Jon Voight didn’t mince words while talking to Mark Levin on his show on Sunday night.

Voight, a big supporter of President Donald Trump, chastised the left for the way they attacked Trump, “conjuring lies and slander,” seeking to deflect from the successes and great things that the president has done.

From Fox News Insider:

“The virulence is because he’s effective,” Voight said. “He’s actually doing what said he would do. Amazing thing in itself, isn’t it?” Voight said on “Life, Liberty & Levin” Sunday.

He said Trump’s numerous successes have sent the leftist media into a state of “disarray,” and all they can do is attack the president and his administration.

“This is their dying breath. They have to stop him somehow. So you see these very extraordinary things they come up with, that’s what they do,” Voight said.

“Conjuring lies and slanders against this man trying to destroy this presidency. It’s that simple.”

He also spoke about how he walked away from the Democratic party because like Reagan, “the party left him,” he didn’t leave the party. And he noted that the effort to move the country left was an organized effort, seemingly touching on the effort in this century to push a far left agenda, a Democratic party that the Democrats of John F. Kennedy’s time wouldn’t recognize.

.@jonvoight: "When you look at…John Kennedy's inaugural address— his inaugural address would be deemed today by the people who are in Hollywood and my friends in Hollywood and the people over the country who are on the left, as some radical nut from the Republican Party." pic.twitter.com/HyQKRXjRjC

— Fox News (@FoxNews) September 10, 2018

Voight noted how the left was very organized and focused on Hollywood and universities to spread their message. “So we have a very big job on our hands.”

But he said there was still cause to hope because the conservatives have such talented people and Democrats are bereft of statesmen.

And he told the very touching story of a woman, another conservative in Hollywood whom he did not name who held her hand to her heart because she was so happy Trump was there in the White House to deal with it all.

From the Washington Times:

He got choked up as he imitated the woman.

“That’s me crying,” he clarified. “The gesture was so beautiful, she couldn’t even speak. She was just saying, ‘Thank God.’ And I say, ‘Thank God.’”

Is he worried about being attacked by his friends in Hollywood? Not in the slightest.

.@jonvoight: "I know that we have to keep focus and keep battling for what is true. And things will change, because the truth will prevail." pic.twitter.com/7fYL6LYT7B

— Fox News (@FoxNews) September 10, 2018

Chicks On The Right — Young Conservatives

Published  7 months ago

Academy Award-winning actor Jon Voight didn’t mince words while talking […]

Daily Wire

Published  7 months ago

On Thursday evening, Ryan Gosling made international news when he justified the fact that the new Damien Chazelle biopic of Neil Armstrong will skip the whole planting the American flag on the moon thing. Gosling, a Canadian, explained, “I think this was widely regarded in the end as a human achievement [and] that's how we chose to view it.”

Now, the real reason that the film won’t include the planting of the American flag is that the distributors obviously fear that Chinese censors will be angry, and that foreign audiences will scorn the film. But it’s telling that the Left seems to attribute every universal sin to America, and every specific victory to humanity as a whole. Slavery: uniquely American. Racism: uniquely American. Sexism: uniquely American. Homophobia: uniquely American. Putting a man on the moon: an achievement of humanity.

All of this is in keeping with a general perspective that sees America as a nefarious force in the world. This is Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States view: that America’s birth represented the creation of a terrible totalitarian regime, but that Maoist China is the “closest thing, in the long history of that ancient country, to a people’s government, independent of outside control”; that Castro’s Cuba had “no bloody record of suppression,” but that the U.S. responded to the “horrors perpetrated by the terrorists against innocent people in New York by killing other innocent people in Afghanistan.”

In reality, however, America remains the single greatest force for human freedom and progress in the history of the world. And landing a man on the moon was part of that uniquely American legacy. President John F. Kennedy announced his mission to go to the moon in 1961; in 1962, he gave a famous speech at Rice University in which he announced the purpose of the moon landing:

Diana, Princess of Wales, her companion Dodi Fayed and driver Henri Paul die in a car crash in Paris.

Edvard Munch's famous painting The Scream, stolen on August 22, 2004, is recovered in a raid by Norwegian police.

For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding. Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's leading space-faring nation. We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war.

The moon landing was always nationalist. It was nationalism in service of humanity. But that’s been America’s role in the world for generations. Removing the American flag from an American mission demonstrates the anti-American animus of Hollywood, if we’re to take their values-laden protestations seriously.

NBC News

Published  7 months ago

President Barack Obama will not attend Nancy Reagan's funeral on Friday, opting instead to speak at a festival in Austin, Texas.

South by Southwest — an annual music, tech, and film gathering — announced last week that Obama would be the keynote speaker on March 11, and that Michelle Obama was scheduled to speak on March 16. It's the first time in the festival's 30-year history that a sitting president and first lady have participated.

Michelle Obama will be at the former first lady's funeral, which will be held at the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California. But White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest confirmed Tuesday that President Obama won't be there.

"The president will not attend," he said at the daily White House briefing. "The president is traveling in Texas."

Reagan, 94, died Saturday of congestive heart failure. She will be buried beside her husband, former President Ronald Reagan.

Related: Condolences Pour in for 'Tower of Strength' First Lady

This isn't the first notable funeral in recent weeks that Obama has missed: Last month, Obama skipped Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's funeral, choosing to paying his respects the day before while Scalia's body lay in repose. Vice President Joe Biden was at the funeral itself.

In a statement after her death, the Obamas said they were "grateful" for Nancy Reagan's life.

"Nancy Reagan once wrote that nothing could prepare you for living in the White House. She was right, of course. But we had a head start, because we were fortunate to benefit from her proud example, and her warm and generous advice," they said.

Presidents do not always attend former first ladies' funerals, although current and former first ladies usually do. When Betty Ford died in 2011, neither Obama nor former President Bill Clinton went to her funeral. Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton and former first lady Rosalynn Carter did; former President George W. Bush was also there, accompanied by Nancy Reagan.

And sitting presidents have only attended the funeral services of a former first lady a handful of times. The last time was when then-President John F. Kennedy attended the funeral of Eleanor Roosevelt in 1962.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  8 months ago

Antifa activists counter-protesting the so-called ‘Unite the Right 2’ rally across from the White House in Washington, D.C. on Sunday spoke on camera to Daily Caller reporter Benny Johnson, bluntly stating they want to murder President Donald Trump. Johnson posted the video to Twitter with captions. “Here was my question to the progressive protesters (I […]

PaulCraigRoberts.org

Published  9 months ago

Russiagate Is Constructed of Pure Bullshit, No Facts

Paul Craig Roberts

All day today the presstitute scum at NPR went on and on about President Trump, using every kind of guest and issue to set him up for more criticism as an unfit occupant of the Oval Office, because, and only because, he threatens the massive budget of the military/security complex by attempting to normalize relations with Russia. The NPR scum even got an ambassador from Montenegro on the telephone and made every effort to goad the ambassador into denouncing Trump for saying that Montenegro had strong and aggressive people capable of defending themselves and were not in need of sending the sons of American families to defend them. Somehow this respectful compliment about the Monenegro people was supposed to be an insult. The ambassador refused to be put into opposition to Trump. NPR kept trying, but got nowhere.

As a former Wall Street Journal editor I can say with complete confidence that NPR crossed every line between journalism and advocacy and no longer qualifies as a 501c3 tax-exempt public foundation.

The NPR assault on President Trump was part of an orchestration. The same story appeared in the Washington Post, long-believed to be a CIA asset. Most likely, it has appeared throughout the presstitute media. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/07/19/after-being-called-aggressive-by-trump-montenegro-insists-its-a-friend-to-america/?utm_term=.b1d275cccd8e

The ability of the military/security complex to control the explanations given to Americans, about which President Eisenhower warned Americans in 1961 to no effect, has produced an American population, a large percentage of which is brainwashed.

For example, in Caitlin Johnstone’s column, linked below, Kurt Eichenwald, who, in my opinion, is either a brainwashed idiot or a Deep State troll, says that the bottom line is that you either believe “our intelligence community,” which most definitely did not conclude what Eichenwald says they have concluded, “or you support Putin. You are either a patriot, a traitor or an idiot.”

Note that Eichenwald defines a patriot, as do the Democrats, many Republicans, the entirely of the US print and TV media and NPR, as a person who believes the self-serving lies issuing from the military/security complex in support of the $1,000 billion dollars annually taken from unmet US taxpayer needs to put in the pockets of the mega-rich for “defending” American from an orchestrated, but otherwise nonexistent, threat. If you don’t support this theft from the American people, you are, according to Eichenwald, “a traitor or an idiot.”

Caitlin Johnstone tells us how utterly stupid Americans are to fall for the line that it is treason to seek peaceful relations with a nuclear power that can destroy us. This means that presidents John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan were treasonous. This is the official position of the American presstitute media, the Democratic Party, and the military/security complex. It is also the position of a fake entity that misrepresents itself as “the American left.”

This utterly absurd position that to pursue peace is to commit treason is precisely the position that the corrupt American print and TV media and NPR represent. It is the position of the Democratic Party. It is the position of the Republicans in Congress, such as the warmongers John McCain and Lindsey Graham who are owned by the military/security complex.

Every American who believes the line that reducing tensions with Russia is treasonous is preparing nuclear Armageddon for themselves, their friends and families, and for the entire world.

Caitlin tells it to you like it is: https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/russiagate-is-like-9-11-except-its-made-of-pure-narrative-ab96fa38ee48

mcclatchydc

Published  9 months ago

A new poll found that a plurality of Americans say President Barack Obama was the first or second best president of their lifetime.

Thirty-one percent of Americans lauded Obama as the best president ever, according to the Pew Research Center, while another 13 percent said he was the second-best.

Just over 2,000 people were polled for this survey and asked to choose the two presidents they think have done the best job during their lifetime. Respondents were asked to give one president first place, the survey says, and another president second place for job performance.

President Donald Trump, who got 19 percent during his second year as president in this poll, is about as popular as Obama was during the middle of his first presidential term. Twenty percent of people said Obama was either the first or second-best president during his third year.

There is also a generational divide in how much support a president receives.

No generation supports a president as strongly as millennials do Obama, according to the poll. Sixty-two percent of people in that generation — described as those aged from 22 to 37 — named our nation's first black president as one of the best they've seen.

That makes him the only president to receive a majority of votes from a generation in this new poll.

Trump, however, had just 19 percent of the youngest generation name him as the first- or second-best president. Millennials are the only generation to give President George W. Bush a higher approval rating than Trump, although Bush narrowly eked him out with 20 percent of people naming him as one of the best presidents in their lifetime.

Among those aged 38 to 53 — called Gen X — 41 percent described Obama as one of the greatest presidents of our age, while 15 percent said the same for Trump.

But President Ronald Reagan beat out Obama in that age group with 45 percent, and Clinton was a close third with 39 percent.

Thirty-two percent of Baby Boomers, or those between 54 and 72, said Obama was one of the best presidents they've lived to see. Trump received 21 percent of votes from that generation, just behind Clinton with 25 percent.

Reagan was first among Baby Boomers with 42 percent.

Obama and Trump are nearly tied when it comes to how those aged 73 to 90 view the pair of presidents. Obama, at 24 percent, narrowly edges out Trump, who got 19 percent of votes from people in the Silent Generation. Reagan again was the most popular in this generation with 38 percent of the vote.

President John F. Kennedy came in second among that oldest generation with 25 percent.

USA TODAY

Published  9 months ago

President Obama has topped predecessor George W. Bush in another poll, but not one he would like.

In a new Quinnipiac University Poll, 33% named Obama the worst president since World War II, and 28% put Bush at the bottom of post-war presidents.

"Over the span of 69 years of American history and 12 presidencies, President Barack Obama finds himself with President George W. Bush at the bottom of the popularity barrel," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

Of course, Obama and Bush are the most recent presidents; historians will tell you that it takes decades to truly measure an individual president's performance.

Ronald Reagan topped the poll as the best president since World War II, with 35%. He is followed by presidents Bill Clinton (18%) and John F. Kennedy (15%).

Obama received only 8% in the best presidents poll.

The Quinnipiac poll also reports that 45% believe the nation would be better off had Mitt Romney defeated Obama in the 2012 presidential election; 38% say the country would be worse off with a Romney presidency.

Mail Online

Published  10 months ago

For the first time in its 66-year history a journalist penetrated security to go undercover at the hotel where the secretive Bilberberg conference was held in Turin, Italy.

NaturalNews.com

Published  10 months ago

Robert Kennedy, Jr. is right about vaccines: A medically induced 'holocaust' is now upon us

Mediaite

Published  3 years ago

Conservative radio talk show host Mark Levin had a strong reaction to the strong reaction among President Donald Trump‘s critics over his remarks he made at the Helsinki summit.

After Sean Hannity repeated his assertion that the past 24 hours was the “single worst” in the history of the mainstream media, Levin responded by sharing something he learned.

“What we’ve learned about the media- several of the hosts and guests is we have a lot of psychopaths out there, that’s for sure,” Levin told Hannity. “Comparing the president’s conference with Putin to Pearl Harbor, 9/11 Kristallnacht, the beginning of the Holocaust, calling him a traitor and treasonous. You know, two weeks ago, they said he was running Japanese internment camps and Nazi concentration camps. This is the pseudo-media. And now comes to Russia. Now the liberals, the media, the Democrats, some Republicans- very upset about Russia. You know, they’ve had more positions on Russia than Stormy Daniels as far as I’m concerned.”

Levin then gave a history lesson, pointing to FDR who “repeatedly praised Stalin” in 1945 as well as John F. Kennedy, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter for their mishandling of the Soviet Union, dismissing the “hysteria” that has erupted from Monday’s press conference.

“If, in fact, Donald Trump had turned to Putin after a 2-hour private meeting, after setting up this summit, and all of a sudden in public turns to Putin and says, ‘Look you little bastard, we know you interfered in our election,” they would be attacking Trump today,” Levin asserted.

He went on to blast President Barack Obama for his inaction on Russia and compared that to the Trump administration’s various actions.

Watch the clip above, via Fox News.

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

->