Thanksgiving for Dummies…Sorry, I Mean College Professors | Source: AP Photo/Steven Senne
As every contemporary school child knows, the first Thanksgiving took place in 1621, when our Pilgrim forefathers took a break from slaughtering Indigenous Peoples to invite them to dinner and infect them with smallpox, before embarking on their mission to fry the planet so that the world would end on Jan. 22, 2031. (Copyright: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez)
Consider this description of the Pilgrims’ treatment of the Indigenous Peoples:
“They were the worst of conquerors. Inordinate pride, the lust of blood and dominion, were the mainsprings of their warfare; and their victories were strained with every excess of savage passion.”
You’ve probably guessed — unless you are an American college student — that that’s not a description of the Pilgrims’ treatment of Indigenous Peoples at all. It is a description of some Indigenous Peoples’ treatment of other Indigenous Peoples, provided by Francis Parkman, the world’s foremost Indian scholar.
It was Indians, not Pilgrims, who let out the “Mohawk war-cry” that made the blood run cold.
This is why the Wampanoag had a lot to celebrate that first Thanksgiving. They were delighted to have such excellent (European) allies against the terroristic Iroquois and Narragansett.
The Pilgrims also had much to be thankful for. Of more than 100 passengers aboard the Mayflower, only 44 survived the first winter, felled by scurvy, malnutrition and the bitter cold. Even the ones who made it did so largely thanks to the friendly Wampanoag, who shared their food with the Europeans and taught them how to till the land.
The Puritans, who came soon thereafter, so loved their Indian compatriots that the great missionary John Eliot translated sermons for the Algonquians in their own language. Indeed, the very first Bible printed in the Western Hemisphere was Eliot’s Massachusett-language Bible, published in 1663, titled “Mamusse Wunneetupanatamwe Up-Biblum God.”
(For those interested in Coulter arcana, Eliot was an assistant of Rev. Thomas Hooker, the same Puritan minister that my ancestors followed to the New World.)
The warm relations between Pilgrims and the (mostly) gentle Algonquins doesn’t fit the White Man Bad thesis that is the entire point of all history taught in America today. In fact, as any sane, reasonable person can probably surmise: Some white men were kind, and some were cruel. Some Indians were neighborly — and some were bloodthirsty killers.
Parkman describes a typical Iroquois celebration that would cap off a war raid on their fellow Indigenous Peoples:
“The village was alive with sudden commotion, and snatching sticks and stones, knives and hatchets, men, women and children, yelling like fiends let loose, swarmed out of the narrow portal, to visit upon the captives a foretaste of the deadlier torments in store for them …. [W]ith brandished torch and firebrand, the frenzied multitude closed around their victim. The pen shrinks to write, the heart sickens to conceive, the fierceness of [the captive’s] agony … The work was done, the blackened trunk was flung to the dogs, and, with clamorous shouts and hootings, the murderers sought to drive away the spirit of their victim.”
The Iroquois, he writes, “reckoned these barbarities among their most exquisite enjoyments.”
[ASIDE: Compare Parkman’s thrilling passage to droning cliches like, “While America’s indigenous population at large is underrepresented in politics and popular culture, Native women are even more marginalized” (a current Harvard offering), and you’ll understand why the kids don’t like to read anymore.]
And here’s an Iroquois practice that university professors might want to steal and ascribe to the White Man — don’t worry, your students aren’t bright enough to figure out that you’re lying to them.
After killing “a sufficient number of captives,” Parkman says, the Iroquois “spared the lives of the remainder, and adopted them as members of their confederated tribes, separating wives from husbands, and children from parents, and distributing them among different villages, in order that old ties and associations might be more completely broken up.” JUST LIKE TRUMP!!!
Here’s one for the Womyn’s Studies Department: Having completely conquered the Lenape, the Iroquois humiliated the survivors by making them take women’s names.
Before the first European stepped off Mayflower, the Iroquois’ genocidal wars against their fellow Indians had already depopulated large parts of New England. Their murderous raids had scattered the farming tribes in all directions, often to their demise. “Northern New Hampshire, the whole of Vermont and Western Massachusetts had no human tenants but the roving hunter or prowling warrior,” Parkman writes.
The irony of the moron’s version of Thanksgiving is that the brave and honorable attributes of the American Indian are drained from all the PC stories. In the made-up history, Indians are only pathetic.
By contrast, the true story told by Parkman shows both the savagery and superstition, but also the courage and honor. Thus, for example, the Hurons “held it disgraceful to turn from the face of an enemy when the fortunes of the fight were adverse.” As the Indian captive of the Iroquois was being tortured alive, Parkman reports, he raises his voice in “scorn and defiance.” How’s that for machismo?
That’s the reason we name our sports teams and military armaments after Indians. It’s a tribute to their honor, intelligence and bravery. It’s why Americans love to boast of having Indian blood — even when it’s not true (and not only in order to land a professorship at Harvard).
But that’s not the image the left wants for Indians. Oh, no. They want to re-brand Indians as loser victims, in need of liberals’ tender ministrations.
Real Americans honor Indians and also honor the courageous Pilgrim settlers who brought Christian civilization to a continent, a miraculous union that we celebrate on this wonderful holiday. Happy Thanksgiving!
He’s a One-Man Ukrainian Lobby! | Source: AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta
I have a confession. I behaved badly recently, and I’m just going to admit it.
As a guest at a dinner party in Georgetown, I stormed in and started bossing everyone around. First, I demanded that the foyer be painted a different color and wainscoting be added to the dining room. Then I had my hosts assemble their children so I could give them all different names. Before making my exit, I grabbed two legs of turkey off the entrée platter and stuffed them in my purse.
I have a second confession. None of that happened. But if it had, I would be exactly like Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman.
He was born in Ukraine and raised there until age 3 1/2, when he was invited to our country. As you’ve no doubt heard, he served in our military. Thank you for your service, Colonel! Now he is the top Ukrainian adviser on the National Security Council. Of all the people who could look out for the U.S.’s interests vis-a-vis Ukraine, we got someone who was born there.
As such, Vindman was permitted to listen to a phone call the president of the United States made to the president of Ukraine — a completely unnecessary, pro forma task. So, naturally, when he had a policy disagreement with President Trump pertaining to the country he was born in, he thought he had a responsibility to agitate for removal proceedings against the duly elected U.S. president, just as I might have taken issue with the carpets in the Georgetown townhouse.
For some reason, we keep hearing about Col. Vindman’s valor and patriotism. I don’t doubt that he’s a super swell guy. But unless I missed it in the newspapers at the time, I don’t believe he was elected president in 2016. In fact, there’s a specific constitutional provision that prevents Col. Vindman from ever being president: He wasn’t born here.
Study question: Why might the framers have added that clause?
It would be bad enough if Col. Vindman’s policy disagreement with the president had to do with U.S. policy on Mexico or North Korea. But it was about the country where Col. Vindman was born.
We’re always told that Democrats don’t have to prove wrongdoing by Trump — for example, under the emoluments clause, in his foreign policy negotiations or when he fired his FBI director. Rather, it’s claimed that Trump’s conduct creates the appearance of impropriety.
Well, having a Ukrainian-born analyst butt in to ensure U.S. foreign aid flows effortlessly to the country of his birth gives the appearance that he’s concerned about fairness to Ukraine. That’s not what this is supposed to be about. It’s supposed to be about what’s in the best interests of the United States. Worse, Vindman was dealing with the U.S.’s Ukrainian policy versus Russia, which Ukrainians hate because Stalin murdered millions of them. It’s like having an Armenian advise on whether we should be hostile to Turkey.
This is not the usual dual loyalty claim insultingly attributed to Irish or Jewish Americans who were born in this country. Lots of us have admixtures of other nationalities.
But when you were actually born in another country and that’s the precise policy matter you’re sticking your nose into, people are going to wonder if it’s really our national interests you’re looking out for.
Proposed Constitutional Amendment No. 1: Immigrants are required to wait a minimum of two (2) generations before bossing around the most successful, prosperous, free country on Earth, and fully three (3) generations before advising on our government’s policy toward the countries of their forefathers.
We also need a constitutional amendment directed at 10th-generation Americans who fancy themselves foreign policy experts. Foreign policy is the idiot’s shortcut to imagined erudition, the last refuge of the insufferable.
Sen. Lindsey Graham was on TV last week, bragging about how he’d been to Syria — Afghanistan? Iraq? Who cares! — 75 times.
Not one person who voted for Graham has the peace and contentment of Syrians on his Top Ten Concerns list. Like everyone else, South Carolinians care about their jobs, their safety, their neighborhoods, their country. But Sen. Graham wouldn’t sound like a deep intellectual if he went on TV and started talking about water treatment plants, despite the fact that clean drinking water is of far greater interest to his constituents.
It’s very romantic to think of yourself as a geopolitical chess player, jetting around the globe and staying in five-star hotels in Riyadh and Paris, chatting with dictators and reporting back your impressions as a Master of the Universe — I’m very concerned about the leadership of the Kurds … Richard Haas wrote a fascinating treatise about how our policy has been deficient in the following nine ways … I’ll be sure to bring that up next week when I’m meeting with the E.U.
These are the kinds of people who would join Mensa.
It would be annoying enough if government officials, whose salaries we pay, spent all their time working on the betterment of other nations, but at least everything turned out GREAT. In fact, however, they’re never right, they always make things worse, and they never pay a price because, again, no one cares.
Proposed Constitutional Amendment No. 2: Elected officials may take one government-funded boondoggle abroad for every three (3) trips they make to our southern border.
We, Too, Can Be a Failed Latin American State | Source: AP Photo/Ariana Cubillos
The left’s enthusiasm for Third World immigrants isn’t only because they vote 8-2 for the Democrats. It’s that Latin American peasants seem uniquely amenable to idiotic socialist schemes. You probably think it’s beyond silliness for Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to keep promising FREE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL! NO PREMIUMS! NO CO-PAYS! ILLEGAL ALIENS, TOO! EVERYBODY GETS A PONY!
No one could be gullible enough to fall for that. I refer you to the economic powerhouse that is Latin America.
Based on hundreds of years of indigenous people voting for politicians who made similar promises, Latin America has become the dream factory that it is today. That’s why Tegucigalpa is practically a byword for “technological innovation,” Santiago was the picture of calm sophistication this weekend, and Caracas is the ultimate in modern conveniences.
Perhaps you missed the article in last Saturday’s New York Times on what socialism has done for the water system in Venezuela:
“The brick shack on the outskirts of Venezuela’s capital is crowded with tubs, jugs and buckets. The water they hold must last the family of eight for a week — but it’s not enough for frequent washing or flushing, so the kitchen is filled with greasy pots and the house smells of stale urine.
“And none of the water is treated, making diarrhea and vomit a regular occurrence.
“‘We practically live in the bathroom,’ said the mother of the family … [Her daughter] sat nearby, pale and listless, recovering from her latest bout of diarrhea just one month away from childbirth.”
Democrats: We need some of that Latin American magic!
Twenty years ago, 60 percent of Venezuelans had regular access to safe drinking water. Today, only 30 percent do.
How did this happen?
Answer: Poor Venezuelans voted for it. If we let them in, they’ll vote for it here, too. (Except 20 percent, who will be patriotic Americans, i.e. Republicans.)
That’s great news for Sanders and Warren! But it’s terrible news for the country.
Denouncing “squalid oligarchs,” Hugo Chavez promised Venezuela’s poor: “I will not rest until every human being who lives in this land has housing, employment and some way to manage his life.”
The poor were sold! In December 1998, Chavez was elected in a landslide, commemorated with this Seattle Times headline: “VENEZUELAN SLUM DWELLERS VOTE FOR CHANGE.”
As The Miami Herald explained, Chavez “crystallized anger and frustration among Latin America’s poor at free-market policies that have brought only limited prosperity.”
What did free markets and private property ever do for the poor? If they were poor, but others were rich, the “squalid oligarchs” must have stolen from them! (Elizabeth Warren should borrow that epithet. “Wealthy corporations” is getting old.)
Bernie says he “wrote the damn bill”to give Medicare to all, but he was plagiarizing Chavez, who immediately implemented a “single-payer” system for health care in Venezuela. He set up free health clinics, opened military hospitals to the poor and deployed tens of thousands of government workers to deliver medical services to the barrios.
At Chavez’s invitation, thousands of poor people took up residence in hotels, warehouses and luxurious golf courses. As one of the squatters explained, “We just want a home for our children.” That could be the epitaph of every once-great country: It was for THE CHILDREN!
As you may have heard, this worked out fantastically well. Within a year of Chavez taking office, the economy had shrunk by 7.2 percent and unemployment was at 20 percent. A decade into this socialist paradise, the poor were poorer than ever. There were constant blackouts, food shortages and appalling infant mortality rates. (Much like what we’re seeing in California.)
Venezuela’s infant mortality from diarrhea alone has sextupled in the past 15 years, according to the World Health Organization. (That’s an estimate, on account of Chavez’s quick response to the crisis, which was to stop releasing public health data.)
Potable water, that most basic element of civilization, is virtually nonexistent. Today, sitting on top of the largest oil reserves in the world, Venezuelans are starving.
Chavez didn’t seize power in a military coup. There was no revolution. He wasn’t imposed on Venezuelans by the C.I.A.
He was the people’s choice, elected president in 1998 (with 56 percent of the vote), then re-elected in 2000 (60 percent), then again in 2006 (63 percent) and yet again in 2012 (54 percent). And that’s not counting all the regional, parliamentary, constitutional and referenda elections his party won, over and over and over again.
Like that other Latin American matinee idol, Eva Peron, Chavez destroyed a country by offering the poor pie-in-the-sky promises that were to be paid for by “the rich.” In both cases, it took only about a decade to turn two of the wealthiest countries in the world into two of the most dysfunctional.
In Mexico, the people voted for the Institutional Revolutionary Party for 71 straight years. Total economic failure, year after year. Yes, please, kick me again!
All of this would be of limited interest outside of psychological circles, except for the fact that these voluntary hellholes are adjacent to our country, which is why our southern border is always besieged with desperate Latin Americans.
They’re fleeing the very systems that they voted for, and which (80 percent) would willingly vote for again.
The key point is this: Everywhere in the world, the working class loves socialism — except the U.S.A. To the dismay of American liberals, their movement has always been bereft of the very proletariat that they claim to champion. Instead of truck drivers and longshoremen, Democratic meetings are full of divorcees, transgenders, vegans and college professors.
Recall that when student radicals tried to organize blue-collar workers in the ’60s, they ended up getting their heads smashed by building trades guys for protesting the war. Today, America’s working class wears a MAGA hat.
That’s why the Democrats are dying to fling open our southern border. As Lenin might have said, you can’t make an omelet without bringing in millions of poverty-stricken Latin Americans.
Beto at the debate | Source: AP Photo/John Minchillo
With all the rancor in politics these days, the CNN/New York Times Democratic debate on Tuesday night delivered a rare moment of comity: Twelve Democrats agreed, apparently without compensation, to appear in a Donald Trump ad.
Other points on which the Democrats came together in peace and harmony:
— Trump should be impeached.
— Abortion is great.
— Obamacare sucks.
At least we’re all finally agreed on Obamacare! Obamacare has given us a system — to quote Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont — “which is dysfunctional, which is cruel, 87 million uninsured, 30,000 people dying every single year, 500,000 people going bankrupt for one reason, they came down with cancer.” None of the Democrats disagreed with Sanders’ description of health care in American today, although they have slightly different solutions. I don’t mean to be rude, but I thought Obamacare was supposed to fix health care.
Millions of us were thrown off our health insurance plans by Obamacare, and now I find out that it didn’t even make things better for anyone else. The government intervenes, everything goes to hell, then Democrats cite the hell they created to demand another massive government intervention.
The motto of all socialist schemes should be: “This time, it will be different.”
The Democrats’ universal answer to thedrugproblem — which is actually a “Mexico Is on Our Border” problem — is to say they’d go after the pharmaceutical companies and then, in the next breath, demand that we legalize drugs.
In the midst of their crusading anger at the pharmaceutical companies, not one Democrat mentioned Purdue Pharma. You know — the primary culprit in the prescription drug epidemic, at least according to dozens of state attorneys general and hundreds of private lawsuits accusing the company of aggressively marketing OxyContin and hiding its addictive nature?
It would be like vowing to go after “middle-aged men” to stop underage sex trafficking on Orgy Island — but not mentioning Jeffrey Epstein.
The Democrats are furious with pharmaceutical companies, “wealthy corporations” (Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s phrase) and “the rich” (any guy with an alarm clock). But not with a specific multibillion-dollar company that makes OxyContin, and the kazillionaire family that owns it, the Sacklers.
Speaking of which, last year, Beverly Sackler, the recently deceased matriarch of the company, made political contributions to both Sen. Warren, D-Mass., and Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J.
Some poor medical researcher working to find a cure for cancer will have to pay — but the Sacklers get off scot-free.
Another big policy disagreement concerned guns, specifically: Do we allow people to turn in their guns voluntarily or should the government confiscate them?
As with liberals’ comical inability to tell an AK-47 from a semiautomatic, the gun facts flying around Tuesday night were not always well-researched. Beto O’Rourke said, “This is a country that loses 40,000 of our fellow Americans every year to gun violence.” Wow. Not even close. According to the CDC, the number was less than 15,000 in 2017.
To liven things up, at one point, a smug Pete Buttigieg snapped at O’Rourke, “And I don’t need lessons from you on courage, political or personal.”This was in response to remarks not at all about Buttigieg’s courage. That’s gonna get old, fast.
Vice President Joe Biden bragged that he was “the only one on this stage who has taken on the NRA and beat them, and beat them twice. We were able to get assault weapons off the streets …”
Yes, and in direct response to that assault weapons ban opposed by the NRA, Republicans swept Congress in the very next election, winning control of the House for the first time in nearly half a century.
If you weren’t alive that glorious autumn evening in 1994, it was better than the November 2016 election. All night, there was breaking news, as one powerhouse Democrat after another lost his seat to a Republican. Every 15 minutes the GOP would set some new, jaw-dropping record. Thomas Foley, D-Wash., became the first speaker of the House to lose his election in 134 years. Republicans marched through the South like William Tecumseh Sherman, finishing off the “southern Democrats.” Tennessee went all red, with Republicans replacing the Democratic governor and two Democratic senators — including the Senate seat previously held by Vice President Al Gore. Not one Republican incumbent lost his seat.
Please, Joe, promise to “beat” the NRA again!
BUTTIGIEG: “No, this is really important, OK? On guns, we are this close to an assault weapons ban.”
Luckily, Dems Never Have ‘Personal, Political’ Motives | Source: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
Today we will answer the question: May a president ask a foreign country to investigate corruption if it serves his “personal, political” interests? The “personal, political” angle is the last gasp of the impeachment hysterics. (I’m looking at you, Sens. Rob Portman (Ohio), Susan Collins (Maine), Mitt Romney (Utah) and Ben Sasse (Nebraska).)
Yes, Donald Trump is, technically, “president,” and, yes, former Vice President Joe Biden used his government position to withhold foreign aid until the president of Ukraine fired a prosecutor looking into a company paying Biden’s drug addict son millions of dollars for mysterious reasons. But, the impeachment fanatics assert, by asking a foreign leader to assist in an otherwise legitimate corruption investigation, Trump has committed a monstrous crime — because he was pursuing a “personal political interest.” To wit: Trump was trying to harm his political opponent, Joe Biden.
Apart from the blindingly obvious fact that you can’t commit crimes and then escape justice simply by running for president, Democrats take official government action for “personal, political” reasons all the time. Frequently, they do so for the sole purpose of harming their political opponents.
President Barack Obama’s IRS investigated and harassed conservative groups for years, using the most fearsome arm of the government to punish political enemies — for personal, political reasons. Then his Department of Justice refused to prosecute the corrupt officials, which, I believe, was again for — yes, it was personal, political reasons.
How about the Obama administration’s endless investigations of Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson? As was obvious from the outset, Officer Wilson had done absolutely nothing wrong when he fatally shot Mike Brown — something even Obama’s corrupt, subpoena-defying attorney general, Eric Holder, had to concede after reviewing all the evidence.
Those massive Department of Justice investigations were undertaken to gin up the Democratic base in order to help Hillary, who proceeded to honor Mike Brown’s mother on stage at the Democratic National Convention.
In the most perfect example of a president demanding investigations for no other purpose than serving a “personal, political” interest, in 1999, when Hillary was gearing up to run for the Senate from New York against Mayor Rudy Giuliani, President Bill Clinton (her husband) launched investigation after investigation into the crown jewel of the Giuliani administration, the NYPD.
If President Clinton had actually cared about police brutality, there were dozens of police forces that should have been probed before he’d ever get to New York. Such as, for example, the city Bill and Hillary lived in.
In 1999, as the NYPD was virtually eliminating crime in New York City, there were a grand total of 11 fatal shootings by police officers. That’s 0.28 fatal shootings for every 1,000 officers.
In Washington, D.C., that year, there were four times as many fatal police shootings — 1.14 per 1,000 cops. In Houston, the number was 1.68. In San Diego, it was 4.36.
In the end, Giuliani withdrew from the race to treat his prostate cancer, but when President Clinton was demanding these investigations, Rudy was crushing Hillary both in the polls and in political contributions.
Speaking of whom, Hillary used her position as secretary of state to overthrow Libyan strongman Muammar Qaddafi, leading to the murder of a U.S. ambassador and several other Americans in Benghazi, as well as creating the refugee crisis currently engulfing Western Europe — all for her own personal, political reasons.
As was dramatically revealed in Hillary’s email exchanges with her unofficial adviser, Sidney Blumenthal, her motive for deposing Qaddafi was to display her foreign policy chops, apart from that lunkhead Obama, who was, as Blumenthal sneered, “intent on seizing defeat from the jaws of victory.”
Blumenthal egged on Hillary to keep the pressure on Qaddafi, promising her a major political win. When Qaddafi was ousted, Blumenthal exulted: “First, brava! You must go on camera. You must establish yourself in the historical record at this moment. … You are vindicated.”
Soon thereafter, Qaddafi was beaten to death in the desert by rebels who posted graphic video of the murder online. Cackling with delight at the initial reports, Hillary positioned herself alongside Julius Caesar: “We came. We saw. He died.”
Most obviously, the Obama administration’s entire illegal FBI surveillance of the Trump campaign was undertaken for personal, political purposes. We’ve been waiting for three years to hear some legitimate reason for the FBI’s surveillance of the Trump campaign. At this point, I think it’s fair to say, we’re not getting one.
The Obama administration spent millions of dollars and millions of man-hours on a purely political investigation to hurt Trump and help elect Hillary.
As long as you mention it, the House Democrats’ investigation of Trump’s phone call to the Ukrainian president has been undertaken for personal political reasons, too. So was Biden’s withholding of a $1 billion check from the president of Ukraine to protect his son’s sleazy business deal.
We can play the “personal, political motive” game all day long!
At least when Republicans do it, the Middle East doesn’t explode in jihadist fury, the crime rate doesn’t skyrocket, people don’t die or lose their livelihoods — and there’s real corruption being exposed.
The Transcript We Really Want to See | Joe and Hunter Biden | Source: AP Photo/Nick Wass
Editor’s note: The following column contains graphic language.
The transcript of President Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky is yet another illustration of the rule: Never ask a question you don’t know the answer to.
But on the basis of one drama queen’s overreaction to a rumor she’d heard about what was said on a phone call she didn’t hear (I’m assuming the whistleblower is Christine Blasey Ford), the Democrats have launched impeachment proceedings against the president.
I guess they figured it’s easier than flying to South Dakota with picks and chisels and carving Trump into Mount Rushmore. But it will have the same effect.
Now that the transcript has been released, it’s The New York Times that doesn’t want anyone to see it.
The transcript I’d like to see is the one of Nancy Pelosi reading the Trump transcript.
F@@@@@@CK! Whose f***ing idea was it to demand this goddamn transcript?
F@CK!
F@@CK!
F@@@CK!
The absolute worst version for Trump — i.e. the one being repeated non-stop on MSNBC — is that he did exactly what Obama and Biden were doing to Ukraine: intimidating an ally into giving us something in exchange for the foreign aid we were giving them.
Biden himself bragged about getting Ukraine’s prosecutor fired by threatening to withhold a big fat check from them.
The Democrats’ argument is: No, no, no! When WE were pressuring Ukraine, we were doing it for good! Don’t you understand? We’re good; they’re bad.
The other reason the media are going to have to bury this transcript is that Trump brought up a few items that the media have been hoping the public would never find out about.
Trump said: “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.”
Well, that’s something the media haven’t mentioned before. Ninety-nine percent of Americans will be hearing about the funny business with Biden’s son, Hunter, for the first time with the release of this transcript.
Why did Vice President Biden order the Ukrainian president to fire the prosecutor investigating the Ukrainian company paying his son millions of dollars? Are Democrats claiming that this company was clean as a whistle and it was an absolute OUTRAGE that it was being investigated?
Ukraine was looking into the company that conveniently placed Hunter Biden on its board long before Trump came on the scene. Something must have made the Ukrainian prosecutor want to investigate Biden’s company — and it sure wasn’t to curry favor with the Obama/Biden administration.
The second issue the media does not want anyone to think about is CrowdStrike.
What is CrowdStrike, you ask? That is the cybersecurity firm that is the sole source of the claim that the Russians hacked the DNC’s emails — which launched the conspiracy theories that tied our country in knots for the past three years.
The Russian collusion story was originally hatched by Hillary Clinton in the summer of 2016 to cover up the utter corruption revealed by the dump of Democratic National Committee emails on Wikileaks. As was her practice whenever a scandal threatened to engulf her, Hillary rushed out and told the press to investigate something else.
And “the great story” about the DNC email hack wasn’t about a “vast right-wing conspiracy” — as she claimed when the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke. No, this time, it was a vast Russian conspiracy!
At the time, the entire media laughed at Hillary’s Russian conspiracy nonsense — The New York Times, New York Newsday, the Los Angeles Times and so on. But then Trump won the election, and suddenly the Russia conspiracy seemed totally believable. What else could explain how Americans could put this boob in the White House?
The subsequent three years of breathless Russia coverage was based entirely on the word of one cybersecurity firm, CrowdStrike, that the DNC’s emails had been hacked by Russia.
Recall that the DNC wouldn’t allow the FBI or any other U.S. government official anywhere near its computers. That’s precisely why so many cybersecurity experts doubted that it was the Russians: The FBI was never allowed to perform its own investigation.
CrowdStrike was founded by Ukrainian Dmitri Alperovitch (now an American citizen apparently — because who isn’t?) and funded by the fanatically anti-Russian Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk Foundation.
Talk about interfering with our democracy! Alperovitch and Pinchuk sent one political party and nine-tenths of the American media off on a wild goose chase into Russian collusion that, after years of accusations, investigations and embarrassing conspiracy-mongering … turned up goose eggs.
The entire Russian insanity was launched by a couple of Ukrainians. I think a lot of us would like to get to the bottom of that.
This is why Trump said to President Zelensky: “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people … The server, they say Ukraine has it.”
(How’d you like to be the Ukrainian translator for a Trump conversation?)
Trump has been justly criticized for hiring his daughter and son-in-law at the White House. But at least when he pressures a foreign leader for a favor, it’s to investigate corruption, not to get a prosecutor off his son’s back. Maybe Biden’s son was guilty, maybe he was innocent. But it is a fact that Joe Biden held up foreign aid to a desperately needy ally in exchange for their halting prosecution that implicated his son. It’s not Trump’s fault that Biden is now running for president.
I’ll give the Democrats this: They’ve gotten so good at trying to remove Trump from office that, instead of three years, their insane accusations blow up in their faces within a week.
Could I Get All That Illegal ‘To Go’? / Source: AP Photo/John Bazemore
As we head into the long Labor Day weekend, here are two tips to make your holiday even more cheerful.
First: Remember to watch out for drunk driving illegal aliens!
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued a report after report showing that Hispanics are wildly overrepresented in drunk driving accidents (but also contribute so much to our cultural life, musical heritage and landscape!).
Or, as the Huffington Post puts it: “Latinos At Greater Risk of Dying From Driving While Intoxicated.” They’re victims of the drunk driving epidemic! German Concentration Camp Guards At Greater Risk of Dying From Accidental Inhalation of Zyklon B.
One NHTSA report elaborated on the inebriated Latino driver problem:
“The authors found that some Latino parents actively promoted drinking among their sons as a sign of masculinity or machismo. (A focus group) indicated drinking among Hispanics might be motivated by the need to prove their manhood within the Latino culture: ‘Everyone thinks they can handle alcohol, especially men.’ … ‘A lot of Hispanics think that way. It’s the macho male and the woman gives in to the man. Machismo causes this behavior.’”
The report also stated, “Mexican-American DWI offenders vastly overestimated the number of drinks required to make them unsafe drivers (eight to 10 drinks).”
It’s unclear if the NHTSA’s methodology took into account the effects of Cinco de Mayo.
Naturally, it would be outrageous to conclude from this that drunk driving is the national sport of Mexico. However, last year alone, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deported 80,730 illegals for drunk driving, the majority of them Mexicans.
As the Houston Chronicle delicately put it a few years ago: “Young Hispanic men not getting message about drinking, driving.”… crashing, burning, their ashes being spread across Cuernavaca …
Thanks to its proximity to Mexico, Texas leads the nation in fatal drunk driving accidents, including those involving a blood alcohol content of 0.15 or greater — nearly double the legal limit. In 2014, young Latinos were responsible for about one-third of all DUI accidents in Houston — 535 — though they made up only 8 percent of the population.
MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell sneered at President Trump’s June 2018 meeting with family members of Americans killed by illegals, saying most of their dead kids were killed in traffic accidents. As if that doesn’t count.
Why did we have to hear endlessly about O’Donnell’s car accident in Tortola a few years ago, which he described as his “brush with death”?
Yeah, that must have been rough, some real Brian Williams stuff there. But Don Rosenberg finding out his 25-year-old son had been run over, backed over and then run over again by an illegal alien — well, that’s just a “traffic accident.”
Our media have no idea who Don Rosenberg is, and no interest in finding out. Their concern for “children” is limited to the ones they can exploit to get their way on illegal immigration. They wail about “children separated from their parents,” but it would be a dream come true for the “Angel Mom” parents if their kids were merely separated from them for six months — or six years! — if only they could see them again, ever.
You know what else is kind of traumatic? Being wedged into the false panel of a truck with a breathing tube before traversing hundreds of miles of rough terrain to make it to the U.S. border. These parents did that to their kids.
The New York Times, too, nonchalantly mentioned that the kids of some of the families at Trump’s White House meeting “died in car accidents.”They just died. Car accidents happen all the time.
Yes, traffic accidents can be caused by anyone — especially a sh*t-faced illegal going 80 miles per hour on a residential street. Internet scams happen all the time, so, let’s take in more Nigerians!
The point is, these particular drunk drivers never should have been here in the first place.
Tricia Taylor didn’t die, but the 18-year-old had to have her legs amputated almost to the hip after a drunk driving illegal alien from El Salvador swerved his car onto a sidewalk in Pontiac, Michigan, and rammed her against the wall. It was a miracle that she lived, suffering through multiple surgeries and a lifetime of pain medications. At Jose Carcamo’s sentencing, Taylor said, “What you give him won’t come close to the sentence he gave me for the rest of my life.”
D.J. and Wendy Corcoran began 2019 by burying their 22-year-old son, Pierce, senselessly killed when a 44-year-old illegal alien from Mexico, Francisco Eduardo Franco-Cambrany, swerved headfirst across a double yellow line, straight into oncoming traffic. Echoing the media, Alexander De La Espriella tweeted of Pierce’s horrible death, “Accidents happen, by anyone to anyone … ”— as quoted in the Knoxville News. At least we didn’t have to hear about the great tacos this time.
Six-year-old Annie Cumpston was walking hand-in-hand with her mother in 2003, after attending the Ringling Brothers Circus in Baltimore with her family, when a drunk Mexican plowed into the crosswalk, killing the little girl. The intoxicated illegal, Guillermo Diaz-Lopez, fled the scene, dragging a pedestrian on his truck, and was finally apprehended while trying to break through a police barrier.
Today, you can visit “Annie’s Playground,” a beautiful 60,000-square-foot wonderland built in the victim’s honor in Fallston, Maryland — at least until Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris demand its demolition to show their support for “undocumented immigrants.”
Second friendly holiday tip: Always remember — diversity is a strength!
Why the New York Times Is Unreformable and Must Die Source: AP Photo/Mark Lennihan
Even before The New York Times launched its “All Slavery, All the Time” project, no one could accuse that paper of skimping on its race coverage, particularly stories about black males killed by white(ish) police officers.
Here’s one you haven’t heard about. I happened upon it by sheer accident.
Antwon Rose II was a 17-year-old boy shot by an East Pittsburgh police officer in June 2018 after he bolted from a jitney car that had been stopped by the officer. The Times published about a half-dozen stories on Antwon Rose — or as the Times calls him, “Antwon, who was unarmed.”
After the officer was acquitted on all charges in March of this year, the Times ran an article by Adeel Hassan on the verdict.
Here’s what you would learn from the Times:
— Antwon was unarmed.
— Antwon “was in his high school’s honors program.”
— Antwon “played basketball and the saxophone.”
— Antwon “volunteered for a local charity.”
— In 2016, Antwon wrote a poem titled, “I Am Not What You Think!” which included these lines:
I see mothers bury their sons
I want my Mom to never feel that pain.
— A policeman stopped the gold Chevy Cruze Antwon “was riding in” because it “matched the description” of a car “involved” in a drive-by shooting minutes earlier.
— The jury consisted of nine whites and three African Americans.
If you read the Times piece, all you would know is that an honor student who loved his mom…was KILLED for the crime of riding in a car similar to one that had just been used in a crime.
Wow. Just wow.
Here are some of the facts the Times left out:
— The gold Chevy Cruze Antwon fled did not merely “match the description of” a car used in a drive-by shooting: It was the car used in the drive-by shooting, as proved by surveillance video posted online days after the shooting and shown to the jury.
— The video shows 13 shots being fired from the back seat of that exact car, with — according to the prosecutor — Antwon riding in the front seat.
— The backseat passenger, Zaijuan Hester, later pleaded guilty to the drive-by shooting.
— One of the victims of the drive-by shooting told police it was Antwon who shot him. “The beef was between me and him,” William Ross told a Pennsylvania State Police officer. “That car came by, he shot me, I ran to the store.”
— The jitney driver told police that, right before the shooting started, he heard the backseat passenger ask, “Is that him?”
— The gun used in the drive-by was recovered in the back seat of the car.
— A stolen gun was found under Antwon’s seat, an empty magazine in Antwon’s pants pocket, and there was gunpowder residue on Antwon’s hands.
— The car stopped by the officer was riddled with bullet holes.
— The jury that unanimously acquitted the officer was led by an African American foreman, who stoutly defended the verdict.
None of that made it into the Times story on the trial’s conclusion.
I’m glad that Antwon did charity work, but isn’t it rather more important that he had participated in a drive-by shooting of two other black guys 13 minutes before being stopped by a police officer?
That’s not conjecture or speculation. Hassan wasn’t writing about the case the day after the shooting. These are facts that were presented in court and copiously reported by the local media — even in the British press.
Normal Person to The New York Times: Why did you say the car “matched the description” of the car used in a drive-by shooting — but not say that it WAS the car used in the drive-by shooting?
NYT: I’m sorry, who are you and do you have a press pass?
Normal Person: You didn’t mention that a stolen gun was found under Antwon’s seat and a matching cartridge in Antwon’s pocket???
NYT: We only have so much space and I needed room for Antwon’s poem.
Normal Person: You didn’t have space to say that gun residue was found on Antwon’s hands?
NYT: I could have run more of the poem. It was a good poem.
Normal Person: Or that one of the victims of the drive-by said Antwon was the one who shot him?
NYT: The officer didn’t know that.
Normal Person: Did the officer know about Antwon’s A.P. classes? It goes to the likelihood of his behavior being perceived as threatening. The officer could certainly see that the car’s back window had been shot out.
NYT: You’re a white supremacist and white nationalist and, yes, I know they’re different, but you’re both.
There’s no reason to think this isn’t standard operating procedure at the Times. The editors can’t say, OK, OK, that one got past us!
The Times has told wild lies about the racist shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri (false), the racist arrest of Freddie Gray in Baltimore (false), the racist shooting of Trayvon Martin in Florida (false), the racist gang-rape of a black stripper by a Duke lacrosse team (false) and so on.
Antwon Rose’s shooting wasn’t even a flood-the-zone, hair-on-fire story. But the Times lied about it, too.
This is a newspaper that cannot be trusted on anything touching on race. They’re liars and ideologues, not reporters and editors.
It is apparently part of Robert Mueller’s contract with the media that he must always be described as “honorable” and a “lifelong Republican.” (After this week, we can add “dazed and confused” to his appellation.)
If it matters that Mueller is a “lifelong Republican,” then I guess it matters that he hired a team of left-wing zealots. Of the 17 lawyers in Mueller’s office, 14 are registered Democrats. Not one is a registered Republican. In total, they have donated more than $60,000 to Democratic candidates.
Congressman Steve Chabot listed the Democratic political activism of nine of Mueller’s staff attorneys at a December 2017 House hearing.
Here are a few from Chabot’s list:
— Kyle Freeny contributed to both Obama campaigns and to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
— Andrew Goldstein donated $3,300 to both Obama campaigns.
— Elizabeth Prelogar contributed to both the Obama and Clinton campaigns.
— Jeannie Rhee donated $16,000 to Democrats, contributed $5,400 to the Clinton campaign — and represented Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation in several lawsuits.
— Andrew Weissmann contributed $2,000 to the Democratic National Committee, $2,300 to the Obama campaign and $2,300 to the Clinton Campaign.
None had donated to the Trump campaign.
The media brushed off the conspicuous anti-Trump bias in Mueller’s office with platitudes about how prosecutors are, “allowed to have political opinions,”as Jeffrey Toobin said on CNN. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein assured the public that their “views are not in any way a factor in how they conduct themselves in office.”
Obviously, no one believes this — otherwise “lifelong Republican” wouldn’t be spot-welded to Mueller’s name.
In a fiery rebuke at the hearings this week, Mueller denounced complaints about all the diehard Democrats on his legal team, saying, “I’ve been in this business for almost 25 years, and in those 25 years I have not had occasion once to ask somebody about their political affiliation. It is not done.”
No kidding. He’s been director of the FBI. He’s been acting U.S. deputy attorney general. He’s been a U.S. attorney. He’s never been an independent counsel investigating the president before.
An independent counsel investigation isn’t the kind of job where you want the hungriest prosecutors. You want drug enforcement agents who are hungry to bust up drug rings. You want organized crime prosecutors who are hungry to take down the mob.
But lawyers on a special counsel’s investigation of the president of the United States aren’t supposed to be hungry. They’re supposed to be fair.
After the 2001 anthrax attacks, the FBI, under Director Mueller’s close supervision, spent SEVEN YEARS pursuing Hatfill, a U.S. Army biodefense researcher. Year after year, the real culprit went about his life undisturbed — until he committed suicide when, at last, the FBI zeroed in on him.
Mueller was deeply involved in the anthrax investigation, recruiting the lead investigator on the case and working “in lockstep” with him, according to a book on the case, “The Mirage Man” by David Willman.
During this multi-year investigation of the wrong man, Mueller assured Attorney General John Ashcroft, as well as two U.S. senators that Hatfill was the anthrax mailer. Presciently, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz asked then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey if he was sure Hatfill wasn’t another Richard Jewell, an innocent man who, a few years earlier, had been publicly identified by the FBI as the main Olympic bombing suspect. Comey replied that he was “absolutely certain that it was Hatfill.”
The hounding of Steven Hatfill finally ended in 2008, with the bureau paying the poor man millions of dollars. In open court, a federal judge, Reggie B. Walton, assailed Mueller’s FBI for its handling of the case. Far from apologizing, the director stoutly defended the bureau’s relentless pursuit of the blameless Hatfill, saying: “I do not apologize for any aspect of this investigation.” He said it would be incorrect “to say there were mistakes.”
Maybe he can use that line to defend the similarly monomaniacal zealots he put on the Russia investigation.
Eight days before the 2008 elections, the government convicted Sen. Stevens of failing to properly report gifts on his Senate financial forms. The longest-serving Republican in Senate history lost his re-election by less than 2 percent of the vote.
Months later — too late for Stevens’ political career — Obama Attorney General Eric Holder moved for a dismissal of all charges against Stevens after discovering that the government had failed to turn over crucial exculpatory evidence. The trial judge not only threw out the charges, but angrily ordered an independent counsel to investigate the investigators.
Unlike the disastrous Hatfill case, the extent of Mueller’s oversight of the Stevens investigation is less clear. Was he aware of the bureau’s malicious pursuit of a sitting U.S. senator on the eve of his re-election? Either he was, which is awful, or he wasn’t — which is worse.
In addition to “honorable,” another way of describing Mueller is: “Too Corrupt for Eric Holder.”
Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh passionately responded to a column which warned of a growing anti-Americanism in our country. Rush told his millions of listeners, “We are facing it right now, not 10 years from now.”Rush said do not misinterpret his concern to mean he has lost hope and given up on saving America. He said to view his rant as a clarion call for all who love our country to take action. Rush explained that he is not encouraging violence, but to simply start saying, “No!”
In essence, Rush is saying to stop passively permitting spoiled brat anti-American leftists to trash our flag, pull down historical monuments, demonize patriotism and our Christian founding. Stop allowing leftists to poison the minds of our youths with hatred for their country.
I share Rush’s frustration, particularly as it relates to my fellow black Americans.
Due to their criminal activities involving illegal drugs, two beloved black millennial relatives are in the hospital. One was severely beaten and the other is fighting for his life. Both young men live in Baltimore which is one of the cities controlled by Democrats, plagued with record levels of black on black crime.
Frustratingly, both young relatives are infected with Colin Kapernick’s, Democrats’ and fake news media’s bogus negative view of America. They believe being black in this awful racist country justifies them doing whatever necessary, legal or illegal, to survive.
Both young men were raised with Christian principles and values. If my dad, Dr Rev Lloyd E. Marcus was still alive, they would be too ashamed to look him in the eye. While I hold my relatives accountable for their bad behavior, it is unarguable that allowing Democrats, public education, entertainment and social media to fill our youths heads with hatred for their country has reaped devastating consequences.
Along with allowing leftists to infect our youths with anti-Americanism, we are passively watching the swift transformation of our culture away from biblical morality. LGBTQ enforcers are abusing our children while cramming their evil agenda down our throats.
Many Christians still do not comprehend the tyrannical aggressiveness of the LGBTQ movement. A Christian minister friend of 30 years stopped speaking to me for writing articles about LGBTQ aggression. He is deceived by leftists’ manipulative false narrative that says not embracing the LGBTQ lifestyle means we hate them. The truth is not embracing their sin means we love them.
Christian relatives instructed me not to post my articles exposing the LGBTQ war on gender and Christianity on their Facebook pages. Meanwhile, a shocked relative approached me at a family picnic. The relative said when they offered a 7-year-old boy at the picnic a toy motorcycle, he said he didn’t want it because he is a girl. The relative noticed the lad was wearing a girl bracelet. Apparently, his parents are complicit in his gender confusion. I told the relative, “This is what I have been warning you guys about. This is the outrageous child abuse allowed to happen in our public schools.”
When my wife Mary read me this headline, I assumed it was fake. Sadly, it is not. “Kids Can Handle the Kink.” A deranged sex therapist said not only can children handle witnessing explicit sex acts during gay pride parades, but it is also beneficial to their healthy development.
A devastated gentleman emailed me: “My granddaughter, who is not yet 15…began displaying the LGBT banner on Facebook, declared herself transgender, erroneously said the Bible is a bunch of myths written by bored old men, erroneously said the Catholic Church condemns all gay people to hell, literally told me to get my head out of my ass, and then unfriended me on FB. Gee, I wonder where she got those ideas.” His granddaughter’s mother also ended her relationship with him.
The evening of July 4th, our nation’s birthday, I watched a Youtube video of the Statue of Liberty song. Sadly, the lyrics are not embraced by far too many young Americans today.
“I’m so proud to be called an American
To be named with the brave and the free
I will honor our flag and our trust in God
And the statue of liberty”
I stand with Rush Limbaugh, folks. It is time that we take action to take back our country. It is time that we say no to anti-American traitors and anti-biblical cultural assassins.
While tearing down everything that’s great about our country, the left has always permitted us to celebrate patriotic holidays. But this year, on the week that we commemorate the unveiling of the Declaration of Independence, Nike yanked a Betsy Ross tribute sneaker off the market because the American flag didn’t sit well with Colin Kaepernick.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., is telling wild, provable lies about America’s border agents.
This Fourth of July, let’s look at the tactics used by the left to blacken the reputations of American heroes. To wit, the lie that the principal author of the declaration, Thomas Jefferson, fathered a child with his slave, Sally Hemings.
The charge was first leveled in 1802 by a muckraking, racist, alcoholic journalist, James Callender, who had served prison time for his particular brand of journalism. He had tried to blackmail Jefferson into appointing him postmaster at Richmond. When that failed, Callender retaliated by publicly accusing Jefferson of fathering the first-born son of Sally Hemings — or, as the charming Callender described her, “a slut as common as the pavement.”
No serious historian ever believed Callender’s defamation — not Dumas Malone, Merrill Peterson, Douglass Adair or John Chester Miller. Not one. Their reasoning was that there was absolutely no evidence to support the theory and plenty to contradict it.
The Jefferson-Hemings myth was revived by feminists trying to elevate the role of women in history. Modern pedagogy requires that no period of our past be taught without turning it into a lecture on racism, sexism or homophobia.
Fawn M. Brodie got the ball rolling with her 1974 book, “Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History,” which used Freudian analysis to prove Jefferson kept Hemings as his concubine and fathered all six of her children.
Brodie’s book was followed by Barbara Chase-Riboud’s 1979 novel “Sally Hemings,” a work that imagines Hemings’ interior life. When CBS announced plans to make a miniseries out of the novel, Jefferson scholars exploded, denouncing the project as a preposterous lie. The miniseries was canceled.
Finally, a female law professor, Annette Gordon-Reed, wrote “Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy,” which accused professional historians of racism for refusing to defer to the “oral history” of Hemings’ descendants.
She said “racism,” so the historians shut up.
In 1998, a retired pathologist, Dr. Eugene Foster, performed a DNA test on the Y-chromosomes of living male descendants of Sally Hemings, as well as those from Jefferson’s paternal uncle. The Y-chromosome is passed from male to male, so, if the story were true, Hemings’ male descendants ought to have the Y-chromosome of the Jefferson male bloodline.
What the DNA tests showed was that Hemings’ firstborn son, Tom — the Tom whose alleged paternity was the basis for Callender’s accusation — was not related to any Jefferson male.
Foster’s study did establish that Hemings’ last-born son, Eston, was the son of some Jefferson male, but could not possibly say whether that was Thomas Jefferson or any of the other 25 adult male Jeffersons living in Virginia at the time, eight of them at or near Monticello.
For Eston to be Jefferson’s son, we have to believe that five years after being falsely accused of fathering a child with Hemings, Jefferson decided, What the heck? I may be president of the United States, but I should prove Callender’s slander true by fathering a child with my slave!
It would be as if five years after the Duke lacrosse hoax, one of the falsely accused players went out and actually raped a stripper — in fact, the same stripper.
Nonetheless, Nature magazine titled its article on the study “Jefferson Fathered Slave’s Last Child.” Hundreds of newspapers rushed to print with the lie, e.g.:
“DNA Study Shows Jefferson Fathered His Slave’s Child” — Los Angeles Times, Nov. 1, 1998
“Jefferson Exposed” — Boston Globe, Nov. 3, 1998
Two months after these false “findings” had been broadcast from every news outlet where English is spoken, Foster admitted that the DNA had not proved Jefferson fathered any children by Sally Hemings, merely that he could have fathered one child. Only eight newspapers mentioned the retraction.
The science alone puts the odds of Thomas Jefferson fathering Eston at less than 15% — less than 4%, if all living Jefferson males are considered, not just the ones at Monticello.
All other known facts about Jefferson make it far less probable still.
There are no letters, diaries or records supporting the idea that Jefferson was intimate with Hemings, and quite a bit of written documentation to refute it, including Jefferson’s views on miscegenation and his failure to free Hemings in his will, despite freeing several other slaves.
In private letters, Jefferson denounced Callender’s claim — a denial made more credible by his admission to a sexual indiscretion that would have been more shameful at the time: his youthful seduction of a friend’s wife.
None of the private correspondence from anyone else living at Monticello credited the Hemings rumor, though several pointed to other likely suspects — specifically Jefferson’s brother, Randolph.
Eston was born in 1808, when Thomas Jefferson was 64 years old and in his second term as president. His brother Randolph was 52, and Randolph’s five sons were 17 to 24 years old. All of them were frequent visitors at Monticello.
While Jefferson was busy entertaining international visitors in the main house, Randolph would generally retire to the slave quarters to dance and fiddle. One slave, Isaac Granger Jefferson, described Randolph in his dictated memoirs thus: “Old Master’s brother, Mass Randall, was a mighty simple man: used to come out among black people, play the fiddle and dance half the night.”
There is not a single account of Thomas Jefferson frequenting slave quarters. Nor did Jefferson take any interest in Hemings’ children. Randolph did, teaching all of Hemings’ sons to play the fiddle.
Randolph was an unmarried widower when Eston was conceived. After Randolph remarried, Hemings had no more children.
In response to DNA proof that only one of Hemings’ children was related to any Jefferson male — and her firstborn son was definitely NOT fathered by any Jefferson — the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, the Monticello Association and the National Genealogical Society promptly announced their official positions: Thomas Jefferson fathered all six of Hemings’ children! Guided tours of Monticello today include the provably false information that Jefferson fathered all of Hemings’ children.
So now you, at least, know the truth — not that it matters in the slightest. Happy Fourth of July!
While this may sound like hyperbole, some of the rhetoric coming from the left does have elements of clinical insanity. The insistence on the part of prominent Democrats that President Donald Trump colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election despite having been cleared of this charge certainly qualifies. Claims that restrictions on abortion being considered in some states will kill black women (an abject fallacy in itself) whilst ignoring the black babies being killed by abortion in the absence of such measures also qualifies.
Today, these “institutions” are practically commonplace, and they’ve become so largely because those who considered them ridiculous remained silent rather than being labeled as bigots.
The most recent incarnation of the left’s efforts to promote sexual ambivalence has to do with the nature of gender itself. Not only does a segment of the tiny but extremely vocal LGBTQ lobby advocate for biological males and females being able to “choose” a preferred gender with which to identify, this bunch also contends that there are multitudes of genders, perhaps even hundreds.
Who knew?
I remember quite well during the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s and ’70s, when the political left was pushing sexual permissiveness with all the urgency of avoiding the next planetary extinction-level event, catty, mincing liberals accused those who resisted going along with the program of being prudes. As far as they were concerned, a prude was just as bad as a segregationist – and if you ran afoul of their budding doctrine, they certainly let you know it.
Also during this period, court cases and discussions in the public square arose with regard to how these “new sensibilities” would be represented in media and education. Oh, the controversy over sex ed in schools! Many will recall the liberal argument that sexual function and reproduction were “only knowledge,” and that keeping this valuable knowledge from our youth was simply wrong. Further, that argument added that an ignorance of sexuality and reproduction would lead to young people getting into trouble should they become sexually active.
There was a great deal of concern about sexuality being represented in films and TV, and particularly its effect on children, as well as concern over the proliferation of pornography and its effects on society at large.
In November of 1968, the first voluntary Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) film rating system took effect, not so much because the public was concerned about sexual content in movies, but because the MPAA brass deemed the Hays code (in place since 1930) archaic. Movie makers had been increasingly pushing the envelope in this area anyway; the new ratings code actually gave filmmakers more license to produce explicit material.
While millions of Americans possessing traditional values were alarmed at these emergent sensibilities, there was a certain congruity in the disposition of courts and regulatory agencies, which decided that if a segment of the population wished to expose themselves to smut, it was not the role of the Christian majority or those or secular folks who held to traditional values to dictate mores to them.
Unfortunately, like our Constitution itself, this has become a double-edged sword. Fast-forward 50 years and any child with a computer, tablet or smartphone can navigate to the most aberrant and disgusting pornographic fare ever conceived. American consumers are hard-pressed to find movie and TV offerings that do not aggressively promote leftist sexual orthodoxy, and even TV shows featuring comic book superheroes are peppered with gratuitous pro-LGBTQ messages.
As is occurring today, back in the ’60s and ’70s, the perceived “rights” of individuals to engage in sexually deviant behavior superseded any consideration of how propagating sexually deviant behavior might impact society at large.
Well, at this point, I think that the jury is in, and it’s apparent that we’ve pretty much screwed ourselves (pun intended).
An interesting perspective comes from Christine Caine, an Australian activist who has firsthand experience with sexual abuse and trauma. Caine founded A21, a global anti-trafficking organization that operates in 15 countries and aids in prosecuting sex traffickers and rescuing victims.
Now, one could claim that the increasing incidence of sex trafficking, especially that involving children, has nothing whatsoever to do with the phenomenon of an increasing sexual permissiveness in Western culture – but I think that most reading this will know better. Ms. Caine asserts that the proliferation of pornography and other sexually ambivalent materials has fueled human trafficking, and I tend to agree. We’re human beings, and, by our nature, the only ones who’ll find themselves immune to morally ambivalent materials of any kind are those who do not partake in them.
So, we have confirmation that the atmosphere of sexual permissiveness we’ve cultivated has severely compromised us culturally. Also, we can now see that the left (via the LGBTQ lobby) has no intention of exhibiting the same tolerance to people who hold traditional values as was shown them. Indeed, having been extended an olive branch, they continue to cry “oppression” amidst calls for traditional values to be relegated to criminal status.
So much for tolerance.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR/COMMENTATOR:
Erik Rush
Erik Rush is a New York-born columnist, author and speaker who writes sociopolitical commentary, and host of the FULL-CONTACT With Erik Rush LIVE! streaming radio show. He is also the Founder and Chief Editor of the Instigator News Network. In February of 2007, Erik was the first to break the story of Barack Obama’s ties to militant Chicago preacher Rev. Jeremiah Wright on a national level. His book, “Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal ~ America’s Racial Obsession,” has been called “the definitive book on race politics in America.”
Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson says President Trump’s rhetoric is hateful, causing violence, resulting in an increase in hate crimes.
Eugene wrote a brilliant column right after 9/11, but haven’t seen the like since.
This President is a fighter. He is tough. Playing to win is in his DNA. He took on this responsibility and he is serious about restoring the country to greatness, saving it from the malaise of the Obama years. In order to take on and prevail against the vast forces marshaled against him (Democrats, Leftists, Communists, Jihadists, assorted anti-Americans, and the MSM) he has to confront every lie and every attack, head on.
He believes, as do about half the voters, that this country will go under unless we fight hard to restore some measure of traditional values and founding principles of the Republic.
I for one am glad we have a fighter in the White House. I’m glad he is keeping our enemies off balance, redoing trade deals, aggressively fighting the war on terror, doing all he can to secure the border, stoking the economy, and putting an end to various collectivist schemes as well as the tiresome and counterproductive apology tours.
People who criticize him for being aggressive are just looking for a way to undermine him and that is because he is so successful it irks them no end.
Eugene and others never said boo when Obama was talking about bringing a gun to knife fight and other such nonsense. Nobody objected when he urged people to get up in our faces. Did you ever hear a Democrat complain when Obama encouraged street demonstrations based on lies, goading BLM and ignoring the resulting violence? But now, some flimsy allegation about hate crime increases is sufficient to attack this President as an instigator. BS.
The vicious Left never relents and now an aggressive conservative is beating them at their own game without being vicious and all they can do is double down on viciousness. Not smart. Not effective. Not acceptable.
The only people surprised that the special counsel’s investigation of Russian collusion did not confirm a lunatic conspiracy theory are consumers of the modern American media. For two years, our constitutionally protected guardians of the truth put out a stream of misinformation, promising viewers that Robert Mueller was going to reverse the outcome of the 2016 election.
Everyone at fake news MSNBC, marginally less fake news NBC, and totally fake news CNN — hosts, guests, legal experts and national security analysts — should be told, Clean out your lockers. Put all your things in cardboard cartons. If you need to go back, you will be escorted by security.
Instead, they are adamantly refusing to take back their years of lies about Trump and Russian collusion. This is not a time to let bygones by bygones. The boot should not be lifted from the media’s throat.
In case you’ve forgotten what needs to be taken back, here is a random selection, from a single network for simplicity:
“Hi Nicolle, and if it is Monday, the Russian conspiracy is so much worse than we knew … The Russian conspiracy to help get Donald Trump elected was apparently wider, deeper, dirtier, more sophisticated and more pervasive than we thought.”
— Katy Tur, MSNBC, Dec. 17, 2018
“Well, this demonstrates that Robert Mueller is focusing on exactly what he is supposed to be focusing on, and that is Russia … We already have clear evidence of collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russian agents.”
— Richard Painter, lawyer, MSNBC, May 1, 2018
“You see all of these Russian connections — there’s a new one every single day, and increasingly benign explanations for what the Trump, for what they’re up to, benign explanations are just not credible.”
— Max Boot, warmonger, MSNBC, July 21, 2017
“We have the most immoral president perhaps in American history particularly because of the foreign influence of Russia … it is hard to believe that a prosecutor of Mueller’s testing and experience would come to the end of this and not have something to say about these terrible offenses.”
— John Flannery, lawyer, MSNBC, March 18, 2019
“I’ll tell you something, if (Russia’s ‘inside man’ is) not George Papadopoulos, then we’ve got a mystery person inside the Trump campaign who theoretically could still be in place.”
— Frank Figliuzzi, former assistant director for counterintelligence, FBI, MSNBC, Jan. 9, 2018
“I believe that what we have here is a very broad-based criminal conspiracy. … And Donald Trump is a walking example of how any intelligence officer can turn someone against their own nation. As John Brennan said, most of the time, they don’t even know that they’re committing treason.”
“It’s going to be so clear that this has been a criminal enterprise from day one with the Russians and Trump …”
— Rep. Steve Cohen, MSNBC, Dec. 7, 2018
“Were these gun rights folks potentially a conduit for Russian money alongside other forms of Russian government influence on our 2016 campaign?”
— Rachel Maddow, MSNBC, July 25, 2018
“And what about Trump’s ring leadership of his people, including family members and their efforts to win this award of a foreign power, Russia, to win the presidency?”
— Chris Matthews, MSNBC, March 8, 2019
“And the Russians’ investment in (Trump) goes back decades. … It may have been the situation where (Trump) decided, look, what Russia is giving us in terms of political help here and undermining Hillary Clinton’s candidacy may be way bigger than any deal we could ever get in Russia.”
— Natasha Bertrand, The Atlantic, MSNBC, Nov. 30, 2018
“So, with this whole real estate deal and the claws that the Russians had into (Cohen), and what he was doing with that in terms of dealing with the Russians was all part and parcel of this conspiracy that resulted in their assistance in the campaign.”
— Nick Akerman, assistant Watergate prosecutor, MSNBC, Nov. 30, 2018
“An American president who has been compromised by the Russians faces the world.”
Albert Einstein once said, ‘Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.’There have been so many stupid acts and comments made in the past week in the world of politics, that it makes you wonder about the future of humanity.
Leen Dweik, a college student at NYU, and NYU senior Rose Asaf confronted Chelsea Clinton at a vigil for the fifty Muslims killed in an attack on a New Zealand mosque and accused her of being a cause of the massacre because she criticized an anti-Semitic tweet by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN).
In an essay in BuzzFeed published March 16, 2019, the two of them wrote, ‘Just weeks before this tragedy, we bore witness to a bigoted, anti-Muslim mob coming after Rep. Ilhan Omar for speaking the truth about the massive influence of the Israel lobby in this country.’
So, let’s not misunderstand. The two college students have a 100% monopoly on what’s right. Rep. Omar’s remarks were ‘truth’ and Clinton’s comments ‘fanned the flames of bigotry.’ I’m rarely a defender of Chelsea Clinton, but this arrogance is mind-blowing. This is the method, though, of the new Democrat party. They are all about intimidation, bullying and believing that they are one hundred percent right and the rest of us are just ignorant and wrong.
We see it with former Vice President Joe Biden. On February 28, 2019, in Omaha, NE, Biden referred to current Vice President Mike Pence as a ‘decent guy’ in a speech. The thought police on the Left rained down mercilessly on the former vice-president. Among them was actress and activist, Cynthia Nixon, who tweeted, ‘.@JoeBiden you’ve just called America’s most anti-LGBT elected leader ‘a decent guy.’ Please consider how this fall on the ears of our community.’
What did Joe do? He did what all good Democrats today do. He apologized. ‘You’re right, Cynthia… there is nothing decent about being anti-LGBTQ rights, and that includes the Vice President.’ Biden has to repent at the altar of the new Democrats.There’s no room for a variety of opinions. You must hate those you’re told to hate.
Not to be outdone in the arrogance and intimidation department, we see Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI). In an interview that aired on March 10, 2019, she said, ‘I know this will be somewhat shocking for some, but I think Islamophobia is very much among the Democratic Party as well as the Republican Party.’
Rep. Tlaib believes that the Democrats and Republicans are bigoted against Muslims. It’s hard for me to wrap my mind around the gall that it takes to accuse both major parties in the freest land in the world to be bigoted against a group of people.
It wasn’t the United States that detained the Muslim population. That was China. It isn’t the United States that is at the bottom of nations who mistreat women. According to USA Today, November 29, 2014, that would be the Islamic nation of Yemen. In what country can three Muslim individuals be elected to represent constituencies in the most powerful halls of debate and ideas? Only in the United States.
Just to refresh your memory, Tlaib is the freshman congresswoman who, hours upon being sworn in, vowed to impeach the president using vile curse words. She is not so much interested in fairness or equality. She is part of the new Democrat party whose motto is ‘my way or no way.’ She believes her ideas are right and, if you disagree, you’re wrong.
Not wanting to be left out, the deep state decided to unveil some arrogant stupidity as well. Quin Hillyer, in the Washington Examiner on March 13, 2019, reported, ‘Newly released testimony by disgraced FBI attorney Lisa Page makes former U.S. attorney general Loretta Lynch look blatantly dishonest and makes her infamous ‘tarmac meeting’ with former president Bill Clinton look even sleazier than it already had.’
Hillyer continues, ‘Specifically, despite sworn assurances to the contrary from Lynch, Page testified that Department of Justice officials repeatedly dissuaded the FBI from building a criminal case against Clinton for ‘gross negligence’ in her handling of classified information.’
Let’s understand here. The Obama Department of Justice prevented the FBI from a criminal case against Hillary Clinton, is that right? Even before it was popular, the Obama administration Democrats practiced the art of ‘we’re never wrong.’
The New Democrats are signaling clearly who they are. They are about bullying into submission those that disagree with them. They are convinced that they, and they alone, are one hundred percent right. If you disagree, you’re a bigot or just stupid. They are about hating the right people and they never, ever admit to doing wrong. They believe they’re above it.
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of Townhall.com of WhatDidYouSay.org.
Source: AP Photo/Palm Beach Post, Uma Sanghvi, File
Strangely, the media have suddenly taken an intense interest in the case of pedophile and major Democratic donor Jeffrey Epstein.
In 2005, the Palm Beach police were told by the mother of a young girl in West Palm Beach that her daughter had been brought to the Democratic donor’s mansion and asked to have sex with him for money. This kicked off an intensive, one-year undercover investigation.
The police sifted through Epstein’s garbage and interviewed 17 witnesses, including the housemen, who told of sex toys and dildos left behind after the underage girls left. One of Epstein’s procurers, a 20-year-old local woman named Haley Robson, who was paid $200 for every teenaged girl she brought to Jeffrey, was cooperating with police, telling them she was like “Heidi Fleiss.”They obtained statements from five of Epstein’s young victims, who said they’d been paid $200 to $300 to engage in various sex acts with him. Police raided Epstein’s home, finding explicit photographs of teenaged girls, incriminating phone records — and one girl’s high school transcript.
But when the police chief brought this mountain of evidence to Palm Beach County’s Democratic prosecutor Barry Krischer, he punted, charging the Democrat child molester with only one count of soliciting prostitution — yes, the child victims were labeled “prostitutes” — and offered Epstein probation.
Perhaps Krischer was exhausted, having just spent three years hounding Rush Limbaugh for abusing back pain medication.
Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter exploded in rage. (Meanwhile, Epstein claimed to be the victim of an anti-Semitic conspiracy on Palm Beach.) Chief Reiter wrote an open letter to Krischer asking the Democrat to remove himself from the case. Then he turned to the Bush administration to seek justice against a Democratic donor/accused child rapist.
As stories go, a child sex case involving a Palm Beach billionaire was pretty big. It was covered in the British press, in Florida media, at The New York Post and at Fox News. Bill O’Reilly led with the story on his Fox News show. But CNN and MSNBC did not breathe a word about a Democratic prosecutor refusing to hold a Democratic child rapist accountable.
Epstein had given more than $145,000 to Democratic candidates and causes, including Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer. He was a big Israel backer. Bill Clinton and Democratic activist Ron Burkle were frequent guests on Epstein’s private plane, dubbed the “Lolita Express.” And Krischer was a hero for his dogged pursuit of Rush Limbaugh! Why bring up all this unpleasantness?
Thanks to Chief Reiter, President Bush’s U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Alex Acosta, did take the case, despite the fact that only Epstein’s child rapes on his plane, on his private island or with girls brought across state lines would make it a federal case.
As a result of the (Republican-led) federal investigation, Epstein was finally required to plead guilty to two state felony charges, accept a sentence of two years in prison, register as a sex offender, and pay restitution to his victims.
Still no coverage by MSNBC or CNN.
Inasmuch as Epstein was pleading guilty to a state charge, the matter of his confinement was out of the U.S. attorney’s hands. It was Democratic county prison officials — not the feds — who placed Epstein in a private wing of the county jail and allowed him to spend 12 hours a day, six days a week at his Palm Beach mansion throughout his 13-month “imprisonment.”
In 2014, the brilliant conservative lawyer Paul Cassell and Bradley Edwards brought suit against the federal prosecutors for violating the Crime Victims’ Rights Actin the Epstein case.
As bad as the U.S. attorney’s office was, at least it did something. Democrat Krischer gave Epstein a walk. But no matter how appalling Krischer’s behavior was, the Crime Victims’ Rights Act only applies to federal prosecutions.
When Cassell and Edwards filed their case, they included the claims of various Epstein victims, who reported that the men at “Orgy Island,” where underage girls were being used as “sex slaves,” included Bill Clinton, Alan Dershowitz and Prince Andrew.
CNN gave extensive coverage to the celebrity-filled allegations, inviting Dershowitz on to defend himself and lavishing attention on the irrelevant prince. Amazingly, but characteristically, not once did CNN mention that Bill Clinton was named in the pleadings.
Only one show on MSNBC, “All In With Chris Hayes,” so much as acknowledged the bombshell case, also without letting on that Clinton had been named as a frequent Epstein guest by the child victims.
But recently, the very news outlets that spiked any news about this case for the past 13 years are suddenly hot on the trail of Jeffrey Epstein. Why the newfound sense of decency?
The answer is: Because they found a Trump connection. There’s a 2002 quote from Donald Trump saying nice things about Epstein and photographic proof that Epstein was one of the hundreds of thousands of people who have been to Mar-a-Lago. (There are rumors he has also been to the Grand Canyon and the Empire State Building.)
This is how the modern American media work: I’ll tell the same story that we’ve been frantically suppressing for a decade, connect it to Trump — and win a Pulitzer Prize!
Here is MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell describing Epstein a few weeks ago in a single segment:
“… a friend of Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein …
“… child sex trafficker and child rapist and friend of Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein …
“… a billionaire friend of Donald Trump’s …”
Epstein was a “friend” of Donald Trump’s the same way he is a “friend” of Pinch Sulzberger by virtue of reading The New York Times. He’s been to Trump’s club. (That is, until Trump barred him for propositioning the underage daughter of a member.)
But pay no attention to Jeffrey Epstein and his roster of Democratic enablers — this is a Trump scandal!
It seems that the U.S. attorney who oversaw the federal prosecution, Alex Acosta, is currently Trump’s Labor secretary. Trump didn’t know Acosta’s name during the Epstein prosecution, but liberals think they’ve unraveled Trump’s decade-long scheme to reward Acosta for being lenient on Epstein — aka “friend of Donald Trump’s.“
The silver lining is that we finally have a way to make Hillary Clinton pay for her crimes. Trump has to appoint her to his Cabinet. Then we’ll see the entire American press corps chanting, “Lock her up!”
The New York Times recently published a snippy attack on Attorney General Jeff Sessions, portraying him as a single-minded zealot pursuing crackpot ideas that were putting the Trump administration “on track to lose in court and prompting high-level departures.” The Times’ sources were “current and former career department lawyers.”In other words, Trump-hating Democratic zealots weeks away from their book contracts.
One attorney who left the Department of Justice during its descent into madness under Sessions was Stephen J. Buckingham. (Why not “Astor” or “Carnegie”?) As at any federal agency, 99 percent of “career” attorneys at DOJ are left-wing. Social activists move effortlessly from the ACLU, the Democratic Socialists of America and the Lesbian and Gay Immigration Rights Task Force to government jobs. Thus, one entry on Buckingham’s resume is that he “created a program to amend the immigration status of unaccompanied Sudanese refugee minors.”
During Democratic administrations, these selfless career employees sell guns to Mexican drug cartels and run around the country making sure local police forces can’t do their jobs. During Republican administrations, they spend their time quietly, relentlessly sabotaging the administration they allegedly serve.
In addition to being a nonstop source of critical remarks about the Trump administration, “career” DOJ employees also lead mob assaults on Cabinet members, as Allison Hrabar did to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen in June. Along with a dozen of her friends from the Democratic Socialists of America, DOJ paralegal Hrabar surrounded Nielsen’s table at a Washington, D.C., restaurant, shouting: “Kirstjen Nielsen, you’re a villain!” “If kids don’t eat in peace, you don’t eat in peace!” “The f—ing gall!” “Shame on you!” “Shame! Shame! Shame!” “Fascist pig!” — which Nielsen eventually realized was not the evening’s special.
(And it still didn’t occur to Gen. John Kelly’s special friend Nielsen why voters wanted a wall.)
It took months of complaints about the DOJ not firing Hrabar — and her own arrogant claim that she couldn’t be fired — for her to finally lose her job.
In Buckingham’s case, he told the Times that his conscience was shocked when Sessions asked him a legal question. (God forbid the attorney general question one of the lawyers working at DOJ!)
The Times reports: “In one instance, Mr. Sessions directly questioned a career lawyer, Stephen Buckingham, who was asked to find ways to file a lawsuit to crack down on sanctuary laws protecting undocumented immigrants. Mr. Buckingham, who had worked at the Justice Department for about a decade, wrote in a brief” — and presumably his forthcoming memoirs — “that he could find no legal grounds for such a case.”
Anyone else remember Arizona being denounced for two years during the Obama administration for trying to enforce immigration laws that the federal government wouldn’t? Hey, idiots! The feds have total control over immigration.
Didn’t Khizr Khan give Buckingham a copy of his Constitution?
I have been not practicing law longer than “Buckingham” was at the Justice Department, but I found possible legal grounds to go after sanctuary cities in approximately eight seconds on Google.
Title 18 of the U.S. Code is the federal criminal code. Section 3 states: “Accessory after the fact. Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.”
It’s hard to miss Section 3. Section 1 was repealed in 1984, and Section 2 consists of only 52 words. But Buckingham must have exhausted himself reading Section 2 and didn’t have the energy to shove ahead to Section 3.
Even if a couple sentences is your maximum reading limit, the crime of “accessory after the fact”has gotten a lot of airtime since Trump became president. It is one of the literally millions of laws Trump has probably broken, demanding his impeachment.
Before Trump was even inaugurated, Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee was claiming on MSNBC’s Chris Matthews’ show that Trump could be an “accessory after the fact” to the (nonexistent) Russian collusion. Earlier this year, Frank Figliuzzi, the former assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI, elaborated on this theory on MSNBC’s “The Last Word With Lawrence O’Donnell,” explaining that the president may have helped Vladimir Putin avoid punishment for his felonious act of taking out Facebook ads (or something).
By contrast with the (nonexistent) felony of (nonexistent) Russian collusion, the whole point of a “sanctuary city”is to shelter known criminals from arrest and deportation. Sanctuary cities like Philadelphia expressly prohibit officials from giving Immigration and Customs Enforcement advance notice before releasing illegal alien inmates to the public. In California, even if ICE shows up asking for a specific criminal alien, state and local government officials are instructed to refuse to comply, except in cases of certain violent felonies.
Prosecutors in “sanctuary” jurisdictions throughout the country are dropping criminal charges against immigrants — or allowing them to plea to minor offenses — for the sole purpose of preventing their deportation. In practice, this means less punishment for noncitizens than U.S. citizens. Talk about the “new Jim Crow.”
Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf not only refused to cooperate with federal law enforcement, she actually warned illegal aliens of an impending ICE raid.
These government officials are threatening the lives and safety of their own constituents by actively assisting known criminals escape apprehension by federal law enforcement. As Democrat Sheila Kuehl, chair of the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, put it, Californians should “lie, cheat and steal” to ensure that no immigrant be deported.
It’s hard to think of a more fundamental betrayal of the public trust.
Yes, you’re right, New York Times. Poor career attorneys are being asked to do horrible things under Jeff Sessions. Such as enforce the law.
Commentary by Dr. Michael L. Brown – Guest Columnist | Monday, October 15, 2018 | http://www.askdrbrown.org/
What’s changing the minds of some formerly Never Trumpers? How is it that today, despite my ongoing concerns about some of the president’s message and methods, I’m hoping for a red wave in the midterms?
I’m reading about more and more former people likeErick Erickson. They were once Never Trumpers, but they would vote for him in 2020 if he runs again. What’s changing their minds?
I too once opposed Donald Trump. I didn’t like his past. I didn’t trust his intentions. His character, to me, was highly suspect. I had no idea what he really believed or stood for. And I certainly questioned if his outreach to evangelical Christian leaders was sincere. Wasn’t he just using them, as others had in the past?
To be totally honest, I had actually forgotten just how deeply I disliked him when he was a Republican primary candidate. But when editing mynew book on Trump, which includes 90 Trump-related articles from August 2015 to August 2018, I realized just how much of a problem I used to have with this highly controversial figure.
You see, most of us remember the past through the filter of the present. It’s like the man who says to his wife after 30 years of marriage, “I want a divorce. The truth is, I never really loved you.”
His present attitude has clearly distorted the facts of the past.
It was the same withme and Donald Trump. It was only while re-reading my articles written about him during the primaries that I remembered just how much I did not want to see him win.
And, to be brutally honest, since I had endorsed Ted Cruz and Trump was his main opposition, on some level, even subconsciously, I must have looked at Trump as the competitor. So, just like you root for your home team and against the opposition, I rooted for Cruz and against Trump.
How did I go from that attitude to rooting for him and voting for him? How is it that today, despite my ongoing concerns about some of the president’s message and methods, I’m hoping for a red wave in the midterms? (For the record, I’m registered as an Independent but consistently vote Republican, especially because of key social issues.)
Let’s think about what is changing the minds of some formerly Never Trumpers:
The Kavanaugh hearings revealed just how intense and ugly the opposition can be.
The Democrat-inspired mobocracy is deeply disturbing.
The radicality of the pro-abortion movement has been unveiled for all to see, along with the radicality of the extreme feminist movement.
The outright hostility of the leftwing media has revealed their depth of antipathy, not just to Trump but to conservative values in general.
The emergence of die-hard socialist candidates has made our choices more stark.
It’s even increasingly hard to deny that some kind of “deep state” exists.
On the positive side, Trump has done a great job with the economy. He is doing better against ISIS and Islamic terrorism. He has proven to be a true friend to Israel. He has made some positive progress with hostile countries. He is absolutely keeping his promises about Supreme Court and federal court nominees. And he has provensincere in his commitmentto stand with evangelical Christians.
In my case, there were several factors that led to a change of thinking, all of which can be followed in the chronological reprinting of the 90 aforementioned articles included in my book.
First, I always said that if it was Trump vs. Hillary, I would reevaluate my opposition to him.
Second, prophetic words from friends of mine saying that God had raised up Trump like a Cyrus-type figure (a foreign king who was not a worshiper of Yahweh) had me asking the whole time, “Am I wrong here?”
Third, the fact that he struck a chord with so many Americans got my attention.
Fourth, the fact that he beat so many fine Republican candidates suggested strongly to me that there was a supernatural wind in his sails.
Fifth, close friends of mine who were respected evangelical leaders spent lots of time with him and assured me that he was open and listening.
Sixth, his positions became more consistent, leading me to believe (or at least hope) that he would keep his word, hence my vote for him.
Now while I certainly do not support his every word and deed, I must say as president he is doing the things I hoped he would do if elected.
Would it be great if he would be a good role model too? Absolutely.
Do I often wish that he could unify more people behind him? Certainly.
But am I glad I voted for him? Without a doubt.
And, as I’ve often said, if it were Trump vs. Hillary today, I’d vote for him without any hesitation.
Perhaps this analogy will prove helpful.
There are a bunch of pit bulls with rabies terrorizing a neighborhood and biting the children. But there is no town dog catcher, and kids are suffering and dying.
Two candidates emerge.
One is the nicest guy in the world. He’s happily married with great kids, and you’ll never hear a foul word from him. But he can’t even catch a fly. The guy is hopeless.
The other candidate is as nasty as they come. His three ex-wives hate him. He curses like a drunken sailor. But the guy can catch a dog with his teeth.
For whom would you vote?
That’s where many formerly Never Trumpers are today. The stakes are that high, and he’s the man for the job. A great role model would be a wonderful plus. It’s just not in the cards right now.
So, let’s keep standing with President Trump, both in prayer and in face-to-face support, helping him become a better man. And let’s make our voices and votes heard for the good of the nation. The political stakes are really that high.
The Tribute in Light, an installation of searchlights representing the fallen twin towers, is seen Tuesday from New Jersey. (Photo: Chine Nouvelle/Sipa/Newscom)
For 17 years, America has engaged in a collective ritual every Sept. 11: hang flags, light candles, bow heads, and make vows to “Never forget.”
Then, every Sept. 12, it’s back to business as usual: See something, do nothing.
Did you remember that five of the 9/11 hijackers—Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Hani Hanjour, Nawaf al-Hazmi, and Satam al-Suqami—carried out their killer plot after overstaying their visas, evading detection, and avoiding deportation?
Did you remember the other radical Muslim members of the Terrorist Visa Overstayers Club?
They include 1997 New York subway bomber Lafi Khalil; 1993 World Trade Center bombers Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammed Salameh, and Eyad Ismoil; 1993 New York landmark bombing plot conspirator Fadil Abdelgani; convicted Times Square bomb plotter Faisal Shahzad; and U.S. Capitol bomb plotter Amine El Khalifi, whose visa expired in 1999 and who escaped Homeland Security’s notice for 12 years before he was arrested in 2012—just blocks from the Capitol building donning what he thought was a suicide bomb vest.
Did you remember that a year after the jihadist attacks that stole nearly 3,000 innocent lives, the 9/11 Commission urged our government to build a biometric entry-exit program to track and remove visa overstayers—who comprise an estimated 40 percent of the total illegal immigrant population?
Did you remember that Congress had already mandated exactly such a system for all ports of entry—land, sea, and air—in 1996 as part of the Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act?
Janice Kephart, former border counsel on the 9/11 Commission, testified five years ago that “tracking the arrival and departure of foreign visitors to the United States is an essential part of immigration control, with collateral effects on law enforcement and national security.”Without both arrival controls and departure records, she warned, “there is no way to know whether travelers have left when they were supposed to.”
At least eight separate federal statutes, passed with bipartisan support, have established the parameters and appropriated funds for a foreign visa holder entry-exit system over the past two decades.
But as I reported in my book “Invasion” 16 years ago, lobbyists for the travel and tourism industries, airlines, universities, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and illegal immigrant amnesty banded together to undermine the implementation of this most basic national security program, which every sovereign country needs to defend its borders.
On the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, then-House Homeland Security Chairwoman Candice Miller, R-Mich., reported on the federal backlog of more than 750,000 unvetted visa overstay records: “If we are serious about controlling who comes into the nation and preventing another 9/11 attack, we need to get serious about an exit program,”she testified.
Spoiler alert: The swamp creatures in Washington are not serious.
Now, the Department of Homeland Security reports a whopping 700,000 foreigners overstayed their temporary tourist, business, or student visas in fiscal 2017. Most alarming, among the countries with the highest overstay rates are the terrorist breeding grounds of Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Libya.
An estimated 40 percent of the 700,000 student/exchange visa overstays on record last year came from four countries: China, India, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia. (In case you’d forgotten, Saudi Arabia sent 15 of the 19 hijackers to America 17 years ago this week.)
Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies analyzed the data and flagged five countries “where we need to critically examine visa issuance processes”because of overstay rates of more than 30 percent: Chad, Djibouti, Eritrea, Liberia, and the Solomon Islands.
Last year, a DHS inspector general’s audit concluded that Immigration and Customs Enforcement cannot account for all visa overstays because its 27 different databases are a stovepiped mess.ICE arrested a measly 0.4 percent of visa overstays (3,402 out of 500,000) it could account for—in part because investigators couldn’t access information or weren’t even aware of available national security databases.
President Donald Trump called on Congress to expedite completion of the long-delayed biometric exit program, and several pilot programs at airports are now in place. But Trump faces the same open borders/big business roadblocks that have stymied the system ever since the twin towers came crashing down.
If Congress wanted to, it could immediately pass measures to make overstaying a visa a felony, to impose re-entry bars on visa violators, and to require bonds for foreigners entering through the highest-risk temporary visa programs or from countries of concern.
But annual pretension is so much easier than actual prevention. All remembrance and no action dishonors the 3,000 who died 17 years ago—and endangers us all.
The left is very close to having a governing majority due entirely to immigration. Despite the promise of the Trump campaign, there isn’t much standing in their way. Now, they’re just running out the clock. Soon, we will have admitted so many immigrants that it will be too late to do anything.
Although liberals pretend to have no idea where conservatives got the idea that immigration was designed to change the country and bring in new voters, they weren’t always so modest.
In a 1998 article for Cornell University’s Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, Democratic political consultant Patrick Reddy exulted that the 1965 immigration act was “the Kennedy family’s greatest gift to the Democratic Party.”Changing the country’s demographics through immigration would be “George McGovern’s revenge,”liberal political strategist Ruy Teixeira announced 16 years ago — and then celebrated as a fait accompli upon Obama’s election in 2008.
The very reason the left loathes Trump is that he promised to stop their hostile takeover of our country. But instead of sticking it to his enemies by blocking their depraved agenda, he has fallen into their trap.
Obsessed with the Robert Mueller investigation, the president spends his days tweeting attacks on his attorney general, Jeff Sessions — the one member of Trump’s Cabinet making good on his campaign’s immigration promises.
It’s a win-win for the left. Either they drive Trump from office with an unending harassment campaign disguised as a legitimate investigation, or they keep him too distracted to thwart their plans to flood the country with foreigners.
The Swamp has succeeded beyond its wildest dreams. Trump seems to have completely forgotten about the one policy the left fears most.
Evidently, the media have decided Trump is no longer a threat to their inevitable conquest. The Washington Post cheerfully touts the “growing diversity”— i.e., non-whiteness — of Democrats’ nominees. (“Black and Latino Democratic nominees boost their ranks by merging insider organization and outside money,” Aug. 29.)
The New York Times is already doing a victory dance on the corpse of historical America. Recently, the newspaper hired a white male-hating bigot, Sarah Jeong, for its editorial board. In the past week alone, the Times has run articles with these headlines: “Who’s Afraid of a White Minority?”and “The Religion of Whiteness Becomes a Suicide Cult.”
The gleeful destruction of our country may be less annoying than the insults to our intelligence necessary to pull it off.
To keep the mass migration flowing, we get lies, half-truths, insults and cliches. The citizenship of anchor babies is a lie (see “Adios, America”); the humanitarian need of so-called “refugees” is a lie (see “Adios, America”); the lower crime rate and welfare consumption of immigrants is a lie (see “Adios, America”); the Trump administration’s policy of “separating children” from their parents at the border is a lie.
About 80 percent of the “children” are teenaged boys, many of them MS-13 gang members. Recently a child rapist tried to enter the country, claiming the rapee was his daughter. Don’t separate children from their rapists!
The left doesn’t care about child rape or human trafficking. They just want an end to America and its infernal white people.
“Children” captured at the border have to be released from custody after 20 days, pursuant to an ACLU-forged court order. Twenty days was the number the ACLU settled on after determining that it would be impossible to process the illegal border-crossers’ asylum claims within that time frame, so the kids and their alleged “parents” would have to be released into the country.
I could process the claims in 10 minutes. Anyone who shows up on our border after “fleeing” El Salvador, Guatemala or Honduras isn’t fleeing anything. There are about 20 countries closer to their homes than the United States — and they speak the same language.
Among the countries closer to them than the U.S. is Mexico.
You’d think that, just as a PR matter, Mexico would say, We’re currently involved in this PR thing with the U.S., so let’s be REALLY nice to any illegals coming into our country. … He beats you? Oh, that’s awful — of course, you can stay here!
But no. Mexico says, Screw off, illegals. We’ll help you get to the U.S., but that’s the end of our beneficence.
The whole border surge is a hoax, intended to overwhelm the system and get Democrats their last needed non-American voters.
When they’re busted on their lies, liberals turn to cliches. “Diversity is a strength!” After four decades of mass immigration from the Third World, I think we’re all set on diversity. Any more diversity would be like bringing snow to Eskimos. We’re drowning in diversity.
Even if diversity were ever desirable — as opposed to what it is, which is “undesirable” — surely it’s not the most important value to a country. At best, diversity is a luxury, adding “vibrancy,” as The New York Times is constantly telling us.
It’s like having a rule that men need to set aside a certain amount of money each week to wear carnations in their lapels. Carnations are nice, but when you’re unemployed and the carnations are wormy, would you make that Priority No. 1?
Similarly, “diversity” is a luxury we can’t afford in a time of massive income inequality, stagnating wages and a raging heroin epidemic — with 90 percent of the heroin coming from Mexico.
When the cliches fall flat, they just say, So you’re with Hitler!
You’re Hitler if you support Teddy Kennedy’s original claims about his 1965 immigration bill. At the time, he and his co-conspirators swore up and down that it would not alter the country’s ethnic composition one iota. Now, it’s “white supremacist” to say: “We liked our country the way it was.”
Has anyone ever criticized a black, brown, beige, yellow, red or green nation for wanting to preserve its ethnicity? No, only a white majority is pure evil that must be extirpated.
When facing your new overlords, remember: When there was 10 seconds left on the clock, we decided to get rid of Jeff Sessions for keeping Trump’s promises on immigration, rather than using his office to protect the president from a Russian investigation so stupid that no one outside of the Swamp cares about it.
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa addresses the opening ceremony of the Beijing Summit of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation in Beijing, Sept. 3, 2018. (Photo: Xinhua/Sipa USA/Newscom)
South Africa has been thrown into the news because of President Donald Trump’s recent tweet that he instructed his secretary of state to “closely study”alleged land seizures from white farmers in South Africa. Earlier this year, a land confiscation motion was brought by radical Marxist opposition leader Julius Malema, and it passed South Africa’s Parliament by a 241-83 vote.
Malema has had a long-standing commitment to land confiscation without compensation. In 2016, he told his supporters he was “not calling for the slaughter of white people—at least for now.”
The land-grabbing sentiment is also expressed by Lindsay Maasdorp, national spokesman for Black First Land First, a group that condones land seizures in South Africa. He says, “We are going to take back the land, and we’ll do it by any means necessary.”The land confiscation policy was a key factor in the platform of the new president, Cyril Ramaphosa.
I have visited South Africa several times, in 1979, 1980, and 1992. My three-month 1980 visit included lectures at nearly all South African universities. The 1992 return visit, two years after apartheid ended and two years before democratic elections, included lectures on my book “South Africa’s War Against Capitalism.”
During each visit, my counsel to South Africans, particularly black South Africans, was that the major task before them was not only ridding the nation of apartheid but deciding what was going to replace it.
That’s an important question. William Hutt, the late University of Cape Town economist who was an anti-apartheid voice within the academic community, wrote in his 1964 book, titled “The Economics of the Colour Bar,”that one of the supreme tragedies of the human condition is that those who have been the victims of injustices or oppression “can often be observed to be inflicting not dissimilar injustices upon other races.”
In 2001, Andrew Kenny wrote an article titled “Black People Aren’t Animals—But That’s How Liberals Treat Them.”Kenny asked whether South Africa is doomed to follow the rest of Africa into oblivion. Kenny gave a “no” answer to his question, but he was not very optimistic because of the pattern seen elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa.
He argued that ordinary Africans were better off under colonialism. Colonial masters never committed anything near the murder and genocide seen under black rule in Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Nigeria, Mozambique, Somalia, and other countries, where millions of blacks have been slaughtered in unspeakable ways, including being hacked to death, boiled in oil, set on fire, and dismembered. Kenny said that if as many elephants, zebras, and lions were as ruthlessly slaughtered, the world’s leftists would be in a tizzy.
Ghanaian economist George Ayittey expressed a similar complaint in his book “Africa Betrayed”: “White rulers in South Africa could be condemned, but not black African leaders guilty of the same political crimes.”
Moeletsi Mbeki, a brother of former South African President Thabo Mbeki’s and deputy chairman of the South African Institute of International Affairs, an independent think tank based at the University of the Witwatersrand, said in 2004 that Africa was in a spiral of decline. “The average African is poorer than during the age of colonialism,”he said.
Zimbabwe, South Africa’s northern neighbor formerly called Rhodesia, was southern Africa’s breadbasket. That was prior to the confiscation of nearly 6,000 large white-owned commercial farms during the 1990s. By the turn of the century, Zimbabwe was threatened with mass starvation and was begging for food.
Added to that tragedy, Zimbabwe experienced history’s second-highest inflation rate. It reached 79.6 billion percent in mid-November 2008. (In 1946, Hungary experienced the world’s highest inflation rate, 41.9 quadrillion percent.)
South Africa leads in mining, food production, and critical infrastructure, such as power production and railroading, in southern Africa. But it’s going the same way as Zimbabwe, spelling disaster for the entire southern part of Africa.
What’s needed most right now is for South Africans to adopt some of the principles enunciated by Nelson Mandela, one of which is, “You will achieve more in this world through acts of mercy than you will through acts of retribution.”
John McCain’s actual election rivals may have been George W. Bush back in 2000 and Barack Obama in 2008, but you’d be forgiven for wondering if they were all on the same team after the late senator’s funeral on Saturday.
“The same team”is even how former President Obama described himself and McCain as he addressed the gathered crowd at the senator’s funeral.
The Arizona lawmaker may have been gone, but the figures he approved to speak at the service definitely seemed to be on the same page when it came to using the memorial service as a platform to join forces against the sitting president of the United States.
Advertisement – story continues below
Nobody mentioned Donald Trump by name, but as Joseph Curl pointed out at The Daily Wire, it was clear that three of the main speakers — Meghan McCain, Barack Obama, and George W. Bush — were of one mind when it came to backhanding the current president.
“We gather here to mourn the passing of American greatness — the real thing, not cheap rhetoric from men who will never come near the sacrifice he gave so willingly, nor the opportunistic appropriation of those who lived lives of comfort and privilege while he suffered and served,” McCain’s adult daughter Meghan chastised from the podium.
It was a cheap shot directed, without a doubt, at the billionaire Trump.
“The America of John McCain has no need to be made great again because America was always great,”Meghan McCain continued, obviously hammering at Trump’s famous slogan of “Make America Great Again.”
Advertisement – story continues below
Remember, this was supposed to be a funeral.
Obama joined in when his time came.
“So much of our politics, our public life, our public discourse can seem small and mean and petty, trafficking in bombast and insult and phony controversies and manufactured outrage,” he declared pompously.
“It’s a politics that pretends to be brave and tough but in fact is born in fear. John called on us to be bigger than that. He called on us to be better than that,”stated the former president who beat the deceased in 2008 aided in large part by a media that slandered McCain constantly.
Then George W. Bush, a man who reportedly refused to vote for Trump against Hillary Clinton, took the stage.
Advertisement – story continues below
“John was above all a man with a code,” Bush stated.
“He led by a set of public virtues that brought strength and purpose to his life and to his country. He was courageous, with a courage that frightened his captors and inspired his countrymen,” Bush said.
“He was honorable, always recognizing that his opponents were still patriots and human beings,” Bush continued, without clarifying what the definition of a patriot was or if every opponent met the criteria.
“He loved freedom with the passion of a man who knew its absence. He respected the dignity inherent in every life, a dignity that does not stop at borders,”Bush continued, likely taking a swipe at Trump’s push for border security.
Advertisement – story continues below
One Republican president jabbing at another for daring to enforce the nation’s borders, at a funeral. Welcome to 2018.
In response, Trump could have gone on a rant. He could have pushed back against the almost certain efforts to chide him by establishment politicians who have had power for decades — basically, the very people he was elected to counter.
Instead, Trump posted just four words on Twitter on the evening of McCain’s funeral.
Advertisement – story continues below
It wasn’t a lot. It didn’t have to be.
For Trump opponents, nothing the president said would have mattered.
For Trump supporters, those four words said it all.
Benjamin Arie has been a political junkie since the hotly contested 2000 election. Ben settled on journalism after realizing he could get paid to rant. He cut his teeth on car accidents and house fires as a small-town reporter in Michigan before becoming a full-time political writer.
Apart from building the wall, President Trump’s most important act as president so far was his attack on internet censorship this week.
The left controls all the cultural institutions — the establishment media, corporate America, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, public schools and universities. The only breach in their total dominion of the flow of information is the internet. So now they’re fixated like a laser beam on private citizens yammering to one another online.
Why can’t people accept the officially certified news as delivered by respected truth-tellers like Brian Williams, CNN and NBC — the network that censored Juanita Broaddrick and illegally leaked the “Access Hollywood” tape?
Liberals assessed the situation and correctly concluded: People are learning facts on the internet that we’ve been withholding from them, so now they don’t agree with us. We have to stop this.
The media relentlessly lied to the public about Hillary’s health, denouncing conservatives as “conspiracy theorists”for mentioning it. Then an alert citizen with an iPhone captured Hillary having to be carried to her car at the 9/11 memorial service in 2016.
Mainstream media outlets painted a cherubic picture of Michael Brown after he was fatally shot by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. He was a “gentle giant,” gunned down like a dog as he plaintively cried, “Hands up! Don’t shoot!”
HEY! Wait a second! How did that video get out of Brown manhandling a tiny Indian man while robbing a convenience store? That should have been suppressed like the Broaddrick interview!
Would we ever have known about Monica Lewinsky, but for the Drudge Report publishing the blockbuster story that Newsweek had killed?
I can’t even blame them. If I were advising liberals, I’d say: You’ve got only one small breach in the wall of sound; you’ve got to ban conservative speech on the internet.
It’s not as if the left has ever shown any particular commitment to free speech. They love “transgressive” ideas and “controversial” speech — but only when they’re in the minority. As soon as they get control, no more free speech for you! Just look at the universities.
You might think that the exact same people wailing about Trump attacking the “free press” (fake news) would be too embarrassed to use their next breath to demand censorship on the internet. But that’s exactly what they’re doing.
On Sunday night, MSNBC host Kasie Hunt spent her entire interview with Facebook’s former chief information security officer Alex Stamos, demanding that Facebook go pedal-to-the-metal on censoring conservatives. It was left to defender of the reich Stamos to mumble something about not banning speech based on “content.”
Indignant that Alex Jones was allowed to “foment dissent on controversial topics online,”Kasie asked, “Did Facebook react too slowly to the Alex Jones issue? … Does Facebook have a responsibility to take on figures like this?”
Kasie then quoted Stamos back to himself, citing a memo in which he’d written: “We need to be willing to pick sides when there are clear moral or humanitarian issues.”
One “clear,” “moral,” “humanitarian issue” for Facebook — which according to Kasie isn’t doing enough censoring — is to prevent any criticism of caterwauling, protesting illegal aliens. (That sentence just violated Facebook’s Community Standards.)
Last May, I was notified by Facebook’s Julia Smekalina that “one of your posts was reported and found to be in violation of our Community Standards.”
Little Nazi block watchers are constantly reporting conservatives. They can’t just stop following people they don’t like. Liberals used to mock fundamentalist Christians, claiming they feared that someone, somewhere, may be happy. Now they’re the ones haunted by the fear that someone, somewhere, may disagree with them.
The offending post was from January, months earlier, when I retweeted John Binder’s story on Breitbart News headlined: “Illegal aliens who say they ‘deserve’ amnesty tell pro-amnesty Sen. Thom Tillis: ‘Fck this conservative! Fck this person!’”
Illegals screaming obscenities at a U.S. senator does not offend Facebook community standards. It was the comment added to the story by the pro-American immigration website, Vdare: “It would be so easy to just deport these parasites @realDonaldTrump. They hate you, they hate your supporters, they hate your party, they hate our country. Why not just enforce the law and send them home?”
(The reason I’m talking about “tweets” when it was Facebook that censored me is that I detest Facebook, so the only “posts” of mine that ever showed up there were my tweets, which used to transfer automatically. Now they don’t, so I’ll never go to Facebook again.)
Here is my full and complete exchange with Smekalina, defender of “Community Standards,” illustrating what a complete joy using Facebook is.
From: Ann Coulter:
Okay, you’ll have to tell me how to delete. nothing I click on offers the option of deleting. I wish you’d spend more time making facebook user friendly. Also, can you please tell me how it violates community standards to support enforcing the law? is the word “parasites” forbidden?
From: Julia Smekalina:
… yes, comparing immigrants to parasites is the specific portion in violation of our policies.
From: Ann Coulter:
It’s obviously NOT about “immigrants.” it’s about illegal immigrants, i.e. law breakers. is it a violation to call lawbreakers “parasites”?
I never heard from Julia again, but I gather she helpfully deleted the post for me. At the risk of bringing MSNBC’s hammer down on Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, the tweet’s still available there.
Let me preface this entire thing with two notes: First, I am an avid video game player. I’ve been playing video games since I was six, and I’ve easily played thousands of hours worth of video games. Second, I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. Few things are more fundamentally American than the right to keep and bear arms. In short, I love my constitution and I love my video games.
Unfortunately, the two of them became intertwined in the worst possible way on Sunday in Jacksonville, Florida, when 24-year-old David Katz shot up a Madden football game tournament and killed two people before turning the gun on himself.
To the utter surprise of absolutely nobody, this tragic event somehow became a political issue instead of an indictment against the evil humans are capable of.
There were those who predictably jumped on the anti-Second Amendment train, calling for the logistically impossible task of banning guns. In turn, that triggered a defense mechanism from the other side who immediately wanted to blame violent games.
Both fringes of the spectrum are wrong on this matter.
As has been noted ad nauseam, you can’t regulate the evil that lurks in people’s hearts. Taking away freedoms has never been the answer to any question worth asking.
Equally as obnoxious are people who want to scapegoat violent video games. Madden is a football video game, which is a fairly far cry from the likes of “Grand Theft Auto,” and is rated “E” for “Everyone” by the ESRB.
Considering it’s impossible to regulate evil intent, let me posit something that’s actually worth regulating since the mainstream media is too preoccupied with wanting to ban guns or violent media.
As competitive video gaming, or “eSports,” continues to grow, alongside the proliferation of streaming platforms like Twitch, which creates unprecedented access, fame and money to gamers, perhaps it’s worth looking into whether or not that entire scene needs to be regulated and looked into.
Mental welfare checks, psyche evaluations, limits on practice time and meaningful punishments for toxicity are all things that professional or competitive video gamers need at this point.
Guns are already regulated through permits and licenses. Video games themselves are regulated by the ESRB and sometimes the government.
I have never been a “professional gamer,” but I know the scene well. I have close friends who would consider themselves pros or at least Twitch gamers. I’ve dabbled in competitive video game tournaments here and there.
I can say, unequivocally, that the competitive video game scene is insanely toxic. It’s one of the primary reasons I stick to single-player video games. I’d rather play “Zelda” and have some music playing in the background than play “Call of Duty” with a prepubescent punk yelling racial obscenities at me.
Video gamers as a whole are probably not the most well-adjusted people. Thrusting the most avid of players (in other words, people who likely have the worst work-life balance) into prominent public spotlights is unlikely to lead to anything good.
Going back to violent games, there have been no conclusive studies correlating violent games to aggressive actions. You know what types of video games do trigger aggressive actions? Competitive ones.
The American Psychological Association published a study that found gamers were more likely to have aggressive responses to a competitive video game than a violent one.
It makes sense. As history has proven, whether it’s steroids in baseball or any number of New England Patriots-related scandals, competition often brings out the very worst in people. Bringing the worst out of people who aren’t well-adjusted is a recipe for disaster.
Toxicity within gaming culture is hardly a novel problem. Companies like Blizzard and Riot Games have been trying to regulate the overwhelming toxicity in popular competitive games like “Overwatch” and “League of Legends,” respectively, for a while now. It’s mostly been lip service with a couple of band-aids thrown in. Perhaps more stringent and significant change can come from them now.
If there’s one positive thing to emerge from the horrible tragedy in Jacksonville, perhaps it’ll be an honest and introspective look from my fellow gamers. We can, should and, apparently, need to be better.
If I could have two television shows and two movies on a desert island, they’d be “The Office,” (the American version) “Breaking Bad,” “The Dark Knight,” and “Die Hard.” I love sports, video games, comics, movies and television. And I guess my job, too.
Free and fair elections have always been a hallmark of American democracy. But will they always be? Rush Limbaugh thinks there’s a very good chance they won’t.
Rush was answering a caller to the show last week who said that the media didn’t understand why Republican voters would stick by President Donald Trump, particularly given his nomination of federal Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
“I think you’re right — and the media, of course, is missing it,” Limbaugh said. “The media thinks the exact opposite is happening. They think … Like CNN today spent the whole morning bashing Trump as somebody out of place, and doesn’t know what he’s doing, embarrassing the United States on the world stage at NATO, and they think Trump voters are gonna see it the same way and start regretting the way they voted for Trump.
“These people have no idea,” he continued. “It’s amazing to me — and you’re right about this. It’s amazing just from a professional standpoint.
“If you’re a political consultant, political professional at all, and you’re on the losing side of an election that you thought you were gonna win in a landslide, it would seem to me that the first thing that you would want to do is find out who it is that beat you,” Limbaugh said. “’Who are these people that voted for Trump, and how did we miss ’em? How did this happen? Why did our polling not show that Trump was this popular?’
“They haven’t done that at all. They’ve made no effort to understand the Trump voter in whatever state.
“They have made no effort to understand why they can’t break this bond that exists between Trump and his voters. They continue to condescend to these people. They continue. Either on MSNBC or CNN or in the pages of The New York Times or Washington Post, they continue to mock them, make fun of them, provoke them, insult them, what have you. All the while doing news stories in such a way that they really believe that they’re going to separate Trump’s voters from Trump.”
Limbaugh said to the left (and the anti-Trump right), it comes down to “ways have to be found to beat them and overcome them, but not persuade them and talk them, you know, into abandoning Trump. Well, I don’t know, but that just doesn’t seem to make much sense in the world of politics.
“I’ll tell you, folks, I’ve made this prediction once. I’m gonna make it again here. It’s a long, long-term prediction. This is nothing rooted in any particular conspiracy theory I’ve heard, because I don’t ascribe to those. But it is becoming clear … It’s becoming clear to the left that the only thing standing in their way now is elections.”
Limbaugh went on to describe a show on CBS (I’m pretty sure he’s referring to “The Good Fight”) in which a character played by Margo Martindale illustrates his point.
“She was telling everybody about, ‘we have to win 2018. We have to win. We have to win. We have to.’ Now, obviously that’s a mantra. But the way she said it, it made me realize: One of these days these people are gonna realize that the only thing stopping them here is elections.
“If they can find a way around that, then they don’t need to worry about appealing to people or getting out the vote or coming up with ways to convince people to vote,”he continued. “If you look at the way the radical left is going with this intolerant bullying and intimidation of anybody who disagrees with ’em, and the desire to stop any expression of any alternative view or way of thinking?
“But I’m telling you that they’re gonna start thinking this way, because in their perverted worldview, the biggest problem they have right now is they’re losing elections. And their way of thinking is, ‘Well, we got a get rid of elections then.’ If elections are the problem, rather than figuring how to win ’em since that’s becoming problematic for ’em, ‘We just gotta find a way to get rid of ’em.’”
Limbaugh said that you could “(g)o ahead and laugh. Tell everybody I said that someday the left is gonna conclude that elections are the problem, but I’m telling you what. What do you think open borders, mass amnesty is about?
“If American citizens won’t vote for you, then make sure a bunch of people get into the country who will. Don’t doubt me on this, folks. These people have such an entitlement and quest for power that leaving it up to public opinion among a bunch of dolts and uninformed, uneducated hicks?
“That’s not gonna happen,” he concluded. “That’s not gonna be allowed to happen for very long.”
Will this happen? Not tomorrow, and Rush certainly doesn’t believe it’s coming soon. But when the ends justify the means, and when the ends involve winning at all costs, why bother with elections?
And when you think they won’t change the way the game works, just look at the move regarding the Electoral College when they couldn’t win that.
Cillian Zeal is a conservative writer who is currently living abroad. He became a staunch right-winger at the age of three: While watching a clip of Ronald Reagan, he told his mother (to her great horror), “Mom, I’m a Republican.” Except for a brief, scarring and inexplicable late high-school dalliance with Ralph Nader and his ilk, he’s never looked back. Aside from politics, he enjoys spending time with his wife, literature (especially British comic novels and modern Japanese lit), indie rock, coffee, Formula One, and football (of both American and world varieties). He is the proud owner of a very lazy West Highland white terrier and an extraordinary troublesome poodle mix of indeterminate provenance.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision on whether a Christian baker can be forced to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage (no) arriving on the same day that Bill Clinton reared his syphilitic head on NBC’s “Today” reminded me how liberals always use black people as props.
Midway through the last century, bedrock legal principles about property rights and freedom of association were abrogated to deal with a specific, intractable problem: We could not get Democrats to stop discriminating against blacks.
So Republicans, with very little Democratic help, passed a slew of laws saying: No, even though you own that restaurant, you cannot discriminate against black customers. And no, even though we are a free people, you cannot refuse to associate with black people in your clubs, universities or sports teams.
This should have been a one-time exception to the law for one specific group of people based on an emergency.
But Democrats, never wild about freedom in the first place, saw “civil rights” as a great gig. Instead of civil rights being used to remedy historic injuries done to a specific group of people, they’d use “civil rights” as a false flag for all their pet projects.
Just six years after passage of the historic 1964 Civil Rights Act, Democrats in New York had dropped black people from the equation and moved onto legalized abortion. State senator Manfred Ohrenstein of Manhattan explained why killing the unborn was a “right”: “It was the end of the civil rights era, and we viewed [abortion] as a civil right.”
In the 1991 case Kreimer v. Morristown, a Carter-appointed federal district judge, H. Lee Sarokin, ruled that a public library’s discrimination against smelly, frightening homeless people violated the equal protection clause because it had a “disparate impact” on people who refuse to bathe compared to those who bathe regularly. Three years later, President Clinton promoted him to an appellate judgeship. (The judge, not the homeless person.)
In 2007, then-governor Eliot Spitzer vowed that “New York state will continue to be a beacon of civil rights” — when proposing a state law that would guarantee access to late-term abortions.
In June 2012, The New York Times chirpily reported “gay rights the fastest-moving civil rights movement in our nation’s history”!
These days, you could be forgiven for not realizing that civil rights ever had anything to do with black people. According to Equal Opportunity Employment Commission statistics, for a least a decade, 65 percent of all “civil rights” claims have had absolutely nothing to do with race discrimination.
The gay wedding cake caper is only the most recent example of our majestic “civil rights.”
Instead of basing favored treatment under the law on a history of brutal and widespread injustice in America, liberals thought it should also be based on other forms of suffering, such as: being a woman, being a Muslim, wanting an abortion, having been born in Mexico, being a smelly homeless person stinking up the public library and — according to Ruth Bader Ginsburg this week — being a gay couple who wants to force a Christian to bake a cake for your wedding.
It must make blacks feel great being compared to daft women, smelly homeless people and bossy gays harassing a Christian baker.
And apes!
Princeton ethics professor Peter Singer compares black people to apes, citing the black liberation movement as a model for the liberation of apes. We must “extend to other species,”Singer says, “the basic principle of equality” that we extend “to all members of our own species.”
This wasn’t an Ambien-induced Twitter rant by a comedian. Singer wrote it, calmly and deliberately, in a book on “ethics.”
Still, I believe the greatest insult black Americans have had to endure from liberals was when they called Bill Clinton the “first black president.”
I notice that he was not the first black president when Democrats were singing Fleetwood Mac at his inauguration, nor when he was appointing the first woman attorney general or passing welfare reform. Only after Clinton was caught in the most humiliating sex scandal in U.S. history did he suddenly become “the first black president.”(Which is not true, according to Monica Lewinsky’s description of Clinton’s private parts.)
During the House impeachment hearings, Rep. Maxine Waters ferociously defended Clinton, saying, “I am here in the name of my slave ancestors.”She said she had woken up in the middle of the night, “with flashes of the struggles of my African ancestors for justice.”
What this had to do with Clinton perjuring himself about molesting a chubby Jewish White House intern was anyone’s guess.
Always the master of subtlety, as soon as the Lewinsky scandal broke, Clinton promptly invited the Rev. Jesse Jackson to the White House to “pray” with him. Two months later, he took off on an 11-day, six-nation $43 million trip to — guess where? Africa!
Haven’t black people suffered enough without this horny hick piggybacking on their oppression?
I’m dying to hear about the “3-D chess” Trump is playing with his announcement on Monday that he’s breaking his promise on Afghanistan and throwing more forces into that utterly pointless war. Will he be sending the transgender troops?
But then the Emperor God gave a magnificent speech in Arizona Tuesday night. Curiously, when he talks to voters — as opposed to his Cabinet and White House staff — there’s very little about sending more U.S. troops to die in the human meat-grinder of Afghanistan.
Trump got thunderous applause from his 30,000-person focus group for the wall, stepped-up deportations and Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio — recently convicted of contempt for “racially profiling”Hispanics. But you could hear a pin drop when he mentioned Afghanistan, Nikki Haley and Gen. John Kelly. (At least he had the good sense not to bring up Goldman Sachs’ Gary Cohn again.)
There were long faces all over cable news after Trump’s speech, which surely triggers the reward center in his brain, like giving a mouse cheese.
What was so refreshingly different about the Trump campaign was that the candidate didn’t use any of the idiotic, consultant-written bromides offered by every other GOP presidential candidate for at least the past 30 years. Instead, he looked around the country, saw what the problems were and said he’d fix them.
Here are the highlights from every speech by any Non-Trump candidate for the past several decades:
“I listened to the American people.”
“People are frustrated.”
“This election is about the future!”
It may not seem like it at first, but another one of those head-scratching cliches is: “Peace through strength.”During the campaign, this was a staple of knuckleheads like Jeb!, but I’m sorry to report that our hero used it on the Arizona crowd, referring to his decision to send more troops to die in Afghanistan for no earthly purpose. The Swamp is sticky.
When Reagan said, “peace through strength,”it meant something. But 30 years after Reagan won the Cold War, anyone who uses this expression conveys only that he has no understanding of the current war.
During the Cold War, America was facing an aggressively imperialistic, nuclear-armed Soviet Union. By contrast, the main threat to Americans’ safety today comes not from a country, but from millions of individual savages spread throughout the globe.
Americans aren’t being slaughtered by invading Soviet troops, “Red Dawn”-style, but by Islamic terrorists on tourist visas flying commercial airplanes into our skyscrapers, and by first- and second-generation Muslim immigrants setting off bombs and shooting people at the Boston Marathon, American military bases, community centers and gay nightclubs.
Americans are raped, addicted and murdered not by the Red Army, but by millions of illegal aliens waltzing across our wide-open border.
Our freedoms are being taken away not by a foreign power, but by our own government — in order to protect us from terrorists, international crime rings and Mexican drug cartels operating in our own country.
Defeating a non-country adversary may seem an impossible task, but the savages are perfectly containable. Today’s enemy has no capacity to harm a hair on a single American’s head — as long as we don’t let them come here.
We don’t need a military victory. We need an immigration moratorium.
The Non-Trump Republicans promised us only more immigration and more wars. PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH!
How does a military buildup help Kate Steinle? How about the 3,000 Americans killed on 9/11? Did Obama’s escalation of the war in Afghanistan protect soldiers at Fort Hood or nightclubbers in Orlando? Did it do anything for Grant Ronnebeck, who was fatally shot by an illegal alien robbing a convenience store in Mesa, Arizona, in 2015?
More than 1,600 American troops died in Afghanistan under Obama, and not one American is safer.
All we need to do to win the current war is: Keep our nuclear weapons in working order and stop allowing enemy forces into our country. If we must have troops constantly deployed somewhere, the only place they’d actually be useful is 10 feet into Mexico. (Let a court try to stop that!)
During the campaign, Little Marco dismissed as unrealistic Trump’s proposed temporary suspension of Muslim immigration to our country — including the more than 2 million Muslims we’ve taken in just since 9/11. Instead, Rubio proposed we do something achievable, like remake the entire Middle East with wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan.
Trump, and only Trump, promised to put our country first and protect our interests when it came to immigration and foreign wars. He didn’t care that political correctness dictated putting America’s interests dead last.
But since becoming president, instead of draining the swamp, the swamp seems to have drained Trump. His agenda has been drowned out by the agenda of Washington’s Uni-Party.
That’s why all we ever hear about is tax cuts and war (unless Trump is speaking to one of his 30,000-person focus groups).
Rather than actually being like Reagan and winning the war we’re in, Trump has decided to continue Obama’s unconstitutional “executive amnesty” — opposition to which gave the GOP stunning victories in 2014 and 2016. This week, he grabbed the hot poker of Afghanistan, allowing ecstatic Democrats to scratch that disaster off Obama’s Greatest Hits list. Now, it’s Trump’s war.
I don’t know why Trump would surround himself with people who oppose his agenda, but on Tuesday night he heard again from the people who see him as our country’s last hope. He should listen to them.
The current issue of Newsweek (yes, it’s still in business!) has a picture of President Trump sitting in a recliner, with snacks and an iPad in his lap, pointing his TV remote at the viewer, blazoned with the headline, “Lazy Boy.”
Liberals only wish.
Last week, the president joined Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and David Perdue (R-Ga.) to announce legislation that would make seminal changes to our immigration laws for the first time in more than half a century, profoundly affecting the entire country.
The media have chosen not to cover the RAISE Act (Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment). This bill is their worst nightmare.
Instead of admitting immigrants on the basis of often specious “family” ties, the bill would finally allow us to choose the immigrants we want, based on merit, with points granted for skills, English proficiency, advanced degrees, actual job offers and so on.
Most Americans have no idea that we have zero say about the vast majority of immigrants pouring into our country. Two-thirds of all legal immigrants get in not because we want them — or even because Mark Zuckerberg wants them — but under idiotic “family reunification” laws.
The most important provision of the RAISE Act would define “family” the way most Americans think of it: your spouse and minor children.
Unfortunately, that’s not how the Third World thinks of “family.” In tribal societies, “family” means the whole extended clan — adult siblings, elderly parents and brothers-in-law, plus all their adult siblings and elderly parents, and so on, ad infinitum.
Entire tribes of immigrants are able to bully their way in and, as legal immigrants, are immediately eligible for a whole panoply of government benefits. Suddenly, there’s no money left in the Social Security Trust Fund, and Speaker Paul Ryan is telling Americans they’re going to have to cut back.
At some point, American businesses are going to have to be told they can’t keep bringing in cheap foreign labor, changing the country and offloading the costs onto the taxpayer. But that’s not this discussion. Business owners want cheap workers — not the disabled parents of cheap workers.
In a sane world, merely introducing such an important bill — with the imprimatur of a president elected on his immigration stance — would force the media to finally discuss the subject they have been deliberately hiding from the public.
Has Trump personally endorsed any other legislation like this? He harangued congressional Republicans on Twitter to pass some Obamacare replacement, but he never endorsed a specific bill.
But, you see, there’s a reason the media don’t want to talk about immigration.
With a full public airing, Americans would finally understand why recent immigrants seem so different from earlier waves, why income inequality is approaching czarist Russia levels, why the suicide rate has skyrocketed among the working class, and why all our government benefits programs are headed toward bankruptcy.
As Stephen Miller, the president’s inestimable speechwriter, said, some legislative proposals “can only succeed in the dark of night”and some “can only succeed in the light of day.”This is a light-of-day bill.
So, naturally, the media refuse to mention it, except to accuse Miller of being a white nationalist for knowing hate-facts about the Emma Lazarus poem not being part of the original Statue of Liberty. (It’s the Statue of Liberty, not Statute of Liberty, media.)
They ignore this bill so they can get on to the important business of Trump’s tweets, who’s up and who’s down in the White House, and Russia, Russia, Russia.
According to my review of Nexis archives, there was only a single question about the RAISE Act on any of the Sunday morning shows: Chris Wallace’s last question to his very important Republican guest. Unfortunately, his very important Republican guest was amnesty-supporting nitwit Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who sniped about Trump employing foreign guest workers at Mar-a-Lago.
However that may be, guest workers have absolutely nothing to do with the RAISE Act, which, as Miller heroically tried to explain to clueless reporters, concerns only green-card holders, i.e., lawful permanent residents — not guest workers, not illegal aliens and not a poem Scotch-taped onto Lady Liberty in 1903.
At least the media aren’t deluded about the popularity of their position. Discussing immigration is a total loser for them. They know what they want is not supported by anyone.
Low-wage workers don’t want hundreds of thousands of low-skilled immigrants being dumped on the country every year. Employers don’t want the deadbeat cousins of their cheap workers. Americans on public assistance don’t want foreigners competing with them for benefits. Boneheaded Scandinavian communities that welcomed refugees don’t want to turn their entire town budgets over to various foreign tribes.
In a recent Numbers USA poll of voters in 10 swing states with vulnerable Democratic senators up for re-election next year, only 22 percent of respondents thought immigrants should be allowed by right to bring in “family” other than spouses and minor children.
Make the senators vote, Mr. President!
Donald Trump was elected president, beating the smartest, most qualified woman in the world, by proposing to put Americans first on immigration. This bill makes good on that promise.
There’s a reason the media won’t discuss it. If Trump were smart, he’d talk about nothing else.
So here comes the failure by the Republicans to repeal and replace Obamacare. Fat repeal, skinny repeal, straight repeal, repeal and replace, replace but don’t repeal, whatever it is, up in flames, up in smoke, and wouldn’t you know, Reuters has gone out and surveyed people in New York and Boston and LA, wherever, and found people that think Congress should move on.
“A majority of Americans are ready to move on from healthcare reform at this point after the U.S. Senate’s effort to dismantle Obamacare failed on Friday, according to an exclusive Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Saturday. Nearly two-thirds of the country wants to either keep or modify the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, and a majority of Americans want Congress to turn its attention to other priorities, the survey found.”
Now, here’s the next paragraph in the Reuters story: “Republicans have vowed to dismantle the Affordable Care Act since Democratic President Barack Obama signed it into law in 2010, and it appeared they finally had their chance when Republican President Donald Trump took office in January. But the law, which helped 20 million people obtain health insurance, has steadily grown more popular.”
Like hell it has. But here we go. Obamacare more popular than ever, Republicans hated and despised. And that may be, but not for the reasons the Reuters implies here. Obamacare hasn’t helped 20 million people obtain health insurance. And here’s another thing about this CBO score. I have intended to mention this the past couple or three days and just never got around to it.
The CBO score. We gotta get rid of the CBO. The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, is one of the primary obstacles to any legislation being passed, but particularly health care reform. You remember when the media and the Democrats were just breathlessly excited when they released the CBO numbers that repealing and replacing Obamacare would cause 22 million Americans to lose their health insurance? Do you know why that would happen? It was because repeal repealed the mandate that people had to buy it.
It wasn’t because the government was gonna come and take it away from you. It wasn’t because what you had was going to be canceled. It wasn’t because the insurance companies were then given permission to tell you to take a hike. It was simply the CBO statically, not dynamically, statically concluded that if you take away the mandate, the federal law requiring citizens to buy insurance, that 22 million people would lose their health insurance.
In other words, the CBO said that 22 million people would cancel their policy. Well, that’s not what they said. That’s the end result. That’s how it would have had to happen. Because nobody was gonna take anybody’s health insurance away, and nobody’s health insurance was gonna be canceled. And yet the CBO is out there screeching that 22 million people will lose their health insurance. “No, we can’t do that, that’s horrible, that’s inhumane, that’s no compassion.”
No, no. It was simply the CBO guessing that if people didn’t have to buy it, they wouldn’t. Which may make sense. How many people have bought this rigmarole simply because the law requires them to? How many people have actually engaged in this and gone and petered around inside one of these exchanges to come up with an Obamacare policy because they had to?
So the idea that removing the mandate requiring them to buy it is a good thing! It is a reinstallation, if you will, of the degree of liberty and freedom we had before Obamacare. Before Obamacare, you didn’t have to have it. Everybody wanted it, but you didn’t have to go buy it. No matter what it costs, you didn’t have to buy it. So the CBO says 22 million people will lose their health insurance. What a gross misstatement of what would actually happen. And of course with the absence of critical thinking being taught, nobody concluded the correct thing.
By the way, that’s a wild guess number. The CBO just assumed that people would lose — i.e., that’s the wrong word — CBO just assumed people would cancel their policies if they didn’t have to buy them. What does that tell you? Well, it tells me that somebody in Congress thinks a lot of people are buying health insurance that don’t want it, and the first chance they get they don’t have to buy it, they’ll get rid of it. Which is a good thing. And it ends up being portrayed as heartless and cruel and typically Republican, when in fact it was a good thing. And it didn’t have any relationship whatsoever to people’s health care or health insurance.
And yet that statistic, released the way it was, with the wording as it was, led to a lot of people not supporting it because they envisioned insurance companies canceling people, because, yes, that’s what insurance companies do. All companies would rather their customers get sick and die than have to cover them and pay for them. Big Tobacco wanted to kill the customer. Big Oil wants to destroy the planet. Big Pharmaceutical doesn’t want to cure disease. Big Coal, all they want to do is pollute the rivers. Big Box Retail, all they want to do is rip people off.
You take your pick. Whatever major industry we’re talking about, the Democrats have demonized ’em. And now the health insurance providers are such that if they don’t have to provide it, they won’t, when in fact it wasn’t about that at all. But back to the wording of this story. Obamacare did not and has not helped 20 million people obtain health insurance.
Now, Reuters writes this as though Obamacare provided a freebie. Obamacare provided an entitlement. Yes. Because people who couldn’t otherwise afford it because insurance companies are mean were given subsidies in order to be able to buy it because the law said they had to, but corporations are so mean that they price it out of people’s reach, and that means that Obama made it possible for people have it, which is a stack of coal.
You know how many people are on Obamacare right now? What is the number that you know? Pick a number. The number of Americans who are actually on Obamacare. I have a number here that is hard to believe. In fact, I ought not use this number because I don’t think it’s right, but it’s not far off. The number I have here is eight million people on Obamacare. That can’t be right.
But the point is, Obamacare is nowhere near covering everybody. It’s a giant myth that Obamacare came along and magically created health insurance opportunities for people that didn’t have it. And it’s also not true that the Republican repeal would take health care away from people who wanted it. So many lies and so many just straight distortions here. The majority of people who are on an Obamacare policy had insurance anyway before they signed up for Obamacare. And there are a few million more on Medicaid thanks to the Medicaid expansion. But the Medicaid expansion is not health insurance.
It’s also a lie that Obamacare has steadily become more popular. Nothing could be further from the truth. If that were true, more people would be signing up for Obamacare, but they aren’t.If that were true, the insurance companies would be lowering premiums because so many people would be signing up. If that were true, so many different state exchanges would have more than one provider.
If Obamacare were actually growing in popularity, we wouldn’t be reading stories that it’s about to implode — and it is — and is going to leave several people without even an exchange to go buy a policy. The enrollee number has been stuck at eight million since 2014. In fact, the number of people who have signed up is almost a third of what this CBO assured us would have signed up by now.
The CBO predicted 22 million people would sign up for Obamacare by this time, since 2010. The number here is eight million, fewer than eight million. What are we talking about? That’s another thing about Obamacare that was always crazy from the beginning. If it was really about providing insurance for those who didn’t have it — that number is anywhere from eight to 12, and at the top 30 (at the very top 25, 30) million who didn’t have it. Obamacare didn’t fix that, didn’t address that because that’s not what Obamacare was about.
Look, I don’t want to re-litigate all this like we did starting in 2010, 2009 when it was being debated. But I’m telling you: There is so much disinformation out there about this that the Republican Party itself has fallen prey to it. The idea it’s growing more popular, that Americans want Congress to move on from it? Both of those things are not true. Here’s a little cross-tab from the poll that I do not believe:
“Among Republicans, 75% said that they would like their party’s leaders to repeal and replace Obamacare at some point, though most listed other issues that would give a higher priority right now. When asked what they think Congress should do next, most Americans picked tax reform and then foreign relations and then infrastructure. Only 29% said they wanted the Republicans in Congress to continue working on a new health care bill.”Republicans. That’s what the poll says. I don’t believe it. But I could be wrong. And if it is true that only 29% want a new bill, it’s because their frustrated and don’t think the Republican Party can get it done anyway.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Yesterday… I don’t think I’ve got the audio on this. Doesn’t matter. Jake Tapper yesterday had Bernie Sanders on, and they were discussing single payer. It failed in Vermont. The governor of Vermont tried single payer. It failed, wouldn’t work, and didn’t have the money, and Jake Tapper was interrogating Crazy Bernie about this. “If Even ‘Cobalt-Blue States’ Can’t Make Single Payer Work,” then why in the world does anybody think it’ll work in Washington or anywhere else?
Crazy Bernie did not have an answer when asked why it didn’t work in Vermont. The governor there, Peter Shumlin, did declare the debate over after getting estimates of the projected costs of socialized medicine in California. In California, the state assembly declared that they were gonna go single payer. The California state budget every year is $180 billion. Single payer for California alone would cost $200 to $300 billion, in addition to everything else the state’s already spending. The state budget without it is $180 billion. Single payer: $200 billion, minimum. And you know how they said they were gonna finance it?
A 15% increase in the payroll tax!
Which wouldn’t even get close ’cause people are not gonna sit there and stand for that. Single payer may be the issue where everybody suddenly realizes Washington can’t do it. There isn’t the money for it! What is it we’re $20 trillion in debt? We really, theoretically… Folks, we don’t have the money to do anything with that kind of debt, and yet there doesn’t seem to be any limit on spending, except when something’s this outrageous. The states can’t print money, so there’s no way they can do it. So these states acting as little, miniature laboratories for these great national ideas? It’ll cost $200 billion when a state budget is already $180 billion.
Let me grab a call in before we wrap up the hour. I want to start with Anna in Phoenix. Welcome. It’s great to have you here. How are you?
CALLER: Oh, fine. How are you, Rush?
RUSH: Very good. Very good. Thank you.
CALLER: Okay. You said be brief; I’m gonna be brief. My husband and I were talking about what happened with President Trump saying that he’s thinking about pulling funding for the congressman and senators’ own health care. My husband said, “That probably will not make any dent at all with them. What they care about is getting reelected.” So he said, “What he should do is go out and rally in each of the states where these senators are holding him up and rally to recall them. Do a recall for them, because they’re not doing the job.” What do you think?
RUSH: Well, I don’t know specifically about recall. But I do know that people are seething, and that’s why this Reuters poll of people saying, “Move on! We’re tired of it. Move on to tax reform”? That’s a crock. Now, you say that your husband says that removing the funding for members of Congress and Obamacare would not bother them because all they care about is being reelected. I am here to tell you:
What they did in voting down the repeal and replace of Obamacare tells me they’re not afraid of the voters at all. The voters, of course, is how they get reelected. Now, McCain obviously is not gonna run again. Many of the senators just got elected, so they’re not gonna face voters for six years. A third of the Senate is up in 2018; another third’s up in 2020. But it’s clear — and I have, I think, succinctly and brilliantly made this point on prior broadcasts — that the senators are afraid of something.
But it’s not you. It’s not the voters. They’re certainly afraid of somebody — or else they despise somebody — but they’re not afraid. You know, Ted Cruz said the thing that he discovered that was the most… I mean, he knew it, but to see it in action every day? It blew his mind that the single, dominating thing in every day of a senator’s life is getting reelected, which means fundraising. That’s number one, first and foremost.
Okay, if that’s true, then how do you explain so many Republicans saying “no” on Obamacare? And the Democrats, too. There are a lot of Democrats coming up in ’18 that should be vulnerable because they come from states that went very strong for Trump. And I’m thinking they’re living under the illusion everybody hates Trump, and so they don’t need to worry about that anymore. But they’re not worried about reelection on this. Taking them off Obamacare? Believe me, they tried to except themselves from what they were doing.
That does matter to them.
It’s the craziest thing.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Investor’s Business Daily, an op-ed: “Murkowski and McCain Saved Obamacare Just Months After Promising Voters They Would Repeal It.” It may be standard-operating issue now, but I still don’t think people can hear this enough. “Whatever your views on Obamacare, the simple fact is that the GOP Senate voted to repeal Obamacare in December 2015, knowing full well that President Obama would veto the bill. That vote was [purposefully] conveniently timed to give Republican lawmakers the ability to go back to their states and proclaim that they had tried to repeal Obamacare, but were thwarted by a Democratic president. …
“Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, for example, wrote multiple op-eds for her hometown papers decrying what Obamacare had done to her state, and vowing to repeal it, in the run-up to her 2016 re-election. In one [op-ed,] she wrote that ‘the Affordable Care Act has unfortunately become one of the most ironically named pieces of legislation for Alaska in history.’” Lisa Murkowski was one of all these Republicans voted in December of 2015.
For those of you in Rio Linda, it means the next month is 2016, which is an election year. They wanted to be on record as close to an election year as possible that they had sent a vote to repeal Obamacare up to Obama. Damn it, they repealed it. But that’s what you get with a Democrat in the White House. You give us a Republican in the White House and we’ll repeal it. She tells everybody how it’s not affordable. It’s not this and that. It’s not anything it purports to be, and she lays claim to no doubt that she opposes it.
“In a floor speech in May 2016, she claimed that ‘I have consistently supported full repeal of [Obamacare] and have voted to do so on several occasions. I have recognized that it is going to be difficult, if not impossible, to do so with [the Obama] administration.’ She voted for the repeal bill in 2015.” She voted for the repeal bill in 2015 — which, again, was timed purposely to give these people an example to say in their election, “I just voted! I just voted to repeal it. You give us the presidency, and it’s over with.”
Folks, this betrayal ranks right up there with every betrayal that we’ve had. This is in the top five all time political betrayals, the Republicans in the Senate on this. “But this week, Murkowski voted against every single version of Obamacare repeal.” She voted against repeal and replace. She voted against straight up-and-down repeal. She voted against “skinny” repeal. She would have voted against fat repeal if somebody would have come up with that. Yes, she did! She voted against skinny repeal that would have only ditched the individual and employer mandates and suspended the tax on medical devices.
She couldn’t even vote for that. The CBO gave her cover, don’t you know? She said, “I did not come here to inflict pain on people.”What’s that, inflicting people on people? “Well, the CBO said that 22 million lovable Americans will lose their health insurance if…” No. No. Yeah, they said it, but that’s a great big misdirection. The truth is 22 million people may not all lose their health insurance. It was simply the way the CBO chose to portray what they thought would happen if the mandate were done away with.
It’s interesting to me that (chuckles) the Congressional Budget Office thinks if the mandate were taken away, everybody who bought Obamacare would cancel it. What does that say about it? But they chose to portray it as the government’s gonna take it away from you, or your insurance companies are not gonna ensure you. Lisa Murkowski knew better. She knew what it meant. She knew that simply repealing the personal mandate, the employer mandates — simply removing the requirement that you have insurance — doesn’t mean people lose it.
It means they have their freedom back! That’s right. “She even voted against a ‘skinny’ repeal that would have only ditched the law’s individual and employer mandates and suspended the tax on medical devices [like dildos] — a tax that is so harmful to that industry that even uber-liberal Sen. Elizabeth Warren wants it repealed.” (interruption) What, you didn’t think that’s a medical device? (scoffs) , you go… (interruption) You go talk to… (interruption) Well, it certainly is. (interruption) In the right hands?
“Murkowski was joined by Sen. John McCain, who ended up being the decisive vote killing the skinny repeal bill…” By the way, you don’t think that was accidental, do you? You don’t think they waited and gave McCain the last vote accidentally, do you? “Just a year before saving Obamacare, however, McCain was vigorously attacking the law to win a tough reelection campaign. As Politico put it in a June 2016 article: ‘In fight of his political life, McCain hammers Obamacare[.]’
“One of his 2016 campaign ads said ‘Obamacare is failing Arizonans’ and that ‘John McCain is leading the fight to stop Obamacare.’Last February McCain introduced a bill to ‘fully’ repeal Obamacare and replace it with a ‘free-market approach that strengthens the quality and accessibility of care.’” But McCain was running for reelection then, and so he was having to say things that he knew his constituents wanted to hear. He wasn’t saying things he actually intended to do, obviously. Just like all the Republicans of his ilk.
Once elected, he sang a completely different tune. There’s a YouTube of McCain’s promises. He explains why Obamacare must be repealed and replaced. It was during the 2016 campaign. McCain said in a YouTube video: “For the first time in history a major entitlement reform was rammed through the Congress without a single vote from the other side. I fought for weeks and weeks and weeks against Obamacare. They would not allow us an amendment. There was not a single amendment allowed. No input from the minority party.
“We were the minority party. Now Congresswoman Kirkpatrick” his opponent “wants to sit down and work together. Well, here’s how we work together: We repeal and we replace it.”That’s McCain in a YouTube video last year. “McCain went on to argue that the majority of the American people have ‘resoundingly rejected Obamacare.’ One of the debate moderators asked McCain if it was possible for Congress to try to improve Obamacare rather than to try to repeal it. McCain rejected the idea that it could be fixed and that the only solution is to repeal Obamacare.” This is last year!
This is the very same McCain that happily gave a thumbs down last week. Folks, it is sad to have to observe, but John McCain just proved that everything his harsh critics have ever said about him is likely true, and we know why. We know exactly why. Some people might even claim they understand it. Trump, in one of his early statements after having announced his intention to seek the Republican presidential nomination, when asked about Senator McCain, said he didn’t have a whole life respect for him ’cause he got captured.
Trump says he has more respect for military people that don’t get captured. (sigh) Well, think what you will of that. But you cannot think what you will of that without recognizing the importance of that story to McCain’s political biography. It is crucial to McCain’s biography. Everybody knows it — that’s how crucial it’s been — that McCain was captured after being shot down, that when the Vietcong found out who he was (i.e., the son of a famous Navy admiral), they offered him release and how McCain said no.
He was not going to take early release unless his fellow prisoners would be released — and of course, they weren’t; so McCain wasn’t. That story has been part of McCain’s political biography. Here came Trump inside of two sentences blowing it smithereens. McCain, I just know — as I say, I’m sure many of you can even understand, maybe even agree — has been waiting for the right moment to stick it back to Trump and chose to do it last Thursday as the last vote, thumbs down, killing Obamacare repeal.
So let’s not hear about all this statesmanship stuff. Let’s not hear about all that. That’s maybe applicable to some. Even John Fund at National Review: “Mr. McCain Goes to Washington.” Just let me give some pull quotes from this piece. “McCain’s vote against advancing Obamacare reform represents a complete reversal of the position he won his Senate election with last year. John Merline of Investor’s Business Daily notes that ‘In the private sector, promising one thing and delivering the other could be referred to as “deceptive trade practice.”
“‘For some members of Congress, it’s just another day at the office.’ … Journalists [i.e. the media] rushed to gush over [McCain’s] vote, cast only a few days after a surgery to remove a dangerous brain tumor. The New Yorker’s take was typical: ‘Throughout his political life, John McCain has for many reasons enjoyed bipartisan respect and even reverence: his independence of mind (usually), his candor (usually), his decency, his love of country,’” and all of this is said of John McCain because he regularly betrays his own party.
Having pulled off the monumental achievement of getting elected with zero help from Wall Street, President Trump is at risk of throwing it all away. He seems to be turning his White House over not only to liberal Democrats, but to the very type of liberal Democrats he railed against on the campaign trail.
It’s like voluntarily getting an AIDS transfusion.
Until Trump, voters had two choices: A Republican beholden to Wall Street or a Democrat beholden to Wall Street. But Wall Street despised Trump, and he despised them. This allowed him the luxury of denouncing both Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton for their ties to Goldman Sachs, especially Hillary’s six-figure “speeches” to that investment bank. Ninety percent of Wall Street’s money went to Hillary’s campaign. Wherever the other 10 percent went, it didn’t go to Trump.
What does that mean?
[Fox News’ Sean Hannity frantically waving his hand]: I know! I know! Since he owes them nothing and they’re universally reviled, he needs to turn the keys of the kingdom over to Wall Street bankers!
No, actually. It means that he should stay the hell away from them.
The Democrats, who are evil but not stupid, know what a gift it was for Trump to have had no Wall Street support. And they are already plotting to win Trump’s voters back.
A hand grenade has recently been tossed into Trump’s camp in the form of Stanley Greenberg’s mostly-overlooked report for Democracy Corps. Greenberg, the Yale professor-turned-Democratic pollster, has conducted extensive, in-depth interviews with the beating heart of Trump’s working-class support: the voters of Macomb County, Michigan, which went for Obama twice, but then flipped to Trump.
They were impossible to move. They love Trump, have no regrets about their vote, disbelieve the media and detest career politicians like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. They just “pray he keeps his promises and succeeds.”
However, one fact, and one fact only, shook their faith: when they were told that his Cabinet was “full of campaign donors, Goldman Sachs bankers (bailed out by the taxpayers) and people who use undocumented workers in their homes.”
Hearing that, these devoted Trump voters called him “two-faced,” a “puppet”and sadly remarked, “It’s going to be a lot of the same old garbage.”
Trump knows this. His guilty conscience propelled him to stray from his standard rally speech in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, last week, and go into what seemed like an endless soliloquy on his chief economic adviser, Goldman Sachs’ Gary Cohn. (Not to be confused with his Treasury Secretary, Goldman Sachs’ Steve Mnuchin, or his deputy national security adviser, Goldman Sachs’ Dina Powell. These are the people the media call the “grown-ups” in Trump’s administration.)
The Cedar Rapids crowd was thrilled to see Trump. They would have cheered his tie. They would have cheered the humidity. But his lengthy disquisition on Cohn? Crickets.
Touting (lifelong, and still today, liberal Democrat) Cohn’s “great, brilliant business mind,”Trump said, he wanted “a rich person to be in charge of the economy,”because “that’s the kind of thinking we want.”
Sean Hannity, bless his heart, has the zeal of the late Trump convert. He would endorse communism if Trump decided to implement the policies of “The Communist Manifesto.”(Which the GOP’s health care bill actually does!)
On his show last Thursday, he tried to get me to defend Trump’s “rich person” remarks about Cohn. I wish you could see the segment, but, unfortunately, Hannity decided no one would ever see it — NOT, I hasten to add, because he would ever censor criticism of Trump, but simply because he ran out of time. In a pre-taped interview. It was a time problem. (It may not be evident to most viewers, but three minutes MUST be left at the end of every Hannity show for Nerf ball throwing.)
With the zealotry of those who came late to the Trump party, Hannity fully endorsed Trump’s faith in Cohn, adding, “I never got a job from a poor man!”
Those of us who have been here for a while — unlike Cruz- and Rubio-supporting Hannity — know how to party responsibly. The best way we serve the people we admire is to tell them the truth. (Someday, no doubt, Nancy Pelosi will wish she had been surrounded by fewer Yes Men.)
The motto of we longtime Trump supporters is: NO TREATS FOR DOING NOTHING!
As I told Hannity (in the pre-taped, and later edited, interview): He’s also never gotten a job from Goldman Sachs. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross created jobs. Donald Trump created jobs. Goldman Sachs doesn’t create jobs. The geniuses of Goldman specialize in generating obscene salaries for themselves while helping send American jobs abroad.
Trump said he wanted rich people to do for the country what they had done for themselves. Here’s what Gary Cohn did for himself:
He oversaw the mortgage department at Goldman Sachs in the run-up to Wall Street blowing up the economy with the 2008 mortgage meltdown.
Under Cohn, Goldman’s role was especially egregious, as described in detail in a 600-page report issued by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations headed by Republican Sen. Tom Coburn and Democratic Sen. Carl Levin, after a two-year review.
As Goldman was furiously betting against worthless mortgages for its own account, it was hawking this toxic paper to its customers.
Goldman’s customers could be wiped out with no skin off Goldman’s back. But Goldman was doing the same with its trading partners, and the problem with scamming people on the other side of a bet is that, by winning, you might bankrupt them, and they can’t pay you back.
But that’s where you come in, taxpayer! To ensure that kazillionaires at Goldman recouped 100 cents on the dollar after the crash, taxpayer money was used to bail out the losers in these transactions — primarily AIG — so that they could pay back Goldman and other Wall Street banks in full.
It was the biggest taxpayer bailout of banks in U.S. history.
Is that what Gary Cohn is going to do for the economy? Scam the naive of, say, Canada, then ask for a taxpayer bailout from Mars?
As to rich people being “smart”: Kim Kardashian is rich. Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman is rich. Bernie Madoff was rich — as he surely tells the 300-pound, face-tattooed gangsters he now showers with. No one wants any of them advising Trump, either.
You could have heard this on Hannity, but, apparently, there was some sort of timing issue.
The Susan Rice bombshell at least explains why the Democrats won’t stop babbling about Russia. They need a false flag to justify using national intelligence agencies to snoop on the Trump team. Every serious person who has tried to locate any evidence that Russia attempted to influence the 2016 election — even Trump-haters at the New York Review of Books and Rolling Stone magazine — has come away empty-handed and angry. We keep getting bald assertions, unadorned with anything resembling a fact.
But for now, let’s just consider the raw plausibility of the story.
The fact-less claim is that
(1) the Russians wanted Donald Trump to win; and
(2) They thought they could help him win by releasing purloined emails from the Democratic National Committee showing that the Democrats were conspiring against Hillary Clinton’s primary opponent, Bernie Sanders.
First, why on earth would Russia prefer a loose cannon, untested president like Trump to an utterly corrupt politician, who’d already shown she could be bought? The more corrupt you think Russia is, the more Putin ought to love Hillary as president.
The Russians knew Hillary was a joke from her ridiculous “reset” button as secretary of state. They proceeded to acquire 20 percent of America’s uranium production, under Hillary’s careful management— in exchange for a half-million-dollar speaking engagement for her husband and millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation.
(Politifact rates this claim FALSE! — LIAR, LIAR PANTS ON FIRE! — because Trump referred to 20 percent of America’s “uranium,” not to 20 percent of America’s “uranium capacity.” This is the sort of serious reporting we get from our watchdog media.)
The last thing our enemies want is unpredictability in an American president, and Trump is nothing if not unpredictable. Actually, that’s only the second-to-last thing Putin wants. Russia’s only export is energy: The last thing Putin wants is a president who vows to drill and frack, driving down the world oil price.
But let’s say the Russians were morally offended by a woman who could be bought (by them) for a $500,000 speaking fee, and what they really longed for was a bellicose American president promising to put our interests first.
Why would anyone, least of all trained spies, think that it would help Trump to release emails showing the DNC had its thumb on the scale against Bernie Sanders? How was that supposed to work again? I forget.
Accepting everything else the most deranged Trump-hater believes, normal people lose the thread of the conspiracy at the moment when the Russians are supposed to have said to themselves, “HEY, I KNOW — LET’S TRY THIS!”
Even experts in American politics haven’t the first idea how to affect an election. The best minds of the GOP bet $140 million of their own money that Jeb! would be the nominee. (Maybe they should have hired Putin.)
Throughout the primaries, Democrats were openly praying that the GOP would nominate Trump. Democrats had the same hope in 1980 for Ronald Reagan. In 2008, Republicans hooted at the idea of Al Franken running for the U.S. Senate.
Days before the election, America’s premier journal of liberal opinion, The New York Times, gave Hillary a 91 percent chance of winning. The Princeton Election Consortium calculated her chances at 99 percent. The Huffington Post’s polling aggregator put Hillary’s odds at 98 percent.
But we’re supposed to believe that a country practiced in spy craft was confident that it not only knew what was likely to happen in a U.S. presidential election, but also knew how to swing it? And no one in Moscow thought to ask: “What will be the predictable, certain outcome of releasing the DNC’s ‘Get Bernie’ emails?”
The DNC leaks might have ended up being the best thing that ever happened to the Democrats. What if they had pulled a Torricelli, and forced Hillary to drop out, so they could run Joe Biden instead? Biden is a lot more popular than Hillary!
Isn’t the more logical leaker someone within the DNC who’d had enough with David Brock and Debbie Wasserman Schultz steering the party into a ditch? The actual leaker probably thought: I’ve got to save the party! She’s going to destroy us!
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, as well as his associate, former British ambassador Craig Murray, both say that the DNC emails came from a whistleblower within the DNC. Murray has even identified the precise location where a DNC insider passed him the emails — a park near American University. Assange may be a misguided zealot, but neither his friends nor his enemies call him a liar. His image is very nearly the opposite: a self-righteousness fanatic — not a slippery con man.
Hey, did anyone else notice that last week, very quietly, every single staffer at the DNC was fired?
The claim that Russia hacked the DNC’s emails to help Trump is the sort of crackpot theory that can only be concocted after the fact.
They would prefer to say that North Korea or ISIS “hacked” our election and somehow installed Trump. But unfortunately, Trump has no business dealings with ISIS or the Pyongyang regime. He — or people he knows — have had some vague business dealings with Russia. So the left is stuck with its insane Russia conspiracy.
And now, just as the whole story is collapsing, their need is even more urgent, to distract from the Obama administration’s use of national security intelligence-gathering agencies to spy on domestic enemies like Donald Trump.
It’s always impossible to repeal laws that require Ann to pay for greedy people, because the greedy run out on the streets wailing that the Republicans are murdering them.
Obamacare is uniquely awful because the free stuff isn’t paid for through income taxes: It’s paid for through MY health insurance premiums. This is unfortunate because I wanted to buy health insurance.
Perhaps you’re not aware — SINCE YOU EXEMPTED YOURSELVES FROM OBAMACARE, CONGRESS — but buying or selling health insurance is illegal in America.
Right now, there’s no free market because insurance is insanely regulated not only by Obamacare, but also by the most corrupt organizations in America: state insurance commissions. (I’m talking to you, New York!)
Federal and state laws make it illegal to sell health insurance that doesn’t cover a laughable array of supposedly vital services based on bureaucrats’ medical opinions of which providers have the best lobbyists. As a result, it’s illegal to sell health insurance that covers any of the medical problems I’d like to insure against. Why can’t the GOP keep Obamacare for the greedy — but make it legal for Ann to buy health insurance?
This is how it works today:
ME: I’m perfectly healthy, but I’d like to buy health insurance for heart disease, broken bones, cancer, and everything else that a normal person would ever need, but no more.
INSURANCE COMPANY: That will be $700 a month, the deductible is $35,000, no decent hospital will take it, and you have to pay for doctor’s visits yourself. But your plan covers shrinks, infertility treatments, sex change operations, autism spectrum disorder treatment, drug rehab and 67 other things you will never need.
INSURANCE COMPANY UNDER ANN’S PLAN: That will be $50 a month, the deductible is $1,000, you can see any doctor you’d like, and you have full coverage for any important medical problems you could conceivably have in a million years.
Mine is a two-step plan (and you don’t have to do the second step, so it’s really a one-step plan).
STEP 1: Congress doesn’t repeal Obamacare! Instead, Congress passes a law, pursuant to its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, that says: “In America, it shall be legal to sell health insurance on the free market. This law supersedes all other laws, taxes, mandates, coverage requirements, regulations or prohibitions, state or federal.”
The end. Love, Ann.
There will be no whining single mothers storming Congress with their pre-printed placards. People who want to stay on Obamacare can. No one is taking away anything. They can still have health insurance with free pony rides. It just won’t be paid for with Ann’s premiums anymore, because Ann will now be allowed to buy health insurance on the free market. Americans will be free to choose among a variety of health insurance plans offered by willing sellers, competing with one another to provide the best plans at the lowest price. A nationwide market in health insurance will drive down costs and improve access — just like everything else we buy here in America!
Within a year, most Americans will be buying health insurance on the free market (and half of the rest will be illegal aliens). We’ll have TV ads with cute little geckos hawking amazing plans and young couples bragging about their broad coverage and great prices from this or that insurance company. The Obamacare plans will still have the “essential benefits” (free pony rides) that are so important to NPR’s Mara Liasson, but the free market plans will have whatever plans consumers agree to buy and insurance companies agree to sell — again, just like every other product we buy here in America.
Some free market plans will offer all the “essential benefits” mandated by Obamacare, but the difference will be: Instead of forcing me to pay a premium that covers Mara Liasson’s special needs, she’ll have to pay for that coverage herself. I won’t be compelled to buy health insurance that covers everyone else’s gambling addiction, drug rehab, pregnancies, marital counseling, social workers, contact lenses and rotten kids — simply to have insurance for what doctors call “serious medical problems.” Then, we’ll see how many people really need free health care.
Until the welfare program is decoupled from the insurance market, nothing will work. Otherwise, it’s like forcing grocery stores to pay for everyone to have a house. A carton of milk would suddenly cost $10,000. That’s what Obamacare did to health insurance. Paul Ryan’s solution was to cut taxes on businesses — and make the milk watery. But he still wouldn’t allow milk to be sold on the free market.
Democrats will be in the position of blocking American companies from selling a product that people want to buy. How will they explain that to voters?
Perhaps Democrats will come out and admit that they need to fund health insurance for the poor by forcing middle-class Americans to pay for it through their insurance premiums — because otherwise, they’d have to raise taxes, and they want to keep their Wall Street buddies’ income taxes low.
Good luck with that!
STEP 2: Next year, Congress formulates a better way of delivering health care to the welfare cases, which will be much easier since there will be a LOT fewer of them. No actual money-making business is going to survive by taking the welfare cases — the ones that will cover illegal aliens and Mara Liasson’s talk therapy — so the greedy will get government plans. But by then, only a minority of Americans will be on the “free” plans. (Incidentally, this will be a huge money-saver — if anyone cares about the federal budget.) Eighty percent of Americans will already have good health plans sold to them by insurance companies competing for their business. With cheap plans available, a lot of the greedy will go ahead and buy a free market plan. Who wants to stand in line at the DMV to see a doctor when your neighbors have great health care plans for $50 a month?
We will have separated the truly unfortunate from the loudmouthed bullies who simply enjoy forcing other people to pay for their shrinks and aromatherapy. And if the Democrats vote against a sane method of delivering health care to the welfare cases, who cares? We have lots of wasteful government programs — take it out of Lockheed Martin’s contract. But at least the government won’t be depriving the rest of us of a crucial product just because we are middle class and the Democrats hate us.
The more hysterical liberals become about Russia, the more your antennae should go up. Their selective misgivings with Russia are just like their selective alarm with (our ally) Chiang Kai-shek, leader of the nationalist Chinese government, and (our ally) Ngo Dinh Diem, president of South Vietnam.
As explained in lavish detail inTreason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, liberals instinctively lunge toward treason. They say Putin is a “thug” and a “bully” who kills journalists. Liberals never used to mind Russian leaders killing journalists. Nor millions of scientists, writers, Christians, Jews, kulaks, Ukrainians and so on.
Have you guys heard of the Evil Empire? Now Democrats are hypersensitive to a Russian leader’s flaws?
Liberals were cool with the show trials, the alliance with Hitler, the gulags, the forced starvations, the shooting down of American planes and goose-stepping through Eastern Europe. But that was when the Russian leader was Joseph Stalin or Nikita Khrushchev — not the beast Putin!
Back then, liberals were spying for Stalin (Julius Rosenberg’s code name: “Liberal”), the U.S. president was calling the bloodthirsty dictator “Uncle Joe,” and The New York Times was covering up Stalin’s infamous crimes. In the storied history of fake news, the Times’ Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize for his false reports denying the Ukrainian famine, in which more than 7 million people were deliberately starved to death.
As far as the Times is concerned, those were Russia’s halcyon days!
Back when Russia was actually threatening America with nuclear annihilation, Jimmy Carter warned Americans about their “inordinate fear of communism.” Sting sang that “the Russians love their children, too.” But now liberals are hopping mad with Putin. They could never forgive Russia for giving up communism.
To add insult to injury, Putin embraced the Russian Orthodox Church! This was deeply offensive to fiercely Christophobic liberals.
Russia’s descent into insanity and madness was clear when Putin refused to allow LGBTQ marches through Red Square. For having the same position on gays as Obama did, circa 2008, Russkies were walking on the fighting side of liberals!
Trump’s election victory was the capstone of the left’s rage with Putin. To explain the inexplicable, Putin was made the center of liberals’ axis of evil, the mastermind of a malevolent plot to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. That’s how liberals became born-again John Birchers, seeing Russians under every bed. Now, no fear of Russia is inordinate. The Russians do NOT love their children, too.
We really could have used some of this fighting spirit about 50 years ago when the Soviet Union sought total world domination and Stalin’s spies were crawling through the U.S. government. But back then, liberals were blackening the names of Whittaker Chambers, Richard Nixon and Sen. Joe McCarthy. (Later proved 100 percent correct by the top-secret Venona Project.)
Russia’s loss of the left’s esteem happened very quickly. In 2008, The New York Times editorial page demandedthat Obama “signal to the Russians that he wants better relations,” and complained of the “alarming” deterioration of “Russian-American relations” under Bush.
It was considered the height of statesmanship when Obama was caught on a hot-mic in 2012, telling Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility. I understand you.”
To hoots of laughter at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said: “You don’t call Russia our number one enemy — not Al-Qaida, Russia — unless you’re still stuck in a Cold War mind warp.”
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow couldn’t contain her hilarity over the GOP offering “an extra bonus of threatening Russia.”
But today, Democrats (and two especially showboating Republicans) are horrified that Trump wants to get along with Russia. Tonight, the threatening evil of Vladamir Putin will be the top issue on Rachel Maddow’s show, assuming she still has a show. (Maybe she can get a copy of Putin’s tax returns!)
When the same people who hailed Stalin as a beloved American ally are happy to threaten Putin with thermonuclear war, we may deduce that the left’s newfound Russia-phobia has some seditious objective. Historically, liberals show their manliness by demanding war with our friends and allies, while methodically undermining America’s ability to fight the wars it’s already in.
The No. 1 enemy of Western civilization today isn’t non-communist Russia. It’s Islam.
And who is a key ally in that fight? Russia has been dealing with these troublesome Muslims for centuries. It was Russian officials who tried in vain to warn our blind, incompetent government about the Boston Marathon bombers.
The left’s hysteria about Russia isn’t just an attempt to delegitimize Trump. It’s the usual Christophobic fifth column rooting for the Islamization of the West.
Commentary by Ann Coulter| Wednesday Mar 15, 2017 2:55 PM
The more hysterical liberals become about Russia, the more your antennae should go up. Their selective misgivings with Russia are just like their selective alarm with (our ally) Chiang Kai-shek, leader of the nationalist Chinese government, and (our ally) Ngo Dinh Diem, president of South Vietnam.
As explained in lavish detail inTreason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, liberals instinctively lunge toward treason. They say Putin is a “thug” and a “bully”who kills journalists. Liberals never used to mind Russian leaders killing journalists. Nor millions of scientists, writers, Christians, Jews, kulaks, Ukrainians and so on. Have you guys heard of the Evil Empire? Now Democrats are hypersensitive to a Russian leader’s flaws?
Liberals were cool with the show trials, the alliance with Hitler, the gulags, the forced starvations, the shooting down of American planes and goose-stepping through Eastern Europe. But that was when the Russian leader was Joseph Stalin or Nikita Khrushchev — not the beast Putin! Back then, liberals were spying for Stalin (Julius Rosenberg’s code name: “Liberal”), the U.S. president was calling the bloodthirsty dictator “Uncle Joe,”and The New York Times was covering up Stalin’s infamous crimes. In the storied history of fake news, the Times’ Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize for his false reports denying the Ukrainian famine, in which more than 7 million people were deliberately starved to death. As far as the Times is concerned, those were Russia’s halcyon days!
Back when Russia was actually threatening America with nuclear annihilation, Jimmy Carter warned Americans about their “inordinate fear of communism.”Sting sang that “the Russians love their children, too.” But now liberals are hopping mad with Putin. They could never forgive Russia for giving up communism.
To add insult to injury, Putin embraced the Russian Orthodox Church! This was deeply offensive to fiercely Christophobic liberals. Russia’s descent into insanity and madness was clear when Putin refused to allow LGBTQ marches through Red Square. For having the same position on gays as Obama did, circa 2008, Russkies were walking on the fighting side of liberals!
Trump’s election victory was the capstone of the left’s rage with Putin. To explain the inexplicable, Putin was made the center of liberals’ axis of evil, the mastermind of a malevolent plot to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. That’s how liberals became born-again John Birchers, seeing Russians under every bed. Now, no fear of Russia is inordinate. The Russians do NOT love their children, too.
We really could have used some of this fighting spirit about 50 years ago when the Soviet Union sought total world domination and Stalin’s spies were crawling through the U.S. government. But back then, liberals were blackening the names of Whittaker Chambers, Richard Nixon and Sen. Joe McCarthy. (Later proved 100 percent correct by the top-secret Venona Project.)
Russia’s loss of the left’s esteem happened very quickly. In 2008, The New York Times editorial page demanded that Obama “signal to the Russians that he wants better relations,”and complained of the “alarming” deterioration of “Russian-American relations”under Bush.
It was considered the height of statesmanship when Obama was caught on a hot-mic in 2012, telling Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility. I understand you.” To hoots of laughter at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said: “You don’t call Russia our number one enemy — not Al-Qaida, Russia — unless you’re still stuck in a Cold War mind warp.”
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow couldn’t contain her hilarity over the GOP offering “an extra bonus of threatening Russia.” But today, Democrats (and two especially showboating Republicans) are horrified that Trump wants to get along with Russia. Tonight, the threatening evil of Vladamir Putin will be the top issue on Rachel Maddow’s show, assuming she still has a show. (Maybe she can get a copy of Putin’s tax returns!)
When the same people who hailed Stalin as a beloved American ally are happy to threaten Putin with thermonuclear war, we may deduce that the left’s newfound Russia-phobia has some seditious objective. Historically, liberals show their manliness by demanding war with our friends and allies, while methodically undermining America’s ability to fight the wars it’s already in.
The No. 1 enemy of Western civilization today isn’t non-communist Russia. It’s Islam.
And who is a key ally in that fight? Russia has been dealing with these troublesome Muslims for centuries. It was Russian officials who tried in vain to warn our blind, incompetent government about the Boston Marathon bombers.
The left’s hysteria about Russia isn’t just an attempt to delegitimize Trump. It’s the usual Christophobic fifth column rooting for the Islamization of the West.
The first sentence of Congress’ Obamacare repeal should read: “There shall be a free market in health insurance.”
Right there, I’ve solved the health insurance crisis for 90 percent of Americans. Unfortunately, no one can imagine what a free market in health care looks like because we haven’t had one for nearly a century.
On NBC’s “Meet the Press” this weekend, for example, Chuck Todd told Sen. Tom Cotton that his proposal to create affordable health care that would be widely available, “sounds good,”but “do you understand why some people think that’s an impossible promise to keep?”
(The “do you understand …?” formulation is a condescension reserved only for conservatives, whose disagreement with liberals is taken as a sign of stupidity.)
Todd continued: “To make it affordable, making it wider, I mean, that just seems like — you know, it seems like you’re selling something that can’t be done realistically.”
Dream Sequence: Chuck Todd on Russia’s “Meet the Press” after the fall of the Soviet Union: “Do you understand why some people think that’s an impossible promise to keep? To make bread affordable, making it wider, I mean, that just seems like — you know, it seems like you’re selling something that can’t be done realistically.”
It turns out that, outside of a communist dictatorship, all sorts of products are affordable AND widely available! We don’t need Congress to “provide” us with health care any more than we need them to “provide” us with bread. What we need is for health insurance to be available on the free market.
With lots of companies competing for your business, basic health insurance would cost about $50 a month. We know the cost because Christian groups got a waiver from Obamacare, and that’s how much their insurance costs right now. (Under the law, it can’t be called “insurance,” but that’s what it is.)
Even young, healthy people would buy insurance at that price, expanding the “risk-sharing pools” and probably bringing the cost down to $20 or $30 a month.
In a free market, there would be an endless variety of consumer-driven plans, from catastrophic care for the risk-oblivious to extravagant plans for the risk-averse. You know — just like every other product in America.
You should visit America sometime, Chuck! The orange juice aisle in a Texas grocery store knocked the socks off Russian president Boris Yeltsin. (Imagine how cheap a double screwdriver must be in America!)
Just as there are rows of different types of orange juice in the grocery store –- and loads of grocery stores — there will be loads of health insurance plans and insurance companies offering them.
Americans would finally be able to buy whatever insurance plans they liked, as easily as they currently buy flat-screen TVs, cellphones and — what’s that product with the cute gecko in its commercials? I remember now! CAR INSURANCE!
Evidently, insurance is not impervious to the iron law of economics that every product sold on the free market gets better and cheaper over time. The only complicated part of fixing health care is figuring out how to take care of the other 10 percent of Americans — the poor, the irresponsible and the unlucky. And the only reason that is complicated is because of fraud.
Needless to say, the modern nanny state already guarantees that no one will die on the street in America. The taxpayer spends more than a trillion dollars every year on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security disability insurance so that everyone’s health is taken care of, from cradle to grave. Unfortunately, probably at least half of that sum is fraud.
Policing fraud is difficult because:
(1) the bureaucrats dispensing government benefits believe there is no fraud and, if there is, it’s a good thing because it redistributes income; and
(2) we keep bringing in immigrants for whom fraud is a way of life. (See “Adios, America! The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole.”)
Consequently, after the first sentence establishing a free market in health insurance, the entire rest of the bill should be nothing but fraud prevention measures to ensure that only the truly deserving — and the truly American — are accessing taxpayer-supported health care programs.
I’d recommend sending as much as possible back to the states, and also paying bounties to anyone who exposes a fraud against Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. Anyone caught committing health care fraud should get 10 years. Not in prison, in a Medicaid doctor’s waiting room.
But I’m sure you guys in Congress have come up with lots of great ideas for policing fraud in the SEVEN YEARS you’ve had to think about it. (Hello? Is he breathing? Dammit, I’m not getting a pulse!!) Then, Congress can start removing all the bad stuff from the U.S. Code, such as:
— the requirement that hospitals provide “free” care to anyone who shows up (how about separate health clinics for poor people with the sniffles?);
— the exemption of insurance companies from the antitrust laws (where all our problems began); and
— the tax breaks only for employer-provided health insurance (viciously and arbitrarily punishing the self-employed).
The goal of “universal health care” is very simple to achieve, just as the goal of “universal wearing of clothing”seems to have been taken care of. The government can provide for those who can’t provide for themselves, but the rest of us need to be allowed to buy health insurance on the free market — an innovation that has made America the richest, most consumer-friendly country in the world.
It’s taken 50 years, but, thanks to Hillary’s losing the election, we finally have liberals on the record opposing the Soviet Union. Can’t all of Washington come together and end our soviet health care system?
State of the Union Addresses are usually full of carefully-crafted platitudes presenting the president’s agenda in a unifying tone from a position of strength. Typically, no new ground is plowed at these events. In recent years, they have fallen flat for presidents of both parties. But given that Trump is such an unconventional president, a conventional policy speech — carefully crafted with a serious but upbeat tone — is exactly what he needed in order to recover his stalled momentum.
In many ways this was the best speech he has given to date. In fact, it was a perfect presentation of his agenda. To be clear, not all of his agenda is conservative, but that is already baked into the cake. Amidst a month of endless muddled messaging, ramblings about the media, Republican infighting, and competing factions within his own administration, last night was his only opportunity to take his message directly to the American people. It was also a time to move beyond campaign rhetoric and embrace the reality of his party controlling all of government and the need for a forward-looking message.
Here are my quick observations on the policy aspects of the speech, divided into what conservatives should consider good and bad..
THE GOOD
1. Immigration:
Coming into the speech, rumors were swirling in the media that Trump would embrace some sort of amnesty. Not only did that not occur, but Trump reclaimed the term “immigration reform” and used it to describe what the word truly means: finally restoring our immigration system to its historical values before Ted Kennedy destroyed it. That means only admitting immigrants who love our values, do not become a public charge, and do not threaten our way of life. It also means implementing a sane legal immigration system that is not based on chain migration. He put Democrats on defense so that they will have to explain why they oppose merit-based immigration.. For those of us who’ve worked on this issue for years, this speech was just what the doctor ordered.
“It is not compassionate, but reckless, to allow uncontrolled entry from places where proper vetting cannot occur. Those given the high honor of admission to the United States should support this country and love its people and its values.” He also charted a completely new path on the entire premise and goal of refugee policy: “The only long-term solution for these humanitarian disasters is to create the conditions where displaced persons can safely return home and begin the long process of rebuilding.”
3. Obamacare:
Earlier today, I laid down the gauntlet for Trump to finally speak directly to the problems of Obamacare. I argued he needed to call for full repeal and hold Democrats accountable for creating this disaster but then blocking its solution. Trump did not disappoint in the macro-messaging. The guiding principles he laid out on health care were sound. He actually touched on the central point missed by GOP congressional leadership — that we should focus on lowering costs rather than expanding coverage as an end to itself, saying: “The way to make health insurance available to everyone is to lower the cost of health insurance, and that is what we will do.”Unfortunately, he contradicted that messaging by hinting at a pre-existing condition mandate and refundable tax credits — two elements of the establishment plan that will actually keep prices high. Nonetheless, the overall plan was as good as we can hope for from any Republican at this moment and needs to be bolstered by allies in the administration.
4. Foreign policy:
Although the details were a little sparse for a speech this long, he made it clear that the era of nation building is over. “My job is not to represent the world. My job is to represent the United States of America,” said Trump in a very effective punchline. At the same time, President Trump spoke to defending American security without apologizing and waging an unflinching war against radical Islamic terror.And thank God, as this is the first time in years a president has mentioned our alliance with Israel without pushing the odious“two state solution.”
5. Drugs and crime:
Although crime is a policy mainly dealt with on a state level, I’m glad Trump used his “job” as ‘citizen in chief’ to address rising crime rates. This is one area of Trumpism that is actually more in line with traditional conservatism, even though it deviates from the current dogma among “right-leaning” policy elites. The same is true for the drug epidemic. He let the liberal open borders crowd own the disaster that is taking place in our communities thanks to drugs pouring over the border.
THE BAD
1. No mention of life and religious liberty:
While we’ve come to expect social conservatism to take a back seat, it’s a shame that these issues didn’t even receive the traditional obligatory mention, especially given the persecution that is taking place at the hands of the sexual identity lobby and the courts. He could have easily woven in respect for the conscience and private property decisions of others into this unifying speech and would have been a good ambassador for the cause. He won with overwhelming support from evangelicals and other faith-based groups in this country. It’s a shame they were left out tonight. Then again, the rest of the party is just as bad on this issue, so it’s not as if Trump is changing the party’s true position. Nonetheless, conservatives need to fight harder to address fundamental rights and judicial reform.
Let our policies stand on their own merits and the media’s desire to destroy them will be that much harder.
2. Ivankacare, porkulous, spending, and debt:
As always, there was no mention of balancing the budget, the threat of debt, or the need to cut spending. In addition, President Trump promoted “Ivankacare” and the full blown $1 trillion porkulous he calls an infrastructure rebuilding package. Conservatives should not back down in their opposition to these bad ideas. We don’t need another massive entitlement; we need to repeal Obamacare so that mothers don’t have to work more to pay for a second mortgage.Likewise, the talk of “crumbling infrastructure”is a dubious left-wing talking point. And to the extent there are problems with our infrastructure it’s because of the inefficient, failed federal monopoly on highway spending. Trump said, “the time has come for a new program of national rebuilding.”He is right, it’s time to devolve transportation and education spending to the states in order to improve those important functions.
Moreover, Trump must remember that we cannot have economic growth with such long-term debt. Also, the trade deficit he speaks of is only a problem because of our fiscal deficit and the misallocation of investments pouring into this country.
3. The protectionist trade policies:
Nothing new here, but still very problematic. Much of the appeal of “buy America” and “stopping companies from going overseas” stems from the general feeling that we have lost our economy and sovereignty. But were Trump to really propose a solid agenda ending venture socialism — taxation, regulation, and subsidization — along with his virtuous immigration ideas, those problems would go away over time and trade won’t have to be the bogeyman. Furthermore, enactment of true free market policies is the best way to keep companies in America.
Overall, there was really nothing new regarding Trump’s non-conservative views, and I believe they were overshadowed by the solid parts of his speech on immigration and Obamacare. It’s something we must continue to work on as we fight to defend his good policies.
President Trump must now harness the energy from this successful speech and deliver specific policies to Congress on taxes, immigration, and health care. He must whip GOP leaders into shape, get everyone in his administration on the same page, stay on message, and let his policies speak above the rancor of the media. Trump should focus relentlessly on his policies (hopefully the more conservative ones) and back them up with a series of policy speeches while simply ignoring the media. Yes, the media is the enemy, but we must not be our own worst enemy.Let our policies stand on their own merits and the media’s desire to destroy them will be that much harder.
For pro-life news updated throughout the day, visit LifeNews.com.
Top Stories
• Obama Approves Rule Prohibiting States From Defunding Planned Parenthood
• Whoopi Goldberg: Right to Celebrate Christmas is the Same as a “Woman’s Right” to Abortion
• Congressman: We Will Pass a Bill to Defund Planned Parenthood and Donald Trump Will Sign It
• Samantha Bee Slams Bill to Ban Abortions, Says Pro-Lifers Like “Sticking Your Face in a Teen’s Vagina”
More Pro-Life News • Actress Ali Wentworth: When Trump Won My 14-Year-Old Daughter Complained There’d be “No Abortions!” • Tim Tebow’s Mom Will Share Her Story of Refusing to Abort Him at West Coast Walk for Life • March for Life Unveils 2017 Theme: “The Power of One” Person to Stop Abortion • High School Administrators Trash Pro-Life Display After Just One Student Claimed It Was Offensive • Pro-Abortion Researchers Falsely Claim Aborting Their Baby Has No Mental Health Impact on Women • She Was Supposed to Die Before Birth, But Now Clara is Seeing Her First Snowfall • Actress Nicole Scherzinger Was Almost Aborted: Thankfully My Grandparents Were Pro-Life
• Lie of the Year: Abortion Clinics Are Safe and Planned Parenthood Cares About Women
• It’s Not True That Obamacare Insured 20 Million. Here Are the Real Numbers
• Missouri Planned Parenthood Clinic Injures So Many Women in Abortions It Calls 911 Every 6 Weeks
• Court Throws Out Oklahoma Law Requiring Abortion Docs to Protect Women’s Health
• Catholic Legislators Under Fire for Supporting Bill to Legalize Assisted Suicide in New Jersey
Obama Approves Rule Prohibiting States From Defunding Planned Parenthood Pro-abortion President Barack Obama has finalized a new rule that would essentially prohibit states from defunding the Planned Parenthood abortion business and a leading pro-life member of Congress is not happy about it.
Receive a free daily email report from LifeNews.com with the latest pro-life news stories on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.
Receive a free twice-weekly email report with the latest pro-life news headlines on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com.
Copyright 2003-2016 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved.
Hillary Clinton Will Force Christians to Pay for Abortions in Other Countries Recently released Wikileaks emails show that President Obama wanted to fund abortions overseas, a clear violation of longstanding US law and policy, but that he nonetheless wanted to allow for conscience protection for doctors reluctant to perform abortions. Not Hillary Clinton.
Receive a free daily email report from LifeNews.com with the latest pro-life news stories on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.
Receive a free twice-weekly email report with the latest pro-life news headlines on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com.
Copyright 2003-2016 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved.
This scathing open letter, which was posted on Charlie Daniels’ own website, expresses the sentiments that most freedom loving Americans have towards Obama. Read it and then share with everyone you know:
Dear Mr. President,
This letter is not written in a spirit of hate, disrespect, nor is it motivated in any way by racial bias and is written with respect due the office and the awesome tasks that have been laid on your shoulders.
I write this letter because I am a tax paying American citizen who has experienced the American Dream and wants his children and grandchildren to have the same advantages and opportunities that he has had.
And no, Mr. President, I was not born into a one-percenter family, I come from a blue collar background, never went to college, have made a living doing manual labor and went into my chosen profession at ground level, worked hard and sacrificed to achieve success.
On April 13, 1967 I arrived in Nashville, Tennessee with a wife, a two-year-old baby, a twenty-dollar bill and the clutch out of my car.
I won’t go into the mountains and valleys that I’ve traveled since then except to say that I have been successful and somebody did help me build the business I own. Almighty God, not the government.
I employ thirty people, good citizens and family people, hard-working people, the kind of gun-clinging, God-fearing folks who make America the greatest nation the world has ever known.
Mr. President, it seems to me that you have little faith in American ingenuity, American capability, American exceptionalism and even American patriotism.
You seem to think that America needs a monolithic, big brother type government to oversee and regulate every aspect of American life, that citizens are not competent to control their own affairs and make their own decisions without some oppressive bureaucracy to call the shots.
Mr. President, the answer is not government, conversely, the problem is government. A government that has doubled the national debt, increased unemployment, lowered take home pay, increased food stamp participation and disability claims and introduced socialized medicine.
You support teacher’s unions which take political activism more seriously than education.
You intentionally lied to the American people about your stand on marriage being between a man and woman, and continue to lie when it is politically expedient for you to do so.
You surround yourself with inexperienced ideologues and political yes men and take the advice of individuals who are swimming in waters way too deep for them.
Your petulance is unbecoming, Mr. President, and your criticism of anyone who disagrees with you is downright unmanly. You come off like a spoiled child who has been denied his way.
And while you blame your shortcomings on opposing political parties, you had both houses of Congress and the White House in the first two years of your term. Plus an electoral mandate to do just about anything you wanted to, so the least you can do is cowboy up and take the blame for the messes you’ve made.
Your apparent disregard for the maintenance and morale of our armed services is extremely unwise and dangerous.
Mr. President, the office you hold is not a place for the faint of heart and when you draw a red line you’d dang well better be willing to back it up, because when you don’t every tyrant and despot in this world takes it for a sign of weakness and will take advantage, Putin and China being a prime example.
In making any kind of deal with Iran you spit in the face of Israel and plant the seeds of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
The last report showed that the US economy actually shrunk by .07% while the national debt and other obligations grow by the day.
No matter how many apologists come forth and no matter how much double talk you and the puppets who speak for you come up with, the greatest nation the world has ever known is losing a war with a small army of criminals and thugs that grows bigger every day simply because you don’t have the guts to face the problem.
You’re running out of diversions Mr. President, sleight of hand political policies eventually stop working and lies finally float to the top of water.
Time is running out for you Mr. President and the horrible thing about it is that time is running out for America too.
Khizr Khan, the Muslim “Gold Star Father” who harangued Americans at the Democratic National Convention, with a mute, hijab-wearing wife at his side, is just another in a long string of human shields liberals send out to defend their heinous policies. The “Jersey Girls” were the classic example, first described in that magnificent bookGodless: The Church of Liberalism.
In order to shut down a debate they’re losing, Democrats find victims to make their arguments for them, pre-empting counter-argument by droning on about the suffering of their victim-spokesperson. Alternative opinions must be preceded by proof that the speaker has “sacrificed” more than someone who lost a child, a husband, or whatever.
Khan’s argument, delivered angrily and in a thick Pakistani accent at the DNC, is that “our” Constitution requires us to continue the nonstop importation of Muslims. If the U.S. Constitution required us to admit more than 100,000 Muslims a year — as we do — we’d already be living in Pakistan, and Khan wouldn’t have had to move to get that nice feeling of home. So the “argument” part of Khan’s point is gibberish.
Luckily, Khan had Part Two: His son died in Iraq, whereas Donald Trump does not have a son who died in Iraq, so he can’t say anything.
Yes, a candidate for president of the United States is supposed to be prohibited from discussing a dangerous immigration program because Khan’s son was one of fourteen (14!) Muslim servicemen killed by other Muslims in our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s why we’re obligated to import yet more Muslims – including, undoubtedly, some just like the ones who killed his son. Q.E.D.!
If you think that doesn’t make any sense, keep your yap shut, unless you lost a child in Iraq, too.
There were virtually no Muslims in America before Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 immigration act. Today, we admit more immigrants from Muslim countries than from Great Britain.
Are Americans allowed to have an opinion on whether that’s a good idea?
So far, it’s worked out great!
In addition to the sudden appearance of honor killings, clitorectomies, hijabs and massive government frauds, Muslim immigrants have given us:
The most devastating terrorist attack in world history,
followed by terrorist attacks at Fort Hood,
the Boston Marathon,
a military recruiting center in Chattanooga,
Times Square,
Vaughan Foods in Oklahoma, S
an Bernardino and an
Orlando nightclub,
among other places.
We’ve admitted 2 million Muslims just since 9/11 – that’s more than had been admitted before 9/11. If we don’t make it 3 million, we’re monsters? May we ask how many Muslims Khan’s mystery Constitution requires — or is that out of bounds unless we had a child who died in Iraq?
Apparently, sending out a victim to make their argument was the only option left for the “Make America Muslim!”crowd.
After Trump somehow got the crazy idea that a presidential candidate was allowed to discuss government policies and proposed a temporary ban on Muslim immigration — which, by the way, is perfectly constitutional— the entire media and political class erupted in a sputtering rage.
Conscience of a Nation, Speaker Paul Ryan proclaimed: “That’s not who we are.”Jeb! Bush made the subtle and clever argument that Trump was “unhinged.” Marco Rubio called any pause in Muslim immigration “offensive.”ABC News’ Jonathan Karl called Trump’s plan “outrageous”— which was way better than MSNBC, where Trump was compared to white supremacists and Nazis.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Trump had “disqualifie(d)” himself from “serving as president” for suggesting any slowdown in Muslim immigration. Vice President Joe Biden — tribune of blue-collar Americans everywhere! — said that if Trump were the nominee, Hillary would “win in a walk.”
Then it turned out Trump’s Muslim ban was a huge hit with actual voters. Hillary, who promises to quadruple the number of Syrian “refugees” we bring in, is quite far from winning “in a walk.”
So the media and political class had no choice: They had to produce a victim to make their argument, in order to block any response. For their next trick, Democrats plan to produce a little girl whose parents were recently murdered to present their tax plan. (Better make sure they weren’t killed by an illegal alien!)
Does anyone know what Khan thinks of gays? How about miniskirts? Alcohol? Because I gather we’re going to have to turn all our policies over to him, too. What have you sacrificed, Barney Frank??
Muslim troops accounted for 0.2 percent of all U.S. troop deaths in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Southerners accounted for 38 percent of those killed in Iraq and 47 percent in Afghanistan.
What has South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley “sacrificed” compared to the families of these men? How about Nikki put their flag back up?
The Confederate flag won’t lead to thousands of dead and maimed Americans, as Muslim immigration does. The only danger posed by the Confederate flag is that media elites will hold the South in even greater contempt than they already do, assuming that’s possible.
But as long as they brought it up, if only people who lost children in our wars may discuss public policy, then only they should vote, not only on how many more Muslim immigrants this country needs, but on all government policies. What has Chuck Todd sacrificed? Have any current members of The New York Times editorial board ever lost a son in war? (Fighting on the American side.)
The inevitable conclusion to the hysteria over Khan is that only those who have worn the uniform and heard shots fired in anger can vote in our elections. Hello, media? Hey — where’d everybody go?
Whatever questionable choices were made at the Republican National Convention last week, I didn’t hear of a single speaker whose sole accomplishment was raising a delinquent who attacked a cop.
But as the country reels from the cold-blooded murder of five policemen in Dallas and three in Baton Rouge, Lezley McSpadden, mother of Mike Brown, America’s most famous cop-assaulting criminal, appeared on stage at the Democratic National Convention.
Welcome to Hillary’s convention, celebrating the anti-police group Black Lives Matter!
The whole raison d’etre of BLM is the belief that cops are wantonly killing “black bodies.” But only four of the dead black kids being honored were even killed by cops. Two were murdered by black gang members. Of the four deaths that involved the police, all the victims were fighting the cops when they died.
In this regard, I notice that six of the nine “Mothers of the Movement” have different last names from their snowflakes. The children with the same names as their mothers were the two who were gunned down by black gangs, as well as one schizophrenic, who, unfortunately, had grabbed an officer’s baton and was hitting him with it when he got himself shot.
After massive, enormously expensive investigations, only one officer in any of these four cases was convicted of any offense: involuntary manslaughter for the 2009 shooting by a BART police officer of Oscar Grant — who was in the process of being arrested for an enormous public brawl when he was shot.
Contrast his death with the deaths of 15-year-old Hadiya Pendleton and 16-year-old Blair Holt. Hadiya was shot in the back by black gang members, while in a Chicago park with her friends — who were mistaken for members of a rival gang. Blair was riding a school bus when a black gang member boarded the bus and began shooting.
The police are trying get these criminal gangs off the street! And their job would be a lot easier without thugs like Mike Brown violently attacking them.
It would be a lot easier if they weren’t being constantly harassed by BLM and their lunatic accusations of racist policing.
It would be a lot easier if they were not being targeted for assassination and mass murders by homicidal nuts ginned up by BLM. (Shooting deaths of police are up 78 percent so far this year.)
And it would be a lot easier without a group — officially supported by the Democrats — leading marches down city streets, chanting, “What do we want? DEAD COPS! When do we want it? NOW!”
Why does the Democratic platform endorse Black Lives Matter? And, most importantly, why was Mike Brown’s mother on stage at the Democratic National Convention? As absurd as BLM’s other cases are, none have been so authoritatively disproved as the yarn about “gentle giant” Brown begging for his life from Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson before being shot in the street like a dog.
Within a few weeks of the “hands up, don’t shoot” narrative being broadcast as fact from every media outlet, we saw the video of the “gentle giant” robbing a store and roughing up the clerk shortly before his encounter with Officer Wilson.
This was followed by extensive investigations by both a grand jury and a Department of Justice led by the most racist, anti-police attorney general we’ve ever had, Eric Holder. But even Holder’s Justice Department had to concede the whole “hands up don’t shoot” story was a bald-faced lie.
Officer Wilson was completely cleared in the shooting of Mike Brown. As the investigations proved, Big Mike had violently assaulted Wilson, grabbed for his gun, and was charging the officer when Wilson shot and killed this raging behemoth.
However half-heartedly, Hillary claims to oppose cop-killing, so why is she using her convention to promote the biggest lie in the pantheon of anti-cop lies, and to celebrate a man whose most famous act was to violently assault a police officer?
Because of the despicable lies put out by BLM agitators, Wilson had to give up his career, move his family and will be forced to live in fear for the rest of his life. The town of Ferguson was destroyed, businesses burned to the ground, police officers attacked, people injured, the National Guard called in, and massive taxpayer money expended to contain the riots.
But at the Democratic Convention, Lezley McSpadden (mother of Mike Brown) was wildly cheered.
Eric Holder said Brown tried to kill a cop. Are Democrats insane?
If Brown’s mother had done something noteworthy, apart from raising a hoodlum — perhaps pioneering a cardiac stent that will save people’s lives — then one could understand her being a “headliner” at the Democrat’s convention. But, as I understand it, her sole claim to fame is giving birth to, and then carefully nurturing, a violent, cop-assaulting criminal.
Donald Trump, along with every other Republican ever to run for president, is required to repeatedly “disavow” David Duke — someone he’s never met, never mentioned, never thought of— and certainly didn’t invite to speak at his convention. But Hillary invites to her convention the mother of a man whose criminality destroyed a police officer’s life, tore the country apart and gave birth to a murderous cop-hating movement. Will a single reporter ask Hillary to disavow that?
During the 1933 German revolution, the Nazi Party’s working-class military faction, called the SA (Sturmabteilung), was largely credited for bringing them victory. This group, also known as Storm Troopers, quickly became nothing more than thugs. They intimidated, vandalized, brutalized and in some cases killed. Hitler used this angry, revengeful citizen army to bring himself to power. When they started threatening his control, though, he eliminated them.
Led by Ernst Röhm, the SA considered themselves the “people’s army”. They were dubbed “Brown Shirts” due to their uniform. Hitler used these Storm Troopers to sew the seeds of discourse between all the German political parties. Promising to make Germany great again, he agreed the SA would be the new army.
With a crowded political arena, Hitler’s focus on nationalism separated the National Socialist Party from the Communists. His position gained enough support to give the Nazis political control with less than 44% of the vote.
Röhm and the SA focused on Socialism. They wanted to rob the rich of their wealth and spread it around to the working class. In February of 1934, Hitler informed Röhm the SA would in fact not be the military force in Germany. Immediately after the meeting, Röhm declared, “Hitler is a traitor, and at the very least must go on leave…If we can’t get there with him, we’ll get there without him.” He promoted a second revolution in a speech two months later, proclaiming, “The SA is the National Socialist Revolution!”
As Chancellor, Hitler still answered to President Paul von Hindenburg. He had to strategically obtain dictatorial power. In 1923, the Nazi “Beer Hall Putsch” tried to overthrow the German government by force. It ended in defeat and Hitler in prison where he wrote Mein Kaumf. He strategized how to win power with the people. Never letting a crisis go to waste, he just had to wait for the perfect moment to seize all power, ending German democracy.
The friction between Hitler and the SA was quickly threatening the power of the Third Reich altogether. Financial backers as well as predominate members did not like Röhm’s all out push for Socialism. Military leaders balked at Röhm’s promotion of overthrowing the army and dissolving it into the SA.
Hitler scheduled a meeting with Röhm where it was decided that Röhm would take a “personal illness” leave while the four million SA Storm Troopers would stand down for the month of July. Röhm’s call for Socialism had already taken strong root. President Hindenburg was ready to declare martial law, which would have eradicated all of Hitler’s power grabs thus far.
Inside the SA was a smaller, extremely disciplined group called the SS (Schutzstaffel), led by Heinrich Himmler. He, along with Reinhard Heydrich, Joseph Goebbles, and Hermann Göring, saw Röhm’s weakness. They propagandized his downfall for their own political gain, exaggerating the threat of an SA coup. This convinced Hitler that Röhm needed to be eliminated.
On the morning of June 30, 1934, Hitler and several SS men stormed Röhm’s home and arrested him. He then gave the signal for the SS and the Gestapo to begin rounding up their predetermined list of political adversaries. The list was composed of those not only working with Röhm and the SA, but anyone who opposed or threatened the Nazi takeover.
In prison, Röhm was given a gun and 15 minutes to end his own life. He refused saying, “If I am to be killed let Adolf do it himself.” With that, two SS officers entered the room and shot him point blank. The other high-ranking SA officers were told, “You have been condemned to death by the Führer for high treason. Heil Hitler!” Over a 48-hour period, an estimated two hundred SA officials were lined against a wall, with the last words they heard being, “By order of the Führer. Aim. Fire!”
Röhm, along with several other SA commanders, were also known homosexuals. While many Nazi sympathizers disliked this, Hitler overlooked it for his own personal gain. Once the SA “cleansing” occurred, Hitler used the leaders’ homosexuality as reason for their necessary demise.
The events of June 30th – July 2nd were kept hidden from the German people until July 13th. Hitler announced that 61 SA members had been purged with 13 shot while resisting arrest. Three were supposedly to have committed suicide. It was here Hitler also designated it the “Night of the Long Knives.” He explained in his speech, “In this hour I was responsible for the fate of the German people, and thereby I become the supreme judge of the German people. I gave the order to shoot the ringleaders in this treason.”
Hitler admitted he illegally circumvented the courts, appointing himself judge and jury of his victims and ordering their deaths. He told the citizens he had a pen and a phone and could get things done, regardless of law, claiming it was “for the good of the people.” The people cheered. The president praised him. Germany’s democracy died.
We, in America, are not that far away from conducting our own “Night of the Long Knives”. Too many of us are now practicing “revenge politics”. We want revenge against the rich, the poor, whites, blacks, latinos, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Democrats, Republicans, and just politicians in general. When we pull the lever for someone on the basis of “he’s going to get ‘em”, we are no better than the Germans who cheered Hitler.
Bernie Sanders supporters believe Obama and Hillary Clinton have not gone far enough in their Socialism. Sanders promises a ‘political revolution’, with all the progressive, liberal, free, socialist stuff you can stand.
Obama prosecutes journalists and whistleblowers who expose the truth behind the administration’s unconstitutional, illegal behaviors. Trump has proposed easing libel laws so he can punish those who write or say unfavorable things about him.
As Hitler did with Röhm, Obama supports the LGBT community as long as it’s convenient. While the left’s mantra condemns Omar Mateen for targeting a gay nightclub in Orlando, Attorney General Loretta Lynch recently declared his motives may never be known. The Obama Administration just completely abandoned the LGBT community to cover for a faction they deem more important to their agenda, the Islamic extremists.
Does any of this sound familiar?
Let me emphasize I am not saying Obama, Sanders, Clinton or Trump would do what Hitler did. But can we agree there are quite a few similarities? Hitler did not start out executing Jews. He worked his way up, grabbing power whenever he could. The people were so distraught they even cheered it. Are we not at that point?
We need to take a long, hard look at the road we are choosing. History is not just a class in High School. It’s there for us to learn from. As they say, if we don’t learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.
America needs to wake up. The warning signs are there that we can loose our republic tomorrow. Sitting back and believing it will never happen is not good enough. Just ask the Germans. Warning signs are there for a reason. To WARN. If we choose not to heed them, then it is at our own peril.
Pamela J. Adams maintains TheFactsPaper.com which includes her blog Liberating Letters. She is a stay-at-home mom who began researching history, science, religion, and current events to prepare for home schooling. She started Liberating Letters as short lessons for her daughter and publishes them for everyone’s benefit. Pamela has a Degree in Mathematics and was in the workforce for 20 years as a teacher, Marketing Director, Manager and Administrative Assistant. She has been researching her personal family history for over 24 years, publishing 3 books on her family’s genealogy. Follow her @PJA1791 & http://www.TheFactsPaper.com. You can find her books Here.
Receive a free daily email report from LifeNews.com with the latest pro-life news stories on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.
Receive a free twice-weekly email report with the latest pro-life news headlines on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com.
Copyright 2003-2016 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved.
Receive a free daily email report from LifeNews.com with the latest pro-life news stories on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.
Receive a free twice-weekly email report with the latest pro-life news headlines on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com.
Copyright 2003-2016 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved.
Receive a free daily email report from LifeNews.com with the latest pro-life news stories on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.
Receive a free twice-weekly email report with the latest pro-life news headlines on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com.
Copyright 2003-2016 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved.
Donald Trump Names Pro-Life Leaders to Special Faith Advisory Panel Yesterday, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump met with over 1,000 pro-life leaders and activists from across the country and promised to appoint pro-life judges to the Supreme Court.
Receive a free daily email report from LifeNews.com with the latest pro-life news stories on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.
Receive a free twice-weekly email report with the latest pro-life news headlines on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com.
Copyright 2003-2016 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved.
Clarence Thomas’ Wife Calls Reports of Him Considering Retirement “Bogus” When it comes to abortion, for pro-life voters there is no more important issue in the presidential election than who will control the appointment process for one or more Supreme Court judges who will determine the fate of abortion for decades.
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact LifeNews at news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
Receive a free daily email report from LifeNews.com with the latest pro-life news stories on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.
Receive a free twice-weekly email report with the latest pro-life news headlines on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com.
Copyright 2003-2016 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved.
Donald Trump to Meet With Top Pro-Life Leaders During Private Summit Since he’s become the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, pro-life voters are starting to move in Donald Trump’s direction — especially knowing the alternative is abortion activists Hillary Clinton.
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact LifeNews at news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
Receive a free daily email report from LifeNews.com with the latest pro-life news stories on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.
Receive a free twice-weekly email report with the latest pro-life news headlines on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com.
Copyright 2003-2016 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved.
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact LifeNews at news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
Receive a free daily email report from LifeNews.com with the latest pro-life news stories on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.
Receive a free twice-weekly email report with the latest pro-life news headlines on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com.
Copyright 2003-2016 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved.
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Opinion
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
You Version
Bible Translations, Devotional Tools and Plans, BLOG, free mobile application; notes and more
Political
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Spiritual
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Bible Gateway
The Bible Gateway is a tool for reading and researching scripture online — all in the language or translation of your choice! It provides advanced searching capabilities, which allow readers to find and compare particular passages in scripture based on
and 
, and particularly its effect on children, as well as concern over the proliferation of pornography and its effects on society at large.
,
or 
can navigate to the most aberrant and disgusting pornographic fare ever conceived. American consumers are hard-pressed to find movie and TV offerings that do not aggressively promote leftist sexual orthodoxy, and even 
featuring 
are peppered with gratuitous pro-LGBTQ messages.
Source: AP Photo/Chris Pizzello
Commentary by 
Commentary by 
Commentary by 
Commentary by Rush Limbaugh | 
In other words, the CBO said that 
You take your pick. Whatever major industry we’re talking about, 
But it’s not you. It’s not the voters. They’re certainly afraid of somebody — or else they despise somebody — but they’re not afraid. You know, Ted Cruz said the thing that he discovered that was the most… I mean, he knew it, but to see it in action every day? It blew his mind that the single, dominating thing in every day of a senator’s life is getting reelected, which means fundraising. That’s number one, first and foremost.
For those of you in Rio Linda, it means the next month is 2016, which is an election year. They wanted to be on record as close to an election year as possible that they had sent a vote to repeal Obamacare up to Obama. Damn it, they repealed it. But that’s what you get with a Democrat in the White House. You give us a Republican in the White House and we’ll repeal it. She tells everybody how it’s not affordable. It’s not this and that. It’s not anything it purports to be, and she lays claim to no doubt that she opposes it.
Trump says he has more respect for military people that don’t get captured. (sigh) Well, think what you will of that. But you cannot think what you will of that without recognizing the importance of that story to McCain’s political biography. It is crucial to McCain’s biography. Everybody knows it — that’s how crucial it’s been — that McCain was captured after being shot down, that when the Vietcong found out who he was (i.e., the son of a famous Navy admiral), they offered him release and how McCain said no.
Commentary by 
, 
Published on June 30, 2015
On 
Pamela J. Adams maintains TheFactsPaper.com which includes her blog Liberating Letters. She is a stay-at-home mom who began researching history, science, religion, and current events to prepare for home schooling. She started Liberating Letters as short lessons for her daughter and publishes them for everyone’s benefit. Pamela has a Degree in Mathematics and was in the workforce for 20 years as a teacher, Marketing Director, Manager and Administrative Assistant. She has been researching her personal family history for over 24 years, publishing 3 books on her family’s genealogy. Follow her @PJA1791 & 
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact LifeNews at 
What Did You Say? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.