Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Congress’

OPINION OPED: Don’t bail out cities. Reopen them


Commentary by Rep. John Curtis & Jessica Anderson | June 14, 2020 12:00 AM

Misleadingly named the HEROES Act, the bill would give $500 billion in unrestricted funds to state governments and $375 billion to cities.

Let’s dispense with the myth that these bailouts are the best way to help local governments.

Many states and cities don’t need additional tax dollars beyond the direct coronavirus relief the federal government has already given. The federal government has already spent trillions to prop up various sectors of the country and given $200 billion to states alone. Some mayors and governors around the country are claiming it’s not enough — many of these same politicians, of course, have been running billions of dollars in the red for years. The pandemic didn’t cause that, and this bailout won’t solve their long-running deficit spending.

New York City, for instance, had a $198 billion deficit at the end of 2018. Now, the city is expecting a $7.4 billion budget shortfall from the coronavirus, but it’s asking for $17 billion in relief. Meanwhile, the city’s own comptroller says the city could cut government “fat” and balance the budget without layoffs.

As a congressman and proud former mayor of Provo, Utah, and a lifetime conservative grassroots leader, we share an appreciation for well-managed state and local governments. Provo’s net position, a measure of the city’s total financial health, increased by $19 million last year thanks to careful management and hard financial decisions. Provo, and Utah generally, planned ahead and will weather this pandemic far better. Utahns and people around the country know rainy-day funds are important for families and for businesses — governments should be no exception. Places like New York City may have to make cuts now, but it will serve them better in the long term than a Band-Aid bailout would.

Bill de Blasio and Nancy Pelosi want the federal government to tax you, bring the money to Washington, and then, after taking the federal government’s desired share, give it back to your city and state — we don’t think this is a good idea. Of course, some local politicians would love to shift the responsibility for taxes and debt to the federal government. But anyone paying attention knows unaccountable Washington bureaucrats are far worse at fairly distributing money than locally elected leaders closest to the people, such as mayors, city councils, governors, or state legislatures. These federal redistributions almost always come with a haircut and strings attached.

Not only are massive bailouts for cities an unnecessary expense, but they are also a poor policy response that rewards bad behavior and punishes responsibility.

Bailing out failing governments merely incentivizes poor management in the future. If this bailout passes, cities will have no reason to save for a rainy day if they think Uncle Sam will come and save them. While no city wants to cut expenses or go into bankruptcy, it’s important that bad choices have consequences. Further, cities in the worst financial shape rarely have tax problems — they have spending problems. New York City’s high sales, income, and property taxes, as well as fees and other revenue sources, bring in an astounding $90 billion per year. Clearly, the reason for the city’s deficit isn’t a lack of money coming in the door but rather years of irresponsible decisions and no desire to balance the budget.

Bailouts also promote poor management nowThe root cause of budget shortfalls is not the coronavirus itself — it’s economic lockdowns. Stay-at-home orders were a necessary response to COVID-19 in some areas early on, though Utah instead issued a “Stay Home, Stay Safe” directive and has been one of the least affected states in the country. But some cities, like New York, have kept their orders in place long after they “flattened the curve.” Overly cautious politicians want to have their cake and eat it too: keeping their cities locked down as long as possible while having the federal government pick up the tab. But every day they don’t take steps to reopen will prolong the road to recovery for the rest of the nation.

Finally, and most importantly, a bailout would unfairly punish responsible cities. Utahns shouldn’t pay extra for Bill de Blasio’s prodigal spending — neither should other cities and states. Cities that saved and acted responsibly shouldn’t pay for the failures of other cities to do so as well.

America was founded as a land of freedom and responsibility. Pelosi’s bill would undermine those ideals, forcing taxpayers around the nation to cover the shortfalls of cities that spent recklessly for decades. Lawmakers should keep that in mind and reject Pelosi’s massive bailout boondoggle.

Rep. John Curtis, a Republican, represents Utah’s 3rd congressional district and is the former mayor of Provo, Utah. Jessica Anderson is Executive Director of Heritage Action for America.

Senators Who Fought Kavanaugh Found Stumping for Biden Morning After Allegation Evidence Discovered


Commentary By Andrew J. Sciascia | Published April 26, 2020 at 6:41am

It was a shocking news-break Friday as reports indicated evidence had emerged supporting former Senate aide Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegations against presumptive 2020 Democratic presidential primary nominee Joe Biden. Potentially more shocking, however, were Saturday morning developments that seemed to suggest that — just like that — the American left’s zero-tolerance, “Believe All Women” approach to sexual assault allegations against prominent figures in the D.C. political establishment had been put to rest.

According to The Intercept, video was found this week in the archives of CNN’s “Larry King Live” revealing an on-air phone call in 1993 in which a female caller complained that her daughter had had nowhere to turn for help with unspecified “problems” while working for a “prominent senator.” The caller is believed to have been Reade’s now-deceased mother.

Receiving incredibly little attention from the establishment media, Reade came forward in March with allegations Biden had, while she was a staffer in his office in 1993, forced himself upon her in private in a hallway in the Capitol complex, kissing her and penetrating her with his fingers.

Confirmation the “Larry King Live” caller was, in fact, Reade’s mother would support Reade’s claims that she had confided in others and considered coming forward shortly after the alleged assault would have taken place.

Still, the news about the phone call wasn’t enough to stop Democratic senators, and former bitter primary opponents, from expressing support for Biden just 24 hours later on social media. Likely still vying for a vice presidential nod, the senators were eager Saturday morning to kiss the boots of their good friend Biden, joining him in promoting a campaign event titled S.O.U.L. of the Nation Saturday.

Coming on the one-year anniversary of Biden’s campaign announcement, “SOUL Saturday” — for service, outreach, unity and leadership — is described as a day dedicated to celebrating American “communities’ heroes” in a time of crisis.

Coincidentally, the event also plays on Biden’s running narrative regarding his candidacy — which he describes as an attempt to “reclaim” the soul of America from the hands of mean, old President Donald Trump.

And wouldn’t you know it, Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker had no problem slapping on fake smiles, painting their former opponent with rehearsed compliments and quoting his campaign slogans.

“I’m so grateful to be teaming up with [Joe Biden] to recognize all of the heroes fighting for us on the front lines,” Booker wrote in a Twitter post alongside a promotional video. “The biggest thing you can do today is a small act of kindness for someone else — so please, join us in this day of service.”

“Today I’m joining my friend [Joe Biden] and people across our nation who are coming together to take part in #SOULSaturday,” wrote Harris, whose most notable moment of campaign popularity came from insinuating Biden was an old racist.

“Let’s use this moment to show our appreciation for those on the front lines and connect with our friends and neighbors. We’re all in this together.”

Of course, no such pleasantries were made regarding then-D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh by any of the aforementioned senators at the time of his 2018 Supreme Court confirmation. In fact, Booker, Harris and Klobuchar were all clearly using their positions on the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time of the Kavanaugh proceedings as a springboard for their eventual failed White House bids.

This is not to say sexual assault allegations should be taken lightly or ignored. To the contrary, they should be heard and investigated with the utmost seriousness and empathy. But presumption of innocence and all manner of due process were flung to the wind when Christine Blasey Ford, Ph.D., came forward with consistently uncorroborated claims Kavanaugh had assaulted her at a party in high school. One allegation led to more and more still, each one less credible than the last.

Stories of a high school-aged Kavanaugh taking part in methodically planned date-rape rings and thrusting his genitals upon an unsuspecting woman at a Yale University party were all welcomed by Democrats and the media as though they were equally valid — because, once again, you had to “Believe All Women.” That is why Gillibrand repeatedly told the media and the nation that Ford had “no reason to lie,” according to CNN. That is why Klobuchar used her time questioning the judge as an opportunity to grandstand, assassinating his character with implications that his collegiate drinking habits somehow made him a sex criminal as well.

But I guess it’s too much to ask the same level of scrutiny be applied to Biden, even hours after the allegations against him seem to have taken on teeth.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

IG Report Reveals Steele Funneled Claims Through John McCain After FBI Dropped Him


Written by Aaron Klein | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/26/ig-report-reveals-steele-funneled-claims-through-john-mccain-after-fbi-dropped-him/

In this Aug. 25, 2009 file photo, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., holds a healthcare town hall meeting in Sun City, Ariz. McCain’s family says the Arizona senator has chosen to discontinue medical treatment for brain cancer. (AP Photo/Matt York) AP Photo/Matt York

Late Senator John McCain provided disgraced former FBI chief James Comey with five separate reports from Christopher Steele that the FBI didn’t previously possess related to unsubstantiated allegations of collusion between Russia and President Trump’s 2016 campaign, the Justice Department’s recent Inspector General report revealed.

There have long been questions about why it was necessary for McCain to pass Steele’s anti-Trump dossier to Comey on December 9, 2016, several weeks after the November 2016 presidential election. By then, Steele had already met numerous times with FBI agents to provide them with his controversial reports. Steele, however, was terminated as an FBI source in the fall of 2016 because he spoke to the news media.

The IG report discloses that McCain gave five new Steele reports to Comey that the FBI did not previously possess, showing that McCain served as a conduit for Steele’s information to reach the FBI even after the British ex-spy was formally cut off as an FBI source.

It is not clear whether McCain knew at the time that Steele had previously been terminated as an FBI source.

The IG report also verifies that a McCain aid obtained the Steele reports directly from Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson, meaning that when McCain transferred the anti-Trump charges to Comey he had to have known that the material originated with a firm that specializes in controversial opposition tactics. Fusion GPS was paid for its anti-Trump work by Trump’s primary political opponents, namely Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) via the Perkins Coie law firm.

States the IG report:

Several weeks later, on December 9, 2016, Senator John McCain provided Comey with a collection of 16 Steele election reports, 5 of which Steele had not given the FBI. McCain had obtained these reports from a staff member at the McCain Institute. The McCain Institute staff member had met with Steele and later acquired the reports from Simpson.

The unnamed McCain staff member is known to be David J. Kramer, who also infamously provided BuzzFeed with the Steele dossier.

BuzzFeed published Steele’s full dossier on January 10, 2017 setting off a firestorm of news media coverage about the document.

Prior to his death, McCain admitted to personally handing the dossier to Comey but he refused repeated requests for comment about whether he had a role in providing the dossier to BuzzFeed, including numerous inquiries sent to his office by this reporter.

In his book published last year, McCain maintained he had an “obligation” to pass the dossier charges against Trump to Comey and he would even do it again. “Anyone who doesn’t like it can go to hell,” McCain exclaimed.

Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

Written with research by Joshua Klein.

Emails: Open Society Kept Alleged ‘Whistleblower’ Eric Ciaramella Updated on George Soros’s Personal Ukraine Activities


Written by Aaron Klein | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/17/emails-open-society-kept-alleged-whistleblower-eric-ciaramella-updated-on-george-soross-personal-ukraine-activities/

George Soros, Chairman, Soros Fund Management and Open Society, testifies before US Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry on ‘Foreign Policy and the Global Economic Crisis’ March 25, 2009, on Capitol Hill, in Washington, DC. AFP Photo/Paul J. Richards (Photo credit should read PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images)

Eric Ciaramella, whom Real Clear Investigations suggests is the likely so-called whistleblower, received emails about Ukraine policy from a top director at George Soros’s Open Society Foundations.

The emails informed Ciaramella and a handful of other Obama administration foreign policy officials about Soros’s whereabouts, the contents of Soros’s private meetings about Ukraine and a future meeting the billionaire activist was holding with the prime minister of Ukraine.

A primary recipient of the Open Society emails along with Ciaramella was then-Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who played a central role in the anti-Trump dossier affair. Nuland, with whom Ciaramella worked closely, received updates on Ukraine issues from dossier author Christopher Steele in addition to her direct role in facilitating the dossier within the Obama administration.

The emails spotlight Soros’s access to national security officials under the Obama administration on the matter of Ukraine. In one instance, Jeff Goldstein, senior policy analyst for Eurasia at the Open Society Foundations, sent a June 9, 2016 email to Nuland and Ciaramella, who were the missive’s primary recipients.

CC’d were three other State Department officials involved in European affairs, including Alexander Kasanof who worked at the U.S. embassy in Kiev.

The message read:

I wanted to let you know that Mr. Soros met with Johannes Hahn in Brussels earlier today. One of the issues he raised was concern over the decision to delay the visa liberalization for Georgia and the implications for Ukraine.

The email revealed that “GS” – meaning Soros – “is also meeting [Georgian] President [Giorgi] Margvelashvili today and speaking with PM Groyman,” referring to Ukrainian Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman.

The email stated that Soros told Hahn “that Ukrainian civil society is concerned that without reciprocity from the EU for steps Ukraine has taken to put in place sensitive anti-corruption and anti-discrimination legislation and institutions it will not be possible to continue to use the leverage of EU instruments and policies to maintain pressure for reforms in the future.”

Soros also “urged Hahn to advocate with member states to move ahead with visa liberalization for Ukraine,” the email related.

“I’m sure you’ve been working this issue hard; if you have any thoughts on how this is likely to play out or where particular problems lie I’d appreciate if you could let us know,” the email concluded.

Goldstein’s email text sent to Nuland and Ciaramella was not addressed to any one individual. Nuland replied that she would be happy to discuss the issues by phone. Goldstein set up a phone call and wrote that Soros specifically asked that an employee from the billionaire’s “personal office” join the call with Nuland.

The email was released last August as part of a separate Freedom of Information Act request by the conservative group Citizens United.  The FOIA request was unrelated to Ciaramella.

Johannes Hahn, referenced in the emails as meeting with Soros about Ukraine, is the European Commissioner for Neighborhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations. In 2015, Hahn participated with Nuland in the YES Summit, which bills itself as “the leading public diplomacy platform in Eastern Europe.” Another summit participant was Vadym Pozharskyi, a board advisor to Burisma, the Ukranian natural gas company at the center of the impeachment trial and the allegations related to Hunter and Joe Biden.

On scores of occasions, Hahn was a featured speaker at roundtables and other events produced by the Atlantic Council think tank, which is funded by and works in partnership with Burisma. The Atlantic Council is also financed by Soros’s Open Society Foundations and has been in the news for ties to various actors associated with the impeachment issue.

In one of several instances, Breitbart News reported, itinerary for a trip to Ukraine in August organized by the Atlantic Council reveals that a staffer on Rep. Adam Schiff’s House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence held a meeting during the trip with Acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor, now a key witness for Democrats pursuing impeachment. The Schiff staffer is also an Atlantic Council fellow, while Taylor has evidenced a close relationship with the Atlantic Council.

Breitbart News previously reported on other emails that show Ciaramella worked closely with Nuland. Nuland has come under repeated fire for her various roles in the anti-Trump dossier controversy.

In their book, Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump, authors and reporters Michael Isikoff and David Corn write that Nuland gave the green light for the FBI to first meet with Steele regarding his dossier’s claims. It was at that meeting that Steele initially reported his dossier charges to the FBI, the book relates.

FBI notes cite career Justice Department official Bruce Ohr as saying that Nuland was in touch with Fusion GPS co-founder and dossier producer Glenn Simpson.

Sen. John McCain, who infamously delivered the dossier to then-FBI Director James Comey, reportedly first dispatched an aide, David J. Kramer, to inquire with Nuland about the dossier claims.

Meanwhile, looped into some other email chains with Ciaramella was then-Secretary of State John Kerry’s chief of staff at the State Department, John Finer.

An extensive New Yorker profile of Steele named Finer as obtaining the contents of a two-page summary of the dossier and eventually deciding to share the questionable document with Kerry. Finer reportedly received the dossier summary from Jonathan M. Winer, the Obama State Department official who acknowledged regularly interfacing and exchanging information with Steele, according to the report. Winer previously conceded that he shared the dossier summary with Nuland.

After his name surfaced in news media reports related to probes by House Republicans into the dossier, Winer authored a Washington Post oped in which he conceded that while he was working at the State Department he exchanged documents and information with Steele. Winer further acknowledged that while at the State Department, he shared anti-Trump material with Steele passed to him by longtime Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal, whom Winer described as an “old friend.” Winer wrote that the material from Blumenthal – which Winer in turn gave to Steele – originated with Cody Shearer, who is a controversial figure long tied to various Clinton scandals.

In testimony last year, Nuland made statements about a meeting at the State Department in October 2016 between State officials and Steele, but said that she didn’t participate.

At a June 2018 hearing, Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) revealed contents of the State Department’s visitor logs while he was grilling Nuland. At the hearing, Burr asked: “I know you talked extensively with our staff relative to Mr. Steele. Based upon our review of the visitor logs of the State Department, Mr. Steele visited the State Department briefing officials on the dossier in October of 2016. Did you have any role in that briefing?”

“I did not,” Nuland replied. “I actively chose not to be part of that briefing.”

“But were you aware of that briefing?” Burr asked.

“I was not aware of it until afterwards,” Nuland retorted.

Nuland did not explain how she can actively chose not to be part of Steele’s briefing, as she claimed, yet say she was unaware of the briefing until after it occurred. Nuland was not asked about the discrepancy during the public section of the testimony, which was reviewed in full by Breitbart News.

Nuland previously served as chief of staff to Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott under Bill Clinton’s administration, and then served as deputy director for former Soviet Union affairs.

Nuland faced confirmation questions prior to her most recent appointment as assistant secretary of state over her reported role in revising controversial Obama administration talking points about the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attacks. Her reported changes sought to protect Hillary Clinton’s State Department from accusations that it failed to adequately secure the woefully unprotected U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi.

Likely ‘whistleblower’

A RealClearInvestigations report by investigative journalist and author Paul Sperry named Ciaramella as best fitting the description of the so-called whistleblower.

Officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings say Ciaramella’s name has been raised in private in impeachment depositions and during at least one House open hearing that was not part of the formal impeachment proceedings.

Federal documents show Ciaramella also worked closely with Joe Biden and worked under Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser. He also worked with former CIA Director John Brennan, an anti-Trump advocate who has faced controversy for his role in fueling the questionable Russia collusion investigation.  Rice participated in Russia collusion probe meetings and reportedly unmasked senior members of Trump’s presidential campaign.

Sperry cites former White House officials saying Ciaramella worked for Biden on Ukrainian policy issues in 2015 and 2016, encompassing the time period for which Biden has been facing possible conflict questions for leading Ukraine policy in light of Hunter Biden’s work for Burisma.

Mark Zaid and Andrew Bakaj, the activist attorneys representing the so-called whistleblower, refused to confirm on deny that their secretive client is indeed Ciaramella.

“We neither confirm nor deny the identity of the Intelligence Community Whistleblower,” the lawyers told the Washington Examiner in response to an inquiry about Ciaramella.

Zaid and Bakaj added, “Our client is legally entitled to anonymity. Disclosure of the name of any person who may be suspected to be the whistleblower places that individual and their family in great physical danger. Any physical harm the individual and/or their family suffers as a result of disclosure means that the individuals and publications reporting such names will be personally liable for that harm. Such behavior is at the pinnacle of irresponsibility and is intentionally reckless.”

Soros funding and ‘whistleblower’ complaint

Besides Burisma funding, the Atlantic Council is also financed by Soros’s Open Society Foundations, Google, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc., and the U.S. State Department. Google, Soros’s Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Fund, and an agency of the State Department each also finance a self-described investigative journalism organization repeatedly referenced as a source of information in the so-called whistleblower’s complaint alleging Trump was “using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country” in the 2020 presidential race.

The charges in the July 22 report referenced in the so-called whistleblower’s document and released by the Google and Soros-funded organization, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), seem to be the public precursors for a lot of the so-called whistleblower’s own claims, as Breitbart News documented.

One key section of the so-called whistleblower’s document claims that “multiple U.S. officials told me that Mr. Giuliani had reportedly privately reached out to a variety of other Zelensky advisers, including Chief of Staff Andriy Bohdan and Acting Chairman of the Security Service of Ukraine Ivan Bakanov.”

This was allegedly to follow up on Trump’s call with Zelensky in order to discuss the “cases” mentioned in that call, according to the so-called whistleblower’s narrative. The complainer was clearly referencing Trump’s request for Ukraine to investigate the Biden corruption allegations.

Even though the statement was written in first person – “multiple U.S. officials told me” – it contains a footnote referencing a report by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).

That footnote reads:

In a report published by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) on 22 July, two associates of Mr. Giuliani reportedly traveled to Kyiv in May 2019 and met with Mr. Bakanov and another close Zelensky adviser, Mr. Serhiy Shefir.

The so-called whistleblower’s account goes on to rely upon that same OCCRP report on three more occasions. It does so to:

  • Write that Ukraine’s Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko “also stated that he wished to communicate directly with Attorney General Barr on these matters.”
  • Document that Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani “had spoken in late 2018 to former Prosecutor General Shokin, in a Skype call arranged by two associates of Mr. Giuliani.”
  • Bolster the charge that, “I also learned from a U.S. official that ‘associates’ of Mr. Giuliani were trying to make contact with the incoming Zelenskyy team.” The so-called whistleblower then relates in another footnote, “I do not know whether these associates of Mr. Giuliani were the same individuals named in the 22 July report by OCCRP, referenced above.”

The OCCRP report repeatedly referenced is actually a “joint investigation by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and BuzzFeed News, based on interviews and court and business records in the United States and Ukraine.”

BuzzFeed infamously also first published the full anti-Trump dossier alleging unsubstantiated collusion between Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia. The dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee, and was produced by the Fusion GPS opposition dirt outfit.

The OCCRP and BuzzFeed “joint investigation” resulted in both OCCRP and BuzzFeed publishing similar lengthy pieces on July 22 claiming that Giuliani was attempting to use connections to have Ukraine investigate Trump’s political rivals. The so-called whistleblower’s document, however, only mentions the largely unknown OCCRP and does not reference BuzzFeed, which has faced scrutiny over its reporting on the Russia collusion claims.

Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

Joshua Klein contributed research to this article.

Alleged ‘Whistleblower’ Eric Ciaramella Worked Closely with Anti-Trump Dossier Hoaxer


Reported by Aaron Klein | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/06/alleged-whistleblower-eric-ciaramella-worked-closely-with-anti-trump-dossier-hoaxers/

WASHINGTON, DC – JUNE 20: Former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland testifies during a hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee June 20, 2018 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. The committee held a hearing on “Policy Response to Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. … Alex Wong/Getty Images

Eric Ciaramella, whom Real Clear Investigations suggests is the likely so-called whistleblower, was part of an Obama administration email chain celebrating the eventual signing of a $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee to Ukraine.

That and other emails show Ciaramella interfaced about Ukraine with individuals who played key roles in facilitating the infamous anti-Trump dossier produced by Fusion GPS and reportedly financed by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. One of those individuals, then-Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland (pictured), received updates on Ukraine issues from dossier author Christopher Steele in addition to Nuland’s direct role in the dossier controversy.

Also part of the email chains was Christopher J. Anderson, who was a special adviser to former special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker. Anderson testified to the Democrat-led House committees running the impeachment inquiry.

Ciaramella’s name comes up in six Obama-era government emails that were released by the State Department as part of two previous Freedom of Information Act requests.  At the time of the exchanges, Ciaramella served as the Director for Baltic and Eastern European Affairs for the Obama-era National Security Council, where he worked on Ukraine policy.  He is now an analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency.

One email, titled, “Loan Guarantee,” involved Nuland, who was reportedly a key champion of the Ukraine loan guarantee policy.

“Hurray,” a celebratory Nuland wrote in response to a translated Ukrainian government announcement about the signing of the $1 billion loan guarantee.  The announcement singles out Joe Biden as being present for the conclusion of an agreement leading to the loan guarantee.

Ciaramella was one of several people CC’d in the email, which was sent from the U.S. ambassador at the time, Geoffrey Pyatt, who was another key champion of the loan guarantee to Ukraine along with Nuland.

The email is one of several that shows Ciaramella in the loop with top officials such as Nuland working on Ukraine policy under the Obama administration.

The loan guarantee was pushed through after Ukraine agreed to several reforms, especially the firing of the nation’s top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin. This at a time that Shokin was reportedly investigating Burisma, the Ukranian natural gas company paying Hunter Biden.  Joe Biden infamously boasted on video about personally threatening to withhold loan guarantees from Ukraine unless Shokin was removed.

Another released email shows Ciaramella himself sending a message to Nuland and others. Most of the contents are blocked out, including the email’s subject line. One non-classified section of that email shows a reply stating, “Embassy Kyiv — coordinated with our USAID mission folks — will have detailed input tomorrow.”

One email involving Nuland was sent two days before the loan guarantee was signed on June 3, 2016. “Can you confirm who will be doing the actual signing for each side?” the exchange asked.

Nuland has come under repeated fire for her various roles in the anti-Trump dossier controversy.

FBI notes also cite career Justice Department official Bruce Ohr as saying that Nuland was in touch with Fusion GPS co-founder and dossier producer Glenn Simpson.

Sen. John McCain, who infamously delivered the dossier to then-FBI Director James Comey, reportedly first dispatched an aide, David J. Kramer, to inquire with Nuland about the dossier claims.

In their book, Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump, authors and reporters Michael Isikoff and David Corn write that Nuland gave the green light for the FBI to first meet with Steele regarding his dossier’s claims. It was at that meeting that Steele initially reported his dossier charges to the FBI, the book relates.

Meanwhile, looped into email chains with Ciaramella was then-Secretary of State John Kerry’s chief of staff at the State Department, John Finer.

An extensive New Yorker profile of Steele named Finer as obtaining the contents of a two-page summary of the dossier and eventually deciding to share the questionable document with Kerry.

Finer reportedly received the dossier summary from Jonathan M. Winer, the Obama State Department official who acknowledged regularly interfacing and exchanging information with Steele, according to the report. Winer previously conceded that he shared the dossier summary with Nuland.

After his name surfaced in news media reports related to probes by House Republicans into the dossier, Winer authored a Washington Post oped in which he conceded that while he was working at the State Department he exchanged documents and information with Steele.

Winer further acknowledged that while at the State Department, he shared anti-Trump material with Steele passed to him by longtime Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal, whom Winer described as an “old friend.” Winer wrote that the material from Blumenthal – which Winer in turn gave to Steele – originated with Cody Shearer, who is a controversial figure long tied to various Clinton scandals.

In testimony last year, Nuland made statements about a meeting at the State Department in October 2016 between State officials and Steele, but said that she didn’t participate.

At a June 2018 hearing, Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) revealed contents of the State Department’s visitor logs while he was grilling Nuland.

At the hearing, Burr asked: “I know you talked extensively with our staff relative to Mr. Steele. Based upon our review of the visitor logs of the State Department, Mr. Steele visited the State Department briefing officials on the dossier in October of 2016. Did you have any role in that briefing?”

“I did not,” Nuland replied. “I actively chose not to be part of that briefing.”

“But were you aware of that briefing?” Burr asked.

“I was not aware of it until afterwards,” Nuland retorted.

Nuland did not explain how she can actively chose not to be part of Steele’s briefing, as she claimed, yet say she was unaware of the briefing until after it occurred. Nuland was not asked about the discrepancy during the public section of the testimony, which was reviewed in full by Breitbart News.

Nuland previously served as chief of staff to Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott under Bill Clinton’s administration, and then served as deputy director for former Soviet Union affairs.

Nuland faced confirmation questions prior to her most recent appointment as assistant secretary of state over her reported role in revising controversial Obama administration talking points about the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attacks. Her reported changes sought to protect Hillary Clinton’s State Department from accusations that it failed to adequately secure the woefully unprotected U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi.

Likely ‘whistleblower’

A RealClearInvestigations report by investigative journalist and author Paul Sperry named Ciaramella as best fitting the description of the so-called whistleblower. Officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings say Ciaramella’s name has been raised in private in impeachment depositions and during at least one House open hearing that was not part of the formal impeachment proceedings.

Federal documents show Ciaramella also worked closely with Joe Biden and worked under Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser. He also worked with former CIA Director John Brennan, an anti-Trump advocate who has faced controversy for his role in fueling the questionable Russia collusion investigation.  Rice participated in Russia collusion probe meetings and reportedly unmasked senior members of Trump’s presidential campaign.

Sperry cites former White House officials saying Ciaramella worked for Biden on Ukrainian policy issues in 2015 and 2016, encompassing the time period for which Biden has been facing possible conflict questions for leading Ukraine policy in light of Hunter Biden’s work for Burisma.

Mark Zaid and Andrew Bakaj, the activist attorneys representing the so-called whistleblower, refused to confirm on deny that their secretive client is indeed Ciaramella.

“We neither confirm nor deny the identity of the Intelligence Community Whistleblower,” the lawyers told the Washington Examiner in response to an inquiry about Ciaramella.

Zaid and Bakaj added, “Our client is legally entitled to anonymity. Disclosure of the name of any person who may be suspected to be the whistleblower places that individual and their family in great physical danger. Any physical harm the individual and/or their family suffers as a result of disclosure means that the individuals and publications reporting such names will be personally liable for that harm. Such behavior is at the pinnacle of irresponsibility and is intentionally reckless.”

On Sunday, Trump responded to press reports naming Ciaramella, calling him a “radical” known for his close ties to Brennan and Rice.

“Well, I’ll tell you what. There have been stories written about a certain individual, a male, and they say he’s the whistleblower,” Trump told reporters. “If he’s the whistleblower, he has no credibility because he’s a Brennan guy, he’s a Susan Rice guy, he’s an Obama guy.”

Trump added, “And he hates Trump. And he’s a radical. Now, maybe it’s not him. But if it’s him, you guys ought to release the information.”

Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

Joshua Klein contributed research to this article.

New Conservative Latina Will Have Freshmen Dems Shaking In Their Boots


Reported by  August 26, 2019

URL of the original posting site: https://thepatriotchronicles.com/news-for-you/new-conservative-latina-will-have-freshmen-dems-shaking-in-their-boots/

There is a new Latina that will be throwing down the gauntlet for the youngest congresswoman. Catalina Lauf. Lauf is sick of seeing Dems destroy our nation and has already called out Freshmen Dem AOC, who she claims is “destructive to our Democracy.” Lauf was interviewed by Dailywire and explained why she wants to fight off people like AOC and how she wants to help Trump Keep America Great.

QUESTION: What inspired you to run for Congress?

LAUF: I am someone who is driven by purpose. I grew up with a profound love of this country, and when I see the other side, particularly young women who are using their platform to stand against everything this country has fought for, including my own representative in Congress, I couldn’t just sit there and watch. Politics is a bloody sport, but I believe so much in what I stand for, and I’m inspired by the men and women past and present who have fought for our freedoms, who have given up far greater than I ever will. This is the minimum I can contribute, and I want to ensure their fight was not for nothing. That starts by preserving our republic and helping us get back on track to where we should be. It is possible! The American Dream is alive and well and people like myself are going to ensure it remains that way.

QUESTION: As the daughter of a legal Guatemalan immigrant, what do you say to immigrants in the U.S. who listen to organizations like CNN, and believe that the president is racist, and that enforcing immigration law and securing the border is racist?

LAUF: The president is not a racist. This type of accusation and rhetoric from those like Lauren Underwood and AOC is destructive to our democracy. I am the daughter of an immigrant. I have seen first-hand what it means to come to this country and go through the process of becoming a legal citizen. I stand with President Trump on securing our border and closing loopholes in our broken immigration system. Those on the Left, Lauren Underwood included, would rather tweet-storm about the president being a “racist” instead of actually coming to the table to get things done. Their hatred for Trump is blinding their love of country. I love this country. It gave my family a better life. Instead of highlighting American’s hard work, Lauren Underwood and the other extremists push a radical agenda, focused on lawlessness and inciting division and hate. She needs to be stopped. That is why I’m running for Congress. The system is broken and we have to fix it. You don’t like the president’s proposals on how to do so? Fine, show up to work with some ideas and let’s talk through how to fix this together. No one in the Democratic Party has shown they take this issue seriously enough to actually solve it for Americans around the country.

QUESTION: Why should Latinos vote for Republicans, and how should the party reach out to them?

LAUF: My Abuelita grew up in Guatemala, where she had to stop her education in 3rd grade and work on a coffee bean farm to provide for her family. She came to this country for a better life. She and my mother worked every day and learned English at night to become citizens. Because of their sacrifice and hard work I was blessed to grow up in America’s heartland, Woodstock, IL, where things like community, hard work, freedom, and patriotism aren’t just nice ideas, they are how people live their lives. The pillars [of the] Republican Party are centered around those ideas. The policies the Party advocates open windows of opportunity for all Americans. Those values and those windows of opportunity made my life possible. Hispanic Americans across the country have similar stories. They work hard, value family, community, and freedom. They also believe in law and order. Hispanic Americans like my mother and grandmother came to this country and went through the process to become American citizens. My grandmother and mother did not want to break the law to be here. We need to go and speak to these Hispanic Americans, hear their stories, share our stories, and discuss how Republican policies aim to make their lives better. If we don’t then they only have MSNBC and those on the far-left offering them limited opportunities and distorted realities.”

Watch Her Campaign Ad Below.

This is great. A Latina woman who loves America, respects the president, and believes in securing our borders. Liberals are going to go nuts when she wins. She is going to make the freshmen Dems look foolish. I can’t wait.

Democrats plan Capitol Hill event to put Trump’s mental health under fire


Reported by Kimberly Leonard |  June 05, 2019 12:00 AM

Democrats are planning to host a Capitol Hill event featuring psychiatrists who will warn that President Trump is unfit for office based on his mental health. The event will be led by Dr. Bandy Lee, a Yale School of Medicine psychiatrist and editor of The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, a book that argues psychiatrists have a responsibility to warn the public when a president is dangerous. The position is controversial because psychiatric associations urge members never to diagnose patients they haven’t personally evaluated, saying it undermines the scientific rigor of the profession.

But Lee and others who agree with her stance say that their description of the president’s behavior, of his showing mental instability and dangerousness, shouldn’t be interpreted as issuing a diagnosis.

“The president’s condition has been visibly deteriorating to the point where there’s a lot of talk right now about his mental state beyond mental health professionals,”Lee said. “It no longer takes a mental health professional to recognize the seriousness of the current presidency.”

The date for the town hall hasn’t been set but would be held “imminently soon within the next couple of weeks,” said Lee, who said the event was meant to be bipartisan. Budget Committee Chairman John Yarmuth, D-Ky., who has called for Trump’s impeachment, confirmed the event was in the works, but said it would be more likely to occur in July because lawmakers have a full plate in June with spending bills.

“We’re planning to put together an event,” Yarmuth said. “She’s calling it a town hall. We haven’t actually determined the format, but it’s going to be an event where she is going to present her findings, and media will be invited.”

Yarmuth said every House member would be invited but that he hadn’t yet gauged who would be interested because not many people knew about it. Lee said the group would reconsider the event if no Republicans planned to show up.

The White House did not immediately return a request for comment.

According to Lee, attendees at the town hall would watch a condensed video that was recorded at a Washington, D.C., event held at the National Press Club in March that featured 13 experts discussing how they didn’t think Trump was fit for office. The experts, who came from the fields of mental health, philosophy, history, and journalism, said they were worried about the president’s access to nuclear weapons and the impact his administration would have on climate change.

Lee said the event is to allow members of Congress to ask her and other experts questions, but planners hope the town hall will be broadcast live so that people who aren’t in D.C. also would be able to watch and submit questions.

Lee said the experts won’t make specific recommendations about whether Congress should consider invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the president from office or whether they should do so by impeachment. The political process should be determined by members of Congress, she said.

Yarmuth said that, to him, the event was a separate question from impeachment. “I don’t think an assessment of someone’s mental health is an impeachable issue,” he said. He decided to hold the event “for the same fears she has,”he said, referring to Lee. “That the president is manifesting dangerous behavior and the American people need to be alert to it.”

“Their position is that as professionals, when they see patterns of behavior that are endangering people, that they have a professional obligation to go public and alert the people who are threatened, and in this case it’s the American people,” Yarmuth said. “I think the American people deserve to have wider dissemination of that perspective.”

It’s not yet clear who else will participate. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., who has a 25th Amendment bill that would set up a body in Congress to determine presidential fitness, had been asked to be on a panel that was based on the topic and set for sometime around May 20. The panel was then canceled or postponed because of scheduling conflicts, and Raskin’s office said it hadn’t heard about a new one in the works.

His deputy communications director, Samantha Brown, said in an email that he likely would have discussed the 25th Amendment from a historical and legal perspective.

Lee has been outspoken about Trump’s mental state. She’s the public face of a five-person group that is meeting regularly in D.C. and working to set up a medical panel to evaluate the mental capacity of Trump and Democratic presidential candidates.

“It’s deceptive because it seems like he’s alert, it seems like he’s responding to things in a rational manner, but it is not the case from every measure that we have taken,” Lee said of Trump. “And this is very serious. In fact, worse than if he had a stroke and were unconscious because he can mislead the country in destructive or nefarious ways.”

One of the other members of the working group is Dr. James Merikangas, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University, but the others haven’t identified themselves publicly and aren’t known to the Washington Examiner.

In April, Lee and other psychiatrists wrote a report using the former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian election interference to make an assessment about the president’s mental health. They at first refrained from issuing a conclusion and gave Trump three weeks to undergo an evaluation. After they didn’t hear back, they released a conclusion that Trump “lacks mental basic mental capacity for duties of office” and recommended his access to nuclear weapons and war powers be curtailed.

“Our concern is that the dangers be contained — the dangers of having a president who lacks the mental capacity, lacks the fitness to discharge his duties of office for the remainder of his term,”Lee said. “I mean, this is really a national emergency.”

Classified Iran briefing becomes heated as Trump team clashes with Democrats


Reported by Joel Gehrke | May 21, 2019

A classified Senate briefing on Iranian plots against the United States turned into a tense clash between top U.S. officials and lawmakers frustrated with President Trump’s strategy toward Tehran.

“I would say there was a lot of heat in that room,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told the Washington Examiner following the Tuesday afternoon briefing.

Key congressional Democrats suggested that President Trump’s administration was preparing for military conflict with the regime based on faulty intelligence or even false pretenses after ambiguous U.S. warnings that Iranian proxies might attack American personnel in Iraq. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan sought to allay that suspicion in separate meetings, first with House lawmakers and then the Senate Tuesday afternoon.

“Today I walked them through what the Department of Defense has been doing since May 3, when we received credible intelligence about threats to our interests in the Middle East and to American forces, and how we acted on that credible intelligence,” Shanahan told reporters after the Senate briefing. “That intelligence has borne out in attacks, and I would say it’s also deterred attacks. We have deterred attacks based on our re-posturing of assets, deterred attacks against American forces.”

The controversy shifted in the briefing to complaints that they didn’t communicate with Congress enough in recent weeks and a broader protest against the administration’s withdrawal from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a top contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, was among the most aggressive in raising the specter of being misled into a conflict with Iran.

“Most Americans know way back when we were lied to about the situation in Vietnam and we went into a war which ended up costing us 59,000 lives, based on a lie,” he said. “In 2003, we were lied to in terms of Iraq supposedly having weapons of mass destruction.”

Sanders refused to answer whether he believes such lies are being told now. “I won’t talk about what we heard in the meeting,” he said. “But let me just say that I worry very much that, intentionally or unintentionally, we create a situation in which a war will take place.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer avoided that controversy entirely, focusing only on the frustration that the administration didn’t provide more information to lawmakers over the last three weeks.

“I told the people who were briefing us that I thought the consultation with the American people and the Congress was inadequate,” the New York Democrat told reporters in a brief appearance, without taking additional questions. “Both the American people and the Congress read about a lot of actions in the newspapers and had no idea what was going on. I told them they had to make it better next time.”

Shanahan acknowledged that desire for more information. “We heard feedback that they’d like more conversation,” he said. “They’d also like us to be more communicative with the American public, and we agreed to do more of that.”

Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin, a senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, conceded that the meeting was a “very helpful” survey of the intelligence reports and U.S. responses. Another lawmaker confirmed that the meeting was testy, but in this telling the confrontation was bipartisan and focused more on the administration’s policies than suspicions that they are fabricating intelligence.

“A number of them questioned the conclusions of the administration about the reaction of the Iranians and what it might lead to,” a Democratic senator, speaking on condition of anonymity, said after the briefing. “I think there’s a lot of us with real misgivings about how serious this is and how much is a creation of the administration’s own provocative policy.”

Shanahan stressed that the administration, which has deployed an aircraft carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf and threatened devastating consequences for attacks on Americans, is trying to avoid a conflict.

“Our biggest focus at this point is to prevent Iranian miscalculation,” he told reporters. “We do not want the situation to escalate.”

Cruz kept the focus on Democratic hostility to Trump and their fidelity to the nuclear agreement that former President Barack Obama’s team negotiated with Iran.

“Far too many congressional Democrats are invested in appeasement for Iran, which manifests in effectively defending the mullahs against maximum pressure,” he told the Washington Examiner.

Nadler Announces House Committee Investigation Underway After Mueller Report Shows No Collusion


Reported By Jack Davis | Published March 25, 2019 at 7:38pm

House Democrats are not letting the conclusions of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report impede them from further investigations of President Donald Trump. “We’re going to move forward with our investigations of obstruction of justice, abuses of power, corruption, to defend the rule of law, which is our job,” House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, said Sunday, according to Bloomberg.

Nadler insisted his wide-ranging probe, which he has already begun, is not a rehash of the Mueller report.

“It’s a broader mandate than the special prosecutor had,” he said.

Mueller was initially charged with investigating allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in 2016. As noted by Attorney General William Barr in a note to Congress, those allegations have been proven false.

“The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 US Presidential Election,” Barr said in a letter to Congress.

But Nadler is now digging into the gray area in the Mueller report — whether Trump obstructed justice.

Barr’s letter said the report “leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as ‘difficult issues’ of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’”

Nadler said that he wants to put Barr in the hot seat to determine how Barr decided not to pursue an obstruction case against Trump.

“Attorney General Barr, who auditioned for his role with a memo saying that it was almost impossible for any president to commit obstruction, made a decision in under 48 hours,” Nadler said Sunday, according to CBS.

He referenced a 2018 memo Barr wrote that said “Mueller’s obstruction theory is fatally misconceived” and based “on a novel and insupportable reading of the law.”

Mueller said Barr needs to better explain himself.

“Given what Barr found on obstruction of justice, I think all of us should be very concerned about the even-handedness,” Nadler said Monday. “The American public needs to know how exactly did he conclude there is no obstruction of justice.”

Nadler issued a statement co-authored with fellow Democrats House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff of California and House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings of Maryland that gave Barr a zinger for not charging Trump.

“It is unacceptable that, after Special Counsel Mueller spent 22 months meticulously uncovering this evidence, Attorney General Barr made a decision not to charge the President in under 48 hours. The Attorney General did so without even interviewing the President. His unsolicited, open memorandum to the Department of Justice, suggesting that the obstruction investigation was ‘fatally misconceived,’ calls into question his objectivity on this point in particular,”the statement said.

The three Democrats maligned Barr’s impartiality.

“The only information the Congress and the American people have received regarding this investigation is the Attorney General’s own work product,” the chairmen said.

“The Special Counsel’s Report should be allowed to speak for itself, and Congress must have the opportunity to evaluate the underlying evidence,” the statement said.

It is unclear yet whether the full Mueller report will ever be released. Both Trump and his Democratic critics, however, have said it should be released in full.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Jack Davis is a freelance writer who joined The Western Journal in July 2015 and chronicled the campaign that saw President Donald Trump elected. Since then, he has written extensively for The Western Journal on the Trump administration as well as foreign policy and military issues.

Police Report Is Game-Changer in Case of Gay, Black Actor Attacked by ‘Trump Supporters’


Reported By C. Douglas Golden | January 30, 2019 at 9:29am

When gay black actor Jussie Smollett said he was attacked by white men who yelled some stuff about “MAGA,” it didn’t take long for the liberal rage machine to mobilize.

“The star of the tv show ‘Empire,’ Jussie Smollett, was attacked by two assailants early Monday morning in Downtown Chicago according to Chicago Police Department Spokesperson Anthony Guglielmi,” CNN reported.

“Smollett, 36, was walking on the 300 block of E. North Lower Water Street when two men approached him and ‘gained his attention by yelling out racial and homophobic slurs towards him,’ Guglielmi says in a statement.

“Two unknown offenders — it is unknown if they were male or female — then attacked Smollett, hitting him in the face and then poured an unknown chemical substance on him.

“At some point during the scuffle, one of the offenders wrapped a rope around the victim’s neck and then both offenders fled the scene, the statement reads.”

Smollett took himself to Northwestern Hospital, where the incident was reported to police, according to CBS Chicago.

There was plenty of condemnation to go around, particularly after TMZ reported that the attackers had shouted “this is MAGA country.” Two of the outraged included black Democratic senators, who just by chance, happen to either be running for president or widely expected to be running for president.

There was one problem with this “modern-day lynching” narrative: None of that “MAGA country” stuff was originally mentioned to police and they’re having trouble corroborating the fact that the attack even happened.

“According to the victim, the offenders’ faces were concealed,” a police spokesman said, according to Reason. “We have no record indicating that (they shouted ‘MAGA’), we only have record of them shouting racial and homophobic slurs at him.”

A statement from Chicago Police confirmed that, Reason reported.

“We have no record of the ‘MAGA Country’ comment,” the statement said, according to Reason. “We have racial and homophobic comments documented.”

CNN reported that when police heard about the accusation and called the actor, he “relayed it to detectives in a supplemental interview.”

But then again, there’s some doubt as to whether the attack even happened.

In an area that has a “very high density” of surveillance cameras, according to the police spokesman’s statement, there is not a single image of an attack like the one Smollett described.

“A Chicago police spokesperson tells CNN that investigators canvassed the neighborhood where the reported attack occurred on actor Jussie Smollett and have found no still images or video from security cameras of the incident,” CNN reported.

“The only image of Smollett police obtained from security cameras was inside Subway Sandwich shop near the location of the reported crime, the actor was standing alone.”

For all I know, Smollett really was attacked by bigots who shouted the phrase “MAGA country,” and ambitious, Democratic politicians who are calling this a “a modern-day lynching” are absolutely justified. But here’s the thing — I’m going to wait to see whether or not that’s the case, as everyone else should have.

It hasn’t even been a fortnight since the Covington Catholic incident, and the lesson we were should have taken away from that “teachable moment” — be careful dealing with stories that confirm your cultural narrative — has been lost.

No fewer than two senators with eyes on the 2020 Democratic nomination have taken this accusation as gospel because they can use it as an illustration of supposed Trump-fueled hate coursing through the country, even though no arrests have been made and the evidence is scanty. If this turns out to be a hoax, Sens. Booker and Harris own this, as do the legion of liberals who tweeted this out without waiting for a fuller investigation.

Even if this turns out to be true, what they did was supremely irresponsible. That these two individuals are in the Senate is bad enough. Just imagine one of them in the White House, backed by a legion of people who think Donald Trump supporters are irresponsible bigots, but are willing to blame white Donald Trump supporters for a hate crime without any charges or even direct physical evidence. It will make the Obama years look like pure reason.

ABOUT THE REPORTER:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between America and Southeast Asia and believes in free speech and the Second Amendment.

 

Seventeen Burned Bodies Appear Near Border as Democrats Say We Don’t Need a Wall


Reported By Ben Marquis | January 10, 2019 at 4:25pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/seventeen-burned-bodies-appear-near-border-democrats-say-dont-need-wall/

Burned Car | Ilya Andriyanov / Shutterstock(Ilya Andriyanov / Shutterstock)

Democrats and the media immediately set about disputing Trump’s labeling of the border situation as a “crisis,” part of their overtly biased effort to instantly “fact-check” every word or statistic uttered by the president in the brief speech, and — coincidentally? — all seemed to arrive at the same conclusion: There is no real crisis at the border, only a “manufactured crisis” brought about purposefully by Trump’s actions, or some such nonsense like that.

Of course, to follow along with the media’s bouncing ball on this one, everyone must ignore the fact that the same liberal media loudly trumpeted the “crisis” at the border in 2013 and 2014 — when they were supporting comprehensive immigration reform and amnesty for illegal immigrants — or their hollering about a “crisis” on the border through much of 2017 and 2018 when Trump began to crack down on illegal border crossings and deportations ticked up.

In truth, however, the only thing “manufactured” about all of this is the Democrats ‘obstinate opposition to the president and their refusal to acknowledge the basic and undeniable facts of what is occurring on and around the porous and lightly defended southern border.

Case in point, Reuters reported on Thursday that at least 20 dead bodies — 17 of which had been badly burned — were discovered on Wednesday in the Mexican city of Ciudad Miguel Aleman, which is located a mere 56 miles across the Rio Grande River from the U.S. border city of McAllen, Texas, where President Trump visited with U.S. Border Patrol agents and other officials on Thursday.

Mexican authorities are reportedly investigating what has all the appearances of a deadly battle between members of two rival gangs in the area, gangs that routinely play in a role in the illicit cross-border excursions that bring illegal aliens, criminals, drugs, weapons and even terrorists into this nation.

The suspected gang-related massacre even drew a mention from Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador at his daily news conference on Thursday, and though he didn’t offer up much in the way of specifics, he did say that security officials would provide more information at a later date or time.

Reuters noted that according to one Mexican security official, five burned-out vehicles were also discovered along with the 20 dead bodies, though the outlet noted that a separate Mexican security official had reportedly counted as many as 21 dead bodies at the scene. The grisly scene was located in the Tamaulipas region of Mexico, one of the more violent states in that nation that has been controlled by dangerous criminal cartels and gangs for years. Those groups exert a great deal of control over drug and human trafficking across the border in that region, and are well-known for running extortion rackets on local residents and exploiting migrants passing through the area for whatever can be gained.

When not engaged in those border-related crimes, the cartels and gangs are fighting violently among each other or waging war against Mexican security forces, violence that has claimed tens of thousands of lives — some innocent, some not so much — over the years.

Obviously, incidents like this one — and this bloody incident is far from an isolated occurrence — are what President Trump is referencing when he speaks of the “crisis” at the border while demanding Congress appropriate the necessary funds to construct a border wall where needed and to increase border security measures in other ways.

Yet, based solely on their reflexive opposition to all things Trump, many talking heads in the liberal media staunchly refuse to acknowledge as a “crisis” what their own colleagues are quietly reporting on a near-daily basis.

Indeed, some in the media have even adopted a sort of “Don’t believe your lying eyes” attitude when it comes to their anti-Trump reporting on the border, as evidenced by a ridiculous tweet from CNN’s Jim Acosta that actually seemed to prove the president’s point about how necessary and effective a border wall truly is.

In several other tweets after that, Acosta hyped up how safe the border town of McAllen is — while studiously ignoring the obvious fact that McAllen is safe because it has a border wall and other barriers obstructing those who would illicitly cross over.

Unfortunately, the wall and other barriers along the border in the McAllen region that keep it so safe only extend for so long, and eventually give way to mere chain-link fencing or nothing at all, meaning those who wish to cross the border illegally need only walk around the end to do so. Anyone with common sense and intellectual honesty can plainly see that and realize Trump is absolutely correct to want to address this security crisis post haste.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Summary

More Info Recent Posts

Writer and researcher. Constitutional conservatarian with a strong focus on protecting the Second and First Amendments.

GOP Congressional Members Introduce Constitutional Amendment To Enact Term Limits


Authored By C. Douglas Golden | January 5, 2019 at 2:13pm

A new bill from two top Republicans would limit most people to 18 years in Congress via a constitutional amendment — something that’s bound to have career bureaucrats infuriated.

The amendment, according to CNN, is being introduced in the House and Senate by Rep. Francis Rooney of Florida and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, respectively.

“For too long, members of Congress have abused their power and ignored the will of the American people,” Cruz said.

Term limits on members of Congress offer a solution to the brokenness we see in Washington, D.C. It is long past time for Congress to hold itself accountable. I urge my colleagues to submit this constitutional amendment to the states for speedy ratification.”

Cruz had introduced a similar bill in 2017, but failed to gain traction.

The plan would limit House members to three terms of two years each and senators to two terms of six years each. This means that most people would be limited to 18 years in office, and only if they are elected to one office and then the other.

The language makes it technically possible to serve up to slightly less than 22 years if they’re appointed or elected to fill less than a half-term.

This, according to Rooney, is closer to what the nation’s founders envisioned.

“The founders never envisioned a professional political class,” Rooney said during an interview on Fox News Saturday.

“This is a much better way than having these entrenched politicians who are too aligned with special interests over a period of years. I would say 18 years is plenty of time to serve your country in.”

Neither Cruz nor Rooney would really be benefiting from the arrangement, should any politician be seen as having benefited personally from term limits. Rooney, 65, was first elected in 2016 and would be eligible to serve in the House until 2022. Cruz, who just won his second term, would be out of Congress in 2024.

It’s worth noting, however, that Rooney could possibly take over for Sen. Marco Rubio, who would be term-limited out if he won the Republican nomination. (Lest you think Rubio would be upset about it, consider that he’s a co-sponsor of the bill — along with Mike Lee of Utah and David Perdue of Georgia.)

And Cruz, who came to the Senate from a position as Texas’ solicitor general, could also technically run for the House if he so chose.

Incidentally, if you think that the bill can’t win bipartisan support, consider there was another major Democratic voice calling for term limits this election cycle: Beto O’Rourke, Cruz’s opponent.

“People in Texas and across the country recognize that members of Congress often focus on re-election at the expense of addressing the challenges our country faces,” O’Rourke said in a piece posted to Medium.

“We see that the longer you serve in Congress, the less connected, the less responsive, the less accountable you can become to the people you represent. And we recognize that imposing term limits on members of Congress — along with getting PAC money out of our politics and putting an end to gerrymandering — will help breathe new life and new ideas into our democracy.”

If even Ted Cruz and Beto O’Rourke can come together on something, maybe Congress can, too.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary
More Info Recent Posts

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between America and Southeast Asia and believes in free speech and the Second Amendment.

Watch: MSNBC Reporter Instantly Regrets Asking Hispanic Voter About Trump, Illegals


Reported By Joe Saunders | October 31, 2018 at 6:19am

This is what liberals will never learn.

A political ideology that’s locked into the idea that how Americans vote is determined by the color of their skin or ethnic background is always going to be taken by surprise when it turns out individuals are perfectly capable of exercising their own judgment based on their own experience and their own principles.

And MSNBC just gave its viewers that kind of surprise with a report from a race for Congress in Texas.

In the Lone Star State’s 7th Congressional District, MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle reported Tuesday, Republican Rep. John Culberson is in a “tight race” with Democratic challenger Lizzie Fletcher. Ruhle cited a poll showing Culberson with only a 1 percentage point lead and pointed out that the district is 30 percent Hispanic.

Reporting from on the ground in the district, which covers parts of Houston and areas west of the city, MSNBC’s Mariana Atencio found not all Hispanics are favorable toward Democrats’ policy of welcoming illegal aliens.

The Republican National Committee wasted no time in posting an exceprt of the Atencio report – an interview with a Hispanic man at an early voting site in Houston that proves immigration isn’t the Achilles heel for Republicans that so much of the liberal media likes to pretend.

Check it out here:

“Democrats believe that if they can get Latinos to turn out, that is what is going to push the Democratic challenger over the top,” Atencio said.

But she pointed out that Hispanic voting could be a two-edged sword.

“Texas Latinos, if they turn out, they may not all necessarily turn out blue,” Atencio said.

And one man she interviewed proved the point.

“I do believe, if somebody wants to live in the United States, they should go through the official process,” one voter, identified as Rob Gutierrez, told Atencio. “And so as a result, I tend to ally myself with people who agree with that.”

When Atencio pressed, asking if images of migrant caravans, for instance, might affect how Gutierrez votes, his answer was simple.

“Yes, it makes me want to vote Republican,” he said. “Because I think that if you want to live in this country, you need to abide by its laws.”

This is a voter who understands his principles, and he understands what political party shares them. And they’re completely independent of his ethnic background. And that’s something liberals will never learn.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Joe has been with Liftable Media since 2015.

Perverse House Dem Threatens Trump. Says It’s Illegal for Trump to Stop Illegals by Hurting Home Countries


Reported By Lisa Payne-Naeger | October 23, 2018 at 3:32pm

This is one of the best examples of the left’s seriously messed up set of priorities you may ever see, and probably one of the best reasons anyone would need to vote Republican in the November elections. 

Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel of New York’s 16th Congressional District has really gone out on a limb to help the left shake things up before Election Day.

The president has said he would cut off foreign aid to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras if they aided or failed to curtail the caravan of illegal migrants headed toward the United States.

Engel apparently believes the commander in chief lacks the authority to make that decision and has vowed to rally the liberal troops in Congress to stop him.

According to Engel, “Trump lacks the authority to make those decisions unilaterally due to a law called the Impoundment Control Act,” reported The Washington Examiner.

“Fortunately, Congress — not the president — has the power of the purse, and my colleagues and I will not stand idly by as this administration ignores congressional intent,” Engel said, according to the Examiner.

Meanwhile, the caravan keeps moving north:

It’s true that the Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse. But it’s also true that the same Constitution makes the president in charge of American foreign policy. Democrats like Engel can preen about their pretend fidelity to the Constitution (which is a joke for that party) and if they win either the House or the Senate or both, they can make the next two years of Trump’s first term complicated.

But Trump has made it clear that he is making American aid contingent on the cooperation of foreign governments in controlling the flow of illegal immigration. It might take a Supreme Court ruling to decide the issue, but in the meantime, American voters are getting a clearer picture of Democrat priorities:

Democrats not only don’t want to stop illegal immigration into the United States, they want to keep pouring American taxpayer money into the very countries that are the source of the illegal immigration problem.

Let’s see how popular that polls.

Trump, meanwhile, is concerned with stopping terrorists and criminals from entering the U.S.

He tweeted:

Among the duties of the president is to protect our national security. Clearly the president is focused on that. However, it doesn’t appear Engel has the same priorities. And do we really have to remind Engel and the rest of the left that potential terrorists do enter the U.S. from our southern border?

In September, the conservative watchdog grouop Judicial Watch reported:

“Yet another group of migrants from a terrorist nation managed to infiltrate the United States through Mexico this week. Thankfully, the Border Patrol apprehended them, though it’s becoming a crisis largely ignored by the mainstream media. The men are from Bangladesh, a south Asian Islamic country that’s well known as a recruiting ground for terrorist groups such as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and Al-Qaeda Indian Subcontinent (AQIS). Earlier this year Judicial Watch reported on the epidemic of Bangladeshi nationals getting smuggled into the country via the porous southern border, especially through Texas, which is where this week’s group got nabbed.”

Engel has a twisted view of how to secure our borders and stop illegal immigration, if he’s even concerned with stopping it at all. His solution is to keep dumping taxpayer money into already troubled areas.

According to the Examiner, Engel said: “El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala are plagued by violence and poverty. The best way to keep Central Americans from migrating to the United States is to continue investing in their communities so that they are not forced to make the dangerous trek north. Yet again, President Trump’s policy toward Latin America will only make things worse.”

Sure, because bribing Central American governments by “investing” American taxpayer dollars in more foreign aid to be squandered has worked out so well in the past.

It’s interesting to note that Engel is unopposed in his re-election bid in November, according to USA Today. While he may not be worried about losing his seat in 2018, he’s certainly doing a fine job of exposing the Democratic Party’s real position on national security when it comes to illegal immigration.

It’s a sad day when the safety of the American people takes a back seat to politics. But it’s a good day when American voters get the information they need just before a crucial midterm election.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

An enthusiastic grassroots Tea Party activist, Lisa Payne-Naeger has spent the better part of the last decade lobbying for educational and family issues in her state legislature, and as a keyboard warrior hoping to help along the revolution that empowers the people to retake control of their, out-of-control, government.

Blasey Ford Caves: Legal Team Shuts Down Further Investigation into Kavanaugh



Reported By Bryan Chai | October 7, 2018 at 9:58am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/blasey-ford-caves-legal-team-shuts-investigation-kavanaugh/

Christine Ford testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Christine Ford testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee. (ABC News screen shot)

And so the Brett Kavanaugh scandal has ended — not with a bang, but a whimper. That could change, of course, if Democrats continue their crusade to remove the judge should they take the Senate after midterms. But as far as the original accuser goes? Christine Blasey Ford is throwing in the towel.

Ford’s lawyers have told CNN that their client “absolutely does not want him (Kavanaugh) impeached if Democrats take control of Congress.”

Debra Katz, one of Ford’s attorneys, told CNN that Ford has done everything she originally sought to do.

“Professor Ford has not asked for (Democrats to continue investigating Kavanaugh.) What she did was to come forward and testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee and agree to cooperate with any investigation by the FBI and that’s what she sought to do here,” Katz said.

Ford was thrust into the national spotlight after she accused then-Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh of sexual assault at a party while the two were in high school. Countless accusations and investigations ultimately yielded nothing, and Kavanaugh was sworn in as the 114th Supreme Court justice on Saturday after a 50-48 Senate vote.

Some prominent Democrats, such as House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jerry Nadler, have made no secret of Democrats’ desires to further investigate Kavanaugh should Democrats have a successful midterm.

“If he is on the Supreme Court, and the Senate hasn’t investigated, then the House will have to,” Nadler told ABC News George Stephanopoulos. “We would have to investigate any credible allegations of perjury and other things that haven’t been properly looked into before.”

Nadler’s statements fly directly in the face of Ford’s desires. Considering the accusations that Democrats willfully ignored Ford’s request for anonymity, it’s not exactly surprising that Democrats might ignore her requests again.

“She does not want (Kavanaugh) to be impeached?” CNN’s Dana Bash asked Ford’s lawyers.

“No,” Katz bluntly responded.

It’s totally understandable that Ford wants this ordeal finished and tucked away. Another Ford lawyer, Lisa Banks, stressed that Ford wanted closure but had no regrets.

“I don’t think she has any regrets. I think she feels like she did the right thing,” Banks said.

“And this was what she wanted to do, which was provide this information to the committee so they could make the best decision possible. And I think she still feels that was the right thing to do, so I don’t think she has any regrets.”

Katz hinted that she wasn’t thrilled with how everything played out, but still supported Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s handling of the accusations.

“What I can speak to is when victims of sexual assault and violence go to their Congress people — when they go to their senators and they ask for their information to be confidential, I think that that’s a request that needs to be respected,” Katz said.

“Victims get to control when and how and where their allegations get made public,” she added. “Now, if we want to look at all the things that went wrong in this process, there are many. There are many issues that need to be addressed. But I think Sen. Feinstein respected the process of her constituents, and I think that was the right thing to do.”

It’s certainly up for debate whether or not Feinstein actually “respected the process of her constituents.”

But if Democrats continue the assault on Kavanaugh, they most certainly will not be respecting Ford’s request for this to end.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

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.

After Using Her, Feinstein Actually Threw Ford Under the Bus with Jaw-Dropping Accusation


Reported By Cillian Zeal | September 28, 2018 at

11:49am

If you had the stout constitution to sit through every moment of the Kavanaugh/Ford hearings Thursday, I’m both envious and curious. The envy stems from the fact that you could watch a room of craven politicians preen for the camera and donor-email clips and not lose interest. The curiosity stems from the fact that I get paid to do it, while most of our readership does not.

If you waited until the end, however, you got to glimpse the guiding spirit of the whole affair — or what a certain anonymous Op-Ed writer might have called the “lodestar” that directed the proceedings — in a line from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

After being accused of leaking the letter that set this whole thing rolling, the California senator denied either she or her staff released it. Instead, she blamed the leak on a woman who was now utterly disposable to her — Christine Blasey Ford.

The exchange began after Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz questioned the leaking of the letter, which had been passed on to Sen. Feinstein.

“We also know that the Democrats on this committee engaged in a profoundly unfair process,” Cruz said.

“The ranking member had these allegations on July 30th and for sixty days, that was sixty days ago, the ranking member did not refer it to the FBI for investigation, the ranking member did not refer it to the full committee for an investigation.

“This committee could have investigated those claims in a confidential way that respected Dr. Ford’s privacy,” Cruz continued.

“Dr. Ford told this committee that the only people to whom she gave her letter, were her attorneys, the ranking member, and her member of Congress.

“And she stated that she and her attorneys did not release the letter, which means the only people who could have released the letter were either the ranking member (Sen. Feinstein) and her staff, or the Democratic member of Congress, because Dr. Ford told this committee those are the only people who had it.

“That is not a fair process,” Cruz said.

There were two options for Sen. Feinstein in this situation: a) apologize or b) deny. If she chose option b), however, there wasn’t the obligation to take path c): throw Christine Blasey Ford under an entire Greyhound station of buses.

That’s what she decided to do, however.

“Mr. Chairman, let me be clear, I did not hide Dr. Ford’s allegations. I did not leak her story, she asked me to keep it confidential and I kept if confidential as she asked,” Feinstein said in response.

“She apparently was stalked by the press, felt that what happened, she was forced to come forward, and her greatest fear was realized,”Feinstein continued.

“She’s been harassed, she’s had death threats, and she’s had to flee her home.”

After blaming the Republicans for their investigation, which she called “a partisan practice,” she continued to talk up the possible imperilment Ford was in.

“I was given some information by a woman who was very much afraid, who asked that it be held confidential, and I held it confidential until she decided that she would come forward,” Feinstein said.

She was then asked if her staff had leaked the letter by Sen. John Cornyn, another Texas Republican.

“I have not asked that question directly, but I do not believe — the answer is no,” Feinstein responded. “The staff, they did not.”

“Well, somebody leaked it if wasn’t you,” Cornyn said.

“I did not, I was asked to keep it confidential, and I’m criticized for that too!” she said.

“It’s my understanding that her story was leaked before the letter became public, and she testified that she had spoken to her friends about it and it’s most likely that that’s how the story leaked, and she had been asked by press.

“But it did not leak from us,” Feinstein concluded. “I assure you of that.”

Yes, the letter leaked because this woman, who thought she was in grave jeopardy, leaked the whole thing to the press by telling her friends, who were willing to put her in that grave jeopardy by passing it on.

It had nothing — nothing — to do with the Democrats who would have benefited most from this and would have had the motivation to pass it on.

Right.

Every single problem with this entire process can be, in some way, traced back to Dianne Feinstein. She’s the one who sat on the letter, refusing to bring it up when it should have been addressed. She’s the one whose cryptic statements helped stoke the embers of curiosity. She’s the one who would call for an FBI investigation even though the FBI added the letter to Kavanaugh’s background file and moved on. She’s the one who helped oversee the circus we witnessed Thursday.

And, once Christine Blasey Ford was finally disposable to her, she was tossed to the tigers as an encore.

Maxine Waters Panders To Millennial Voters, Shamed When Only 10 Kids Show Up For Event



disclaimerReported By Ben Marquis | June 4, 2018 at 1:25pm

 

Largely owing to her vehement and vitriolic opposition to President Donald Trump, Democratic California Rep. Maxine “Impeach 45! Waters has been heralded as something of a leader among liberals these days.

The media has even attempted to portray the 79-year-old Waters as some sort of guiding beacon for liberals of the millennial generation, granting her the nickname “Auntie Maxine” in a bid to further the notion that young people will flock to and follow her experienced wisdom.

But that image of Waters is little more than illusory, as was clearly revealed during a campaign event Sunday which was explicitly targeted toward young millennials but had an exceptionally low turnout among the desired audience, according to The American Mirror

Waters promoted the June 3 event on Twitter as a “Meet & Greet Tweet-a-thon” with the elected representative and young supporters.

max01amax01b

The event was intended to teach Waters’ young supporters how to “reclaim our time” and get them “energized and ready” to get out and vote on her behalf.

But judging by the comments on that post, Waters’ support among not just millennials, but voters of all ages in general, was simply not evident, nor was it evident in a short video from the event tweeted out by Waters later in the day. 

Judging by that tweet, not many more than 10-15 actual millennials showed up to meet and greet Waters, a majority of whom ended up uncomfortably arrayed at the front with a microphone shoved in their face to speak about the issues most important to them. They mostly spoke about immigration concerns and their mounting student debt, as well as the increasingly dismal homeless problem in the state.homeless numbers

Waters eventually reclaimed the microphone from her young supporters and delivered a brief campaign-style speech which proclaimed that Democrats would retake control of Congress via an energized “Blue Wave” of liberal and progressive voters in the November midterm elections.

As the camera panned around during her speech, empty tables and chairs sparsely populated by a handful of older and senior supporters were on display. 

At one point near the end of her monologue, Waters shifted her focus toward attacking her chief rival in the upcoming election, Republican candidate Omar Navarro, who she appeared to smear based on his alleged wrong way of thinking as a person of Latino heritage.

“He has a last name that is Latin. He’s Cuban and what a lot of our people don’t understand is, he supports the president building a wall,”  Waters said of her GOP opponent.

“He’s opposed to DACA, he does not support DACA, and in addition to that, he is not worried at all, has not said a word about what is happening at the border,” Waters added, a reference to the separation of families that come across the border illegally, a policy that existed under former President Barack Obama but which has now drawn fire under Trump as it is actually being enforced.

Waters does not represent the next great hope of the Democratic party among young millennial voters, but if the liberal media wants to continue to press that ludicrous narrative in spite of evidence to the contrary, let them have at it.

please likeand share and leave a comment

Over 100 Conservatives Come Together, Call on Jim Jordan To Replace Paul Ryan as Speaker


disclaimerReported By Robert Donachie | May 22, 2018 at 8:09am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/over-100-conservatives-come-together-call-on-jim-jordan-to-replace-paul-ryan-as-speaker/

A coalition of more than 100 conservatives sent a letter to House Freedom Caucus co-founder Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio on Monday urging him to throw his name in to replace outgoing Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.

“There must be a real race for Speaker of the House. Now. No backroom deals. A real race, starting this spring, to make every incumbent and candidate commit on the record, as a campaign issue, whether they’ll vote to save the Swamp or drain it,” the letter reads. “America needs you to declare yourself as a candidate for Speaker at once. We write to you on behalf of millions of Americans who want Congress to Drain the Swamp.”

Ryan rattled Capitol Hill in April when he announced he will retire from the House after nearly 20 years in Congress, telling reporters he wanted to spend more time with his family and pursue other opportunities. 

Two of the top House Republicans — House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California and House Majority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana — are angling for the position, but neither are thought to have a guaranteed lock on the speakership.

McCarthy failed to garner the 218 required votes to become speaker in 2015, but his particularly close relationship with the president has some expecting that, along with Ryan’s full-fledged endorsement, it will give him an upper hand over Scalise in the coming months.

Scalise wouldn’t rule out a potential bid for Ryan’s job but is also adamant he would not run against McCarthy, who he considers a “good friend,” he said in March. 

Yet, House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows, who is best friends with Jordan, might have the closest relationship with the president over any other member of Congress. During a speech Thursday in which Jordan appeared to preview a bid for the speakership, Jordan joked that Meadows was in the back, taking a phone call from the president, which Meadows is known to do on a regular basis.

The letter Jordan received Monday from conservatives echoes a great deal of what the congressman has said himself since Ryan announced his retirement. Namely, Jordan is adamant that Republicans need to get back to accomplishing what they promised voters during the 2016 election cycle, like dealing with immigration and border security, repealing and replacing Obamacare, and stopping out-of-control spending.

Jordan’s response to questions about the speaker’s race have been the same since the day TheDCNF first reported the growing wave of support for his candidacy: There is no speaker’s race, and conservatives need to focus on the issues.

Conservatives are pushing back against Jordan’s assertion that there isn’t an ongoing race to replace Ryan.

“To those who say there is no Speaker’s race at the moment, we say that it’s already underway — in back rooms, behind closed doors, and aimed at preserving the Swamp and making it bigger. The Speaker’s race must be public. There will be no Republican Speaker in 2019 unless the GOP can appeal to those Americans in its own ranks, among independents and even many Democrats who voted for Donald Trump to drain the Swamp and for the current Republican-led House to help him do that,” the letter reads. 

“The present House Republican leadership has failed. It is part of the problem. You are the solution. This is your moment. We pray you will seize it, knowing that if you do, we will do everything we can to help you succeed.”death-of-the-gop

The HFC is no stranger to putting leadership on notice. Jordan, Meadows and HFC members shot down a farm bill in order to secure a vote on an immigration proposal they were promised months ago. Ryan and McCarthy huddled with Meadows and Jordan in the back of the House chamber before the final gavel Friday, but their 11th-hour attempts were unable to sway the conservative members. The bill failed with members voting 198-213, dealing a decisive blow to leadership.

Friday’s vote is evidence the HFC has the leverage to sway major policy issues, given the power of the caucus’ 36 members’ votes. If the caucus votes as a coalition, they can kill a bill or get concessions from leadership.

Many believe Jordan’s bid would be to get concessions from either McCarthy or Scalise, but Ryan still has the rest of the year as speaker, assuming he isn’t pressured to step down earlier.

McCarthy’s folks are reportedly nervous about the potential heat he will take in a drawn-out speaker’s race if Ryan decides to stay through the November midterm elections, which he has promised he intends to do.

A version of this article appeared on The Daily Caller News Foundation website. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience.please likeand share and leave a comment

How Americans View Republican Policies Has Changed Drastically in Last 4 Months


Reported By Robert Donachie | April 17, 2018 at 8:56am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/how-americans-view-republican-policies-has-changed-drastically-in-last-4-months/

More American voters want the Republican party to remain in charge of the economy and tax policy, according to an NBC News/WSJ poll released Monday evening. The two media outlets found that 35 percent of Americans believe the Republican Party is better suited to handle the economy, compared with 28 percent who think Democrats have the better economic policies.

Roughly four months ago, Democrats had the upper hand. Thirty-five percent of American voters thought Democrats were the better choice in December — the same month Republicans passed the 2017 tax reform bill. The party now holds a slim 2 percent advantage over Democrats on the question of who has the better tax policy. Democrats had a 4 percentage point advantage in December.

Americans remain divided on whether or not the 2017 tax reform bill was a net-positive. Only 27 percent of Americans think the bill was a good idea, while 34 percent say they don’t know enough about the bill and 36 percent say it wasn’t a good idea.

A slim majority of Americans — 53 percent — think it is likely a negative because of expectations that it will greatly increase the federal deficit. Americans also believe the bill was a giveaway to the wealthy and major corporations.

Recent findings from government oversight officials work to back up Americans’ growing federal deficit concerns. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office expects the Republican tax reform bill and 2018 congressional budget agreement will grow the economy over the coming years, but also add nearly $2 trillion to federal deficit over the next decade.

The CBO released analysis earlier in April detailing how the federal budget deficit will be $804 billion in 2018 and exceed $1 trillion in 2020. Publicly held U.S. debt will total $28.671 trillion by the end of 2028, amounting to over 96 percent of U.S. gross domestic product that year.

Republican tax cuts are expected, as leadership has repeatedly claimed, to grow the economy over the next two years. Real GDP will expand 3.3 percent in 2018 and 2.4 percent in 2019. Starting in 2020, those gains are expected to taper off. The CBO expects real GDP to grow 1.8 percent in 2020, continuing at an average annual rate of 1.7 percent from 2020-2026.

While the deficit remains a concern, the tax bill has shown and is expected to show some other net-benefits for the American people.  Hundreds of corporations and small businesses announced bonuses and wage increases following the bill’s signing last December, although many have decried the moves as simply a public relations stunt.

Americans filed their first tax returns under the new Republican tax plan Tuesday, a first litmus test for voters and politicians as to how effective the tax cuts will end up being. Tax cuts are also expected to bring nearly $2 trillion in capital held overseas back to the United States, according to a United Nations Conference on Trade and Developments report.

The U.N. expects the Republican tax law could lead to the repatriation of roughly $2 trillion in funds that American multinationals are holding overseas. U.N. analysts attribute their predictions to the dramatic cut to the U.S. corporate tax rate that took effect on Jan. 1, 2018.

A version of this article previously appeared on The Daily Caller News Foundation website. 

More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons and Memes for April-Friday the 13th, 2018


Trump Poised to Use Trick Reagan Loved to Gut Parts of Omnibus Bill


Reported By Ben Marquis | April 11, 2018 at 10:59am

URL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/trump-trick-gut-parts-omnibus-bill/

When Congress recently passed — without having read — a $1.3 trillion omnibus bill that was more than 2,200 pages, fiscal conservatives were outraged by the gluttonous and wasteful spending it contained. President Donald Trump, who reluctantly signed the bill despite an initial threat to veto, expressed a similar sentiment when he made clear he would never sign another bloated spending bill like that again. And now it looks like he may be taking steps to undo some of that terrible bill.

Perhaps feeling a bit of buyer’s remorse or simply heat from their base, Trump and congressional Republican leaders recently held talks to find a way to trim some of the fat from the omnibus bill, according to Politico. The most likely way to do that would be through a process known as rescission, and Trump’s White House is reportedly working closely with House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy to put a package together that could cut billions of dollars from the recently passed spending bill, if approved by a simple majority in Congress.

In analysis for The Washington Times, Trump campaign economic adviser Steven Moore and Trump transition tax policy adviser James Carter explained some of the history and process behind the rescission budgetary maneuver, a rarely-used anti-spending tool that last saw favor under President Ronald Reagan.

Up until former President Richard Nixon, presidents had the power to “impound” and refuse to spend federal funds for projects they viewed as wasteful or unnecessary, something Nixon reportedly did with roughly 20 percent of the funds appropriated by Congress each year of his presidency until 1974.

That is when Congress passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, which blocked a president’s sole authority to impound funds and offered up the congressionally-approved rescission tool to stop funding for wasteful programs in its place. The process works by a president submitting a rescission proposal to the House of Representatives, which must then be approved by simple majorities in both chambers of Congress within 45 days. If the proposal is ignored or fails to achieve majorities, the spending remains unchanged.

Reagan proposed some 596 rescissions totaling $43 billion during his two terms, though Congress only approved 213 of those rescissions totaling only $16 billion in saved funds. Unfortunately, only about $6 billion in rescission proposals have been approved since Reagan left office, the last of which occurred in 1999.

It is worth noting that the Democrats’ chief obstructionist to Trump, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, can do little to stop a rescission proposal from receiving a vote as debate on such measures are limited to only 10 hours and can’t be filibustered. However, given the slim majority held by Republicans in the Senate and the tendency of the more moderate establishment members to break away from their party and join the opposition to Trump, nothing is guaranteed.

That said, while some Republicans may not want to risk the wrath of the liberal media by revisiting and cutting some of the bloated budget deal, such a vote would really make the handful of Democrats running for reelection in red states — who are trying to convince voters they’re actually fiscal conservatives — particularly nervous, as where they come down on the issue would certainly be a hot topic during the campaign season.

Hopefully, Trump and his team of budget and economic advisers, working in conjunction with Congressional Republicans, can find a way to make use of the rescission tool to get rid of at least some of the wasteful spending that was stuffed into the omnibus bill to garner bipartisan support. If so, and if it is to be a worthwhile effort, they will need to do more than merely tinker around the edges with modest proposals and actually put forward some significant cuts. It would then be interesting to see how various members of Congress either accede to the cuts or defend the wasteful projects they have agreed to appropriate taxpayer funds.

WH Considers Using Obscure Law To Gut Omnibus Bill, Democrats Helpless To Stop


Reported By Scott Kelnhofer | April 4, 2018 at 9:29am

URL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/wh-considers-using-obscure-law-to-gut-omnibus-bill-democrats-helpless-to-stop/

Conservatives who were angry with President Donald Trump and Republicans with some of the expenditures approved as part of the recently signed omnibus spending bill may soon be in a slightly better mood.

Joseph Lawler of the Washington Examiner reports congressional conservatives want Trump to use the 1974 Impoundment Act to rescind some spending authorized by the $1.3 trillion government appropriations bill, and White House officials are reportedly considering doing so.

The measure referred to by the Examiner is officially known as the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. For the most part, the act established the Congressional Budget Office and gave Congress more control over the budget process.

The Impoundment Control Act allows the president to ask Congress to rescind funds that have been allocated in the budget. Congress is not required to vote on the request, but if they do agree to vote, a simple majority in both chambers is all that is needed to approve cuts the president requests.

Congress has 45 days to approve any or all rescission requests from the president.

A congressional Republican aide told the Examiner that conservatives have been lobbying for Trump to use the Impoundment Act.

“It’s a good opportunity to take advantage of a law passed decades ago and that hasn’t been used recently,” the aide said.

A spokesman for House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., confirmed to The Washington Post that McCarthy’s office is working with the Trump administration on the idea. White House legislative director Marc Short also confirmed the president is looking into requesting cuts to the budget.

“The administration is certainly looking at a rescission package, and the president takes seriously his promise to be fiscally responsible.”

The Impoundment Control Act was put in place in 1974 in response to President Richard Nixon’s practice of withholding funds for programs he opposed. Instead, the act requires any requests to withhold funding to go through Congress.

The Impoundment Control Act is considered obscure because it hasn’t been used often in recent years. The Examiner report says it was never used by Presidents Barack Obama or George W. Bush, but was used frequently during the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

After signing the omnibus spending bill that he originally threatened to veto, Trump called on Congress to give him line-item veto authority on spending bills. However, the Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that such authority was unconstitutional.

These measures could pass with just a majority vote, meaning Democrats could do nothing to stop them — unless, of course, they can convince enough Republicans not to support the president’s wishes. Considering the slim 51-to-49 majority Republicans hold in the Senate, it wouldn’t take many left-leaning Republicans to foil the president’s plans.But a chance to rescind some of the budget programs gives conservatives reason for hope — and if Republicans throw away that chance, it will make conservatives angry all over again.

More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Monday March 12, 2018


More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for February 26, 2018


Build the wall, pass Kate’s Law, and tell Democrats to go to hell


Posted December 01, 2017 11:04 AM by Chris Pandolfo

 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/build-the-wall-pass-kates-law-and-tell-democrats-to-go-to-hell?

Kate Steinle Senate Judiciary Committee hearing | Mark Wilson | Getty Images

President Donald Trump is outraged at the outcome of the Kate Steinle murder trial, in which accused killer Jose Ines Garcia Zarate was found not guilty by a California jury on Thursday. His outrage is justified.

On July 1, 2015, the 32-year-old Steinle was shot in the back on Pier 14 in San Francisco while she was walking with her father. No one denies that Zarate shot her, but he claimed that he found a handgun wrapped in a T-shirt under a bench on the pier and that it fired accidentally as he tried to extract it.

Zarate was found not guilty of murder and not guilty of the lesser charges of involuntary manslaughter and assault with a deadly weapon. He was convicted of illegally possessing a firearm, a sentence that carries up to three years. Federal immigration officials have stated that Zarate will be deported for a sixth time after he serves jail time.

Before the shooting, Zarate, an illegal immigrant who was deported five times previously, had been released from jail where he was being held on drug charges. He was released because of San Francisco’s sanctuary city polices, contrary to the will of federal immigration authorities who wanted him detained. He then went on to kill Steinle. 

President Trump called the verdict in Zarate’s trial a “disgrace.” He accused the previous administration of failing to protect the U.S. border and the Democratic party of being weak on crime. He also repeated his call to build a wall on the southern border.

President Trump’s tweets reflect the anger felt among his voters at the injustice of Kate Steinle’s death.

The issue is not that illegal immigrants commit a disproportionate number of crimes compared to American citizens. It is that every crime committed by an illegal immigrant is preventable if the United States would enforce its immigration laws and secure the border.

On the campaign trail in 2016, Trump consistently brought up Kate Steinle’s murder during while giving his pitch to voters on why the U.S. needs stricter immigration laws, tougher border enforcement, and an end to sanctuary city policies. Trump strongly supported the passage of Kate’s Law, which would increase penalties for those who attempt to re-enter the country after deportation, as Zarate did.

Every American with common sense understands that cities do not have the right to lawlessly nullify immigration law and endanger Americans. And someone who enters the United States illegally and commits crimes should be deported and never allowed back.

But that is not the case on the ground today, and so far Congress has been unwilling to act. Kate’s Law remains stalled in the U.S Senate. Funding for border security is hotly contested, as Congress debates extending current government spending levels through Dec. 22 to avoid government shutdown. Meanwhile, some Republicans are instead working to include a deal for DACA amnesty in the spending bill to be passed before the end of this year.

The American people cry out for justice. They want to be protected. They want American borders to be respected. They want illegal immigrant criminals expelled from this country. And instead, Congress is looking for ways to jam an amnesty package into a last-minute spending bill after sitting on its hands all year long and breaking other promises to repeal Obamacare and cut taxes.

President Trump is right that Democrats will pay a big price in the 2018 elections if they continue to obstruct the enforcement of American immigration law, but he doesn’t go far enough. If Republicans fail to deliver on tougher immigration enforcement, if they pass amnesty first instead, they will pay a far greater price for betraying their promises and wasting their time in power.

There are several actions the government can take to address the injustice of this pathetic verdict and ensure that there will be no more deaths like Kate Steinle’s. First, Attorney General Jeff Sessions should indict Zarate as an illegal immigrant in possession of a firearm. This is the action Trump’s executive branch can immediately take.

Next, Congress should unilaterally defund sanctuary cities and tie Kate’s Law to next week’s spending resolution. If the Democrats object to enforcing federal immigration law, if they threaten a government shutdown to stop an effort to prevent another American death at the hands of a deported illegal immigrant, let them.

Let them attempt to defend their indefensible destruction of America.

More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Monday November 27, 2017


The House Has Passed More Bills In 10 Months Of Trump Than Obama, Bush or Clinton


Reported By Jack Davis | November 14, 2017 at 8:10am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournalism.com/house-passed-bills-10-months-trump-obama-bush-clinton/?

Productivity came to Washington along with President Donald Trump, according to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. In a Monday Facebook post, McCarthy noted that in Trump’s first few months in office, more bills have passed the House than under any of the previous four presidents.

“Over 400 bills have passed the House during Donald J. Trump’s first 10 months. That’s more than under Obama, Bush, or Clinton,” he posted.

McCarthy displayed a graph that showed the average numbers of bills passed in the first 10 months of a presidency going back to President George H.W. Bush was 306. Under the Trump administration, the House has passed 407, 33 percent above the average.

According to McCarthy, the number of bills passed in the first 10 months under past administrations were:

President Barack Obama, 353;

President George W. Bush, 215;

President Bill Clinton, 263; and

President George H.W. Bush, 292.

Earlier this fall, McCarthy said the House needs help from the Senate to translate their achievements into achievements for the American people.

“Think what we’ve been able to achieve, the number of bills,” he said in September, according to Newsmax. “More so than any modern Congress you had in the first year of a new presidency: 16 human trafficking bills, 16 congressional review acts, 14 signed into law. In the history of America, only one other Congress has ever done one of those.”

“The last time a Republican majority did that, the iPhone wasn’t invented,” he said. “We need a little help on the other chamber.”

While McCarthy appeared pleased by the output of the current administration, his excitement grew when referencing the GOP tax plan.

The bill is expected to pass the House this week.

“It brings the lowest rate for small business, the lowest it has been in 80 years,” said McCarthy, who believes the bill will help all Americans. “That is what creates new jobs. That is what we have to continue to work on.”

McCarthy criticized Democrat opposition to the bill, citing America’s grew sluggish under the Obama administration.

“You know the last eight years under Barack Obama, if you take his very best growth year, that is actually lower than the worst year under Bill Clinton. We have got to get America moving again.”

“Get America moving again” seems to be the theme, as Trump wraps up his tour of Asia, and returns to the U.S.

He is expected to meet with House Republicans on Thursday in an effort to ensure passage of the legislation, which is one of Trump’s top priorities.

GREAT NEWS: DOJ Lifts Gag Order, Frees Informant to Speak to Congress on Russia Bribery Case With Ties to Clintons


Reported By Andrew Kerr | October 26, 2017 at 8:45am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournalism.com/doj-lifts-gag-order-frees-informant-to-speak-to-congress-on-russia-bribery-case-with-ties-to-clintons/?

The Justice Department lifted a gag order Wednesday that will allow a former FBI informant to speak with Congress about information he uncovered involving a Russian bribery scheme linked to a controversial uranium deal in 2010.

The move comes as Congress renews its focus on the Obama administration’s approval of Russian-owned energy company Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One, a company based in Canada that controlled 20 percent of U.S. uranium.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton led the State Department when it approved the deal back in 2010. Eight other U.S. government agencies also approved the deal.

Three congressional committees launched investigations into the deal last week after The Hill reported that the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that the Russian nuclear industry officials involved in the deal were involved in a racketeering scheme as early as 2009.

However, the Department of Justice waited until 2014 to bring any charges on the evidence first gathered in 2009 and 2010.

The CEO of Tenex, a subsidiary of Rosatom, pleaded guilty to money laundering in 2015.

Congressional Republicans now seek to discover who knew what, and when. Republicans have also expressed concerns about Clinton’s connection to the interested parties in the nuclear deal. The Clinton Foundation reportedly received millions of dollars in contributions from interested parties in the transaction, and former President Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a speech in Russia around the time of the deal.

The FBI informant, who hasn’t been identified by name, went undercover for five years to obtain intelligence on Russia’s efforts to acquire a share of the U.S. uranium market.

Justice Department spokesman Ian Prior said the DOJ would cooperate with the three open congressional investigations.

“As of tonight, the Department of Justice has authorized the information to disclose to the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as one member of each of their staffs, any information or documents he has concerning alleged corruption or bribery involving transactions in the uranium market,” Prior said in a statement Wednesday, according to The Washington Free Beacon.

Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores confirmed to The Hill that the undercover FBI informant is cleared to disclose to Congress “any information or documents he has concerning alleged corruption or bribery involving transactions in the uranium market, including but not limited to anything related to Vadim Mikerin, Rosatom, Tenex, Uranium One, or the Clinton Foundation.”

The informant’s lawyer, Victoria Toensing, told The Hill her client has information relating to “the Russian nuclear bribery case and the efforts he witnessed by Moscow to gain influence with the Clintons in hopes of winning favorable uranium decisions from the Obama administration.”

“He is now able and willing to talk with the congressional committees seeking his testimony, though I will be working with all parties to ensure his identity remains confidential to ensure his safety,” she added.

But some high-ranking Democrats have called foul on the Republican’s renewed focus on the 2010 uranium deal.

California Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell on Wednesday the investigations are a “partisan effort to distract” from the real issue at hand — special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into President Donald Trump’s alleged collusions with the Russians during the 2016 election.

Trump told reporters Wednesday he believes the uranium investigation will quickly swell to Watergate proportions.

The uranium sale to Russia and the way it was done was so underhanded. With tremendous amounts of money being passed, I actually think that’s Watergate: modern age,” Trump said, as reported by the New York Post.

DOJ Lifts Gag Order on Uranium One Informant, Hillary and Obama Feeling the Heat

URL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/doj-gag-order-informant-hillary/?

The Justice Department announced Wednesday night that it had lifted a gag order on a former FBI informant who could provide testimony to Congress about an inquiry linked to a 2010 Obama-era deal that transferred ownership of a uranium mining firm to a Russian-owned company.

Fox News reported the department said it authorized the informant to speak to the Senate Judiciary Committee, House Oversight Committee, and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as select staffers.

The Justice Department said the informant could provide “any information or documents he has concerning alleged corruption or bribery involving transactions in the uranium market,” including Russian company Rosatom, its subsidiary Tenex, Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation.

The FBI said in court documents and in interviews that they had gathered enough evidence to prove that Rosatom-connected officials were engaged in a bribery scheme that included kickbacks and money laundering in 2010, Circa reported.

Despite that little tidbit, the U.S. government approved the sale. Not surprising considering who was in office. Now we have a chance to know what really went down.

The informant’s attorney, Victoria Toensing, told Fox Business Network Monday that her client could “tell what all the Russians were talking about during the time that all these bribery payments were made.”

Toensing said her client, an American businessman who reportedly worked as an undercover FBI confidential witness, was prevented from testifying by former attorneys general Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch after having signed a non-disclosure agreement, according to Fox News.

Circa reported that Toensing also said the informant has pertinent information regarding Russia’s attempts to gain access to former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to influence the Obama administration’s decision on the purchase of Uranium One.

After the sale of Uranium One to Rosatom was completed, millions of dollars flowed to the Clinton Foundation from Russian officials, as reported by The Hill.

This FBI informant can also testify about comments made by FBI agents that suggested “political pressure was exerted during the Justice Department probe of the Russia corruption case and that there was specific evidence that could have scuttled approval of the Uranium One deal if it became public,” according to The Hill.

There is little doubt that if Clinton had won the presidency, this gag order would still be enforced.

Thus, the truth about who really colluded with the Russians would likely never be known. Hopefully, the informant’s testimony will shed some light on what happened during these deals and the truth behind them can come out. You can bet this news has former President Barack Obama and Clinton sweating bullets.

You can also bet the mainstream media will take its sweet time covering this news because it doesn’t fit their Trump-hating agenda.

H/T American Military News

More PoliticallyINCORRECT Cartoons for Tuesday October 24, 2017


Mitch McConnell Gets Bad News… Asked To Step Down


Reported 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournalism.com/conservatives-demand-mcconnel-step-down-as-senate-leader/?

Advertisement – story continues below

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has been hit with a heavy vote of no confidence from conservative groups around the country. On Wednesday, leaders from several conservative organizations called on McConnell to abdicate his position, citing a list of broken promises he made to Republican voters.

They are calling on not only McConnell, but also members of his leadership team, to step down.

“You and the rest of your leadership team were given the majority because you pledged to stop the steady flow of illegal immigration,” states their letter to McConnell, according to Fox News. “You have done nothing. You pledged to reduce the size of this oppressive federal government. You have done nothing. You pledged to reduce, and ultimately eliminate the out-of-control deficit spending that is bankrupting America. You have done nothing. You promised to repeal Obamacare, ‘root and branch.’ You have done nothing. You promised tax reform. You have done nothing.”

Disgruntled conservatives held a news conference in Washington, D.C. to address their concerns and desire to see the leadership team dissolved.

“We call on all five members of the GOP Senate leadership to step down, or for their caucus to remove them as soon as possible,” Ken Cuccinelli, the president of the Senate Conservatives Fund, said at the conference.

Advertisement – story continues below

The Senate Conservatives Fund, founded in 2008 by former Senator Jim DeMint, has worked for years to elect more conservative GOP candidates to the upper chamber in Congress. The group has regularly clashed with the more moderate wing of GOP leadership. The SCF wasn’t the only group calling for McConnell to vacate his position.

Members from FreedomWorks, For America and the Tea Party Patriots also joined the chorus in demanding GOP Senate leaders step aside after failing to enact conservative legislation, despite voters giving the Republican Party full control of Washington, D.C. on Election Day.

This is not the first time conservatives have called on McConnell to step down as majority leader, but the ferocity of Wednesday’s press conference certainly puts an added weight on Republican lawmakers to get things done this legislative session.

The letter and press conference come as congressional Republicans are currently working to enact tax reform. GOP leaders so far have not succeeded in repealing Obamacare, failing several times to push through their own GOP health care bills. Republicans are hoping tax reform will be an issue the entire party can rally behind.

“If this was a football team, and you’d lost this many times, you’d start seriously considering firing the coaches,” said For America President David Bozell.

Despite all agreeing that they’d wish to see McConnell go, many conservative leaders are not certain who they would like to see as a replacement.

“If I had to pick someone, I’d love to draft like Pat Toomey maybe,” FreedomWorks President Adam Brandon said, referring to the GOP Pennsylvania senator. “There’s a lot of different people out there who I think could unite this caucus and actually lead on some issues.”

Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots group, said she could see herself supporting Georgia GOP Senator David Perdue. “I’m from Georgia, so I’m not opposed to him,” Martin explained, touting the junior senator’s extensive business background as a former CEO.

Conservative candidates are taking notice as well. As the 2018 election cycle begins to heat up, many pro-Trump candidates are hoping to gain traction by displaying stronger support for the president.

“With rare exception, GOP senators blocking Trump’s agenda are impediments we can not afford. Double that for Senate leaders,” Ron Wallace, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Virginia, said in a statement to Western Journalism.

Wallace is an insurgent candidate hoping to win the GOP primary and take on incumbent Democrat Senator Tim Kaine. Wallace is running on a pro-Trump platform and believes it’s imperative the GOP majority pass what they promised to do.

“The American People voted for Tax Cuts, Border Walls, Rapid Growth, Excellent Law Enforcement, and Better Education. I expect strong proactive policies to make those outcomes possible and deliver cost-effective solutions, by whatever means may be necessary,” he said.

Insurance Industry Opposes Republican Health Bill


By Chip Bok of http://bokbluster.com/2017/09/23/insurance-industry/ | September 23, 2017   

Fortune seemed surprised that insurers oppose last ditch Republican efforts to replace and repeal ObamaCare. As usual, the industry’s concern is for consumers.

Insurance Industry Explains Why

Industry spokesmen displayed their concern in an article titled “Even the Insurance Industry is Against the Latest GOP Health Care Plan”:

Despite the general view that health insurance companies would benefit from a free and open market, two of the biggest trade groups for insurers — Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and America’s Health Insurance Plans — announced their first opposition to the Republicans’ latest plan to repeal and replace Obamacare.

Both the Blue Cross and the AHIP came out against the so-called Graham-Cassidy bill Wednesday, arguing that the legislation would lead to an unstable market that would harm both insurers and patients. 

“The bill contains provisions that would allow states to waive key consumer protections, as well as undermine safeguards for those with pre-existing medical conditions,’’ the Blue Cross association said in a statement. “The legislation reduces funding for many states significantly and would increase uncertainty in the marketplace, making coverage more expensive and jeopardizing Americans’ choice of health plans.”

The AHIP doubled down on those sentiments, writing that the bill “would have real consequences on consumers and patients by further destabilizing the individual market” and could “potentially allowing government-controlled, single payer health care to grow,” in a letter to Senate majority and minority leaders Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

The insurance trade associations’ resistance joins a number of health care groups already speaking out against the proposed bill, including the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association and the American Association of Retired Persons.

The Graham-Cassidy bill, named after two of its drafters, Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), has a voting deadline of Sept. 30. The Senate is expected to vote on the legislation next week after several previously unsuccessful attempts earlier this year.

President Donald Trump talked up the bill Wednesday, saying that it has “a very good chance” of passing in the Senate.

McCain Health Care Bill Kills


By Chip Bok of http://bokbluster.com/2017/09/23/mccain-health-care-bill-kills/ | September 23, 2017

McCain

Senator McCain sided with Jimmy Kimmel in shooting down best bud Lindsey Graham on Friday. He announced he would vote “no” on the Graham Cassidy health care reform.

Two McCain Bill Kills

Those in the know think that pretty much kills the bill. And that would make two health bill kills for McCain.

Damn, should have drawn that on the fuselage.

More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Wednesday September 13, 2017


Moer Pollitcally INCORRECT Cartoons for Friday September 8, 2017


More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Wednesday September 6, 2017


More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Monday August 28, 2017


 

Donald Trump has HAD IT with Mitch McConnell’s bucket of suck


Posted August 10, 2017 03:39 PM by Chris Pandolfo

 

President Donald Trump meets Mitch McConnell after his first speech to Congress

 

 

Is the time of Senator Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., as majority leader in the U.S. Senate coming to an end? If not an end, certainly a turning point.

The American people believe, rightly, that the Congress under the leadership of McConnell and Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., hasn’t done much. Nearly seven in 10 Americans (68 percent) judge the Republican-controlled Congress a failure, according to a new CNN poll. The approval rating of Republican leadership has fallen to a dismal 24 percent.

And why shouldn’t Americans think Congress has failed? The Republicans broke their number one campaign promise from the past seven years in their unwillingness to repeal Obamacare. In more than six months of unified Republican government, the GOP has yet to deliver on the core pieces of President Trump’s legislative agenda.

President Trump has noticed. As McConnell chastised the president for having unrealistic expectations of what the Senate could accomplish, Trump took to Twitter to remind Senator McConnell that he only expects Republicans to keep promises they’ve made for years.

And it wasn’t just on Twitter:

Can McConnell do it? Even as the president criticizes Sen. McConnell’s lame excuses, other Republicans are beginning to show signs of irritation with the majority leader.

“I like Mitch, but for eight years, we’ve been saying we’re going to repeal and replace Obamacare. It’s not like we made this up overnight. We have been working on repealing Obamacare all year,” Senator Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. told Fox News Radio’s “The Brian Kilmeade Show” Wednesday.

“There is no way to sugarcoat this. The Republican Party promised for eight years to repeal and replace Obamacare, we failed, and if we give up, shame on us,” Graham said.

Dissatisfaction with the process leading up to the GOP’s failed attempt at the fake repeal of Obamacare brought together Sens. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, Lindsey Graham, Mike Lee, R-Utah, Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., and John McCain, R-Ariz. in criticism of McConnell’s leadership.

Candidates for the U.S. Senate Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., and former Judge Roy Moore have both taken shots at McConnell, with Moore blasting Mitch McConnell’s D.C. slime machine and Brooks calling for McConnell to step down from leadership.

McConnell’s failures are demonstrable, and his plan for future legislative success is unclear. This fall, Republicans in Congress will face several challenges as the debt limit, funding for the government, and tax reform dominate the business of the Senate.

What is McConnell’s plan?

So far, it seems Republicans will pass a clean debt limit increase without extracting a single policy concession from the Left. And as long as McConnell adamantly refuses to consider a government shutdown, Democrats hold all the negotiating power over the budget. President Trump and the Republicans capitulated once already on government funding back in April — what is McConnell’s plan to secure funding for Trump’s priorities in the face of Democratic obstruction? And where does tax reform fit between what will be long, protracted fights on government spending and the debt limit as conservative opposition to growing government mounts?

If McConnell doesn’t come up with answers to these questions fast, he may find President Trump calling for him to step down. As the president himself said Friday when asked if he thinks McConnell should go:

“Well, I’ll tell you what, if he doesn’t get repeal and replace done, if he doesn’t get taxes done, meaning cuts and reform, and if he doesn’t get a very easy one to get done, infrastructure, if he doesn’t get them done, then you can ask me that question.”


Chris Pandolfo is a staff writer and type-shouter for Conservative Review. He holds a B.A. in politics and economics from Hillsdale College. His interests are conservative political philosophy, the American founding, and progressive rock. Follow him on Twitter for doom-saying and great album recommendations @ChrisCPandolfo.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoons from Townhall.com


Trump: No More ‘Bailouts’ for Insurers, Lawmakers Over ‘Imploding’ Obamacare


Reported By Wanda Carruthers   |   Saturday, 29 Jul 2017 02:15 PM

Image: Trump: No More 'Bailouts' for Insurers, Lawmakers Over 'Imploding' Obamacare

President Donald Trump on Saturday warned Republicans that if they did not pass healthcare reform soon, he could end the employer contribution for their healthcare coverage.

He went further to suggest the end result would be an end to insurance bailouts as well as “bailouts for Congress” come election day.

“After seven years of ‘talking’ Repeal & Replace, the people of our great country are still being forced to live with imploding ObamaCare!” Trump tweeted. “If a new HealthCare Bill is not approved quickly, BAILOUTS for Insurance Companies and BAILOUTS for Members of Congress will end very soon!”

The latest attempt by senators collapsed when they failed to reach a threshold to pass a “skinny” repeal bill early Friday morning that would have ended the individual mandate requiring Americans to purchase insurance or pay a fine. It would also have suspended through 2026 the requirement that businesses provide insurance for their workers.

Earlier in the week another bill met with defeat in the Senate that would have repealed the healthcare law.

Republican lawmakers have been conflicted over how exactly to change the nation’s healthcare system after many of them were elected to office on the platform of repealing and replacing Obamacare. Democratic lawmakers have been steadfast in opposition to changing any of the legislation enacted under former President Barack Obama.

Regardless of the stance of congressional lawmakers, the healthcare law has frayed edges as some Americans are forced to pay exorbitant rates in order to have health insurance, while the burden of funding has not diminished to subsidize those who qualify. Some are left without a choice or only one choice at all and CNBC predicts health insurers will likely pull out completely from 49 counties in the nation in 2018.

The New York Times on Saturday explained the effect the president is already exerting on Obamacare, and maintained his primary options for impacting the healthcare system fell into three main arenas. While opponents could cheer the fact that Trump is making cracks to break the healthcare law apart, supporters decry any chinks into the Obamacare armor.

Trump is undermining Obamacare with weakened enforcement of the individual mandate, the Times argued, saying, “the Internal Revenue Service has said it will continue accepting tax returns that do not say whether a filer has been uninsured.”

This could pave the way for more exceptions by the White House in the future, as well as signaling “publicly that it does not care about the mandate, which may cause people to be less likely to sign up, even if they later get hit with a tax penalty.”

A second effect the Trump administration could have would be to impose work requirement for Medicaid recipients. While the president cannot prevent states from expanding Medicaid, the article explained he could “allow states that apply to impose work requirements or charge premiums for more Medicaid beneficiaries, through a process that lets the government waive the normal Medicaid rules.”

To do so could cause many poor Americans to not have access to the system due to its cost. GOP lawmakers have worked to rein in federal spending on Medicaid expansion — attempts which may have caused many states to end it entirely.

The Trump administration has backed off outreach promoting Obamacare unlike Obama’s White House. Without promotion, citizens may not be aware of healthcare coverage options, The Times maintained.

Once Trump was inaugurated, the White House within days pulled ads and outreach that encouraged people’s participation. If the result has been lower numbers signing up for Obamacare, prices for insurance will like rise.

Trump met the latest GOP failure to pass a bill aimed at solving the growing issues and burdens of paying for Obamacare by chiding lawmakers, saying on Friday he would “let Obamacare implode because of their failure to find a solution to the issue that has garnered passion by those who want government to control the healthcare system and those who want to abolish government health insurance control.

© 2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by Chip Bok


Congressional NFL Brain Damage Study

URL of the original posting site: http://bokbluster.com/2017/07/29/brain-damage/

A recent study of deceased NFL players found that 99% suffered brain damage. We think Congress can do better.

brain damage

 

House GOP demands new special counsel to investigate Obama admin


Posted July 28, 2017 01:35 PM by Chris Pandolfo

URL of the original posting site: https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/house-gop-demands-new-special-counsel-to-investigate-obama-admin

Clinton & Obama | Marc Nozell | Flickr

House Republicans want a new special counsel to investigate members of the Obama administration.

The House Judiciary Committee on Thursday sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein calling for the appointment of a second special counsel to investigate former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, former FBI Director James Comey, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Heavy reports.

“We are writing to you to request assistance in restoring public confidence in our nation’s justice system and its investigators, specifically the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),” the letter says. “We need to enable these agencies to perform their necessary and important law enforcement and intelligence functions fully unhindered by politics.”

Republicans expressed that they are not confident that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating the full scope of matters related to the 2016 election, especially those pertaining to interference in the election conducted by members of the Obama administration.

“The unbalanced, uncertain, and seemingly unlimited focus of the special counsel’s investigation has led many of our constituents to see a dual standard of justice that benefits only the powerful and politically well-connected,” the letter states.

Among the evidence of untoward behavior by the Obama administration Republicans cited was Mr. Comey’s sworn testimony before Congress that Loretta Lynch instructed him to refer to the FBI’s criminal probe into Hillary Clinton as a “matter” rather than an “investigation.” Additional reports of Comey’s closed-door testimony before Congress go further than the public record, suggesting that Lynch told Comey to get out of her office after he confronted her privately with evidence that suggested she had agreed “to put the kibosh on any prosecution of Clinton.”

Comey’s own decision to close the investigation into Secretary Clinton shortly after that meeting has also caused suspicion of misconduct.

Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin has previously called for former FBI Director Comey to be investigated. Earlier this month, The Hill reported that over half of Comey’s private memos on conversations he had with President Trump contained classified information. If that report is true, Comey had the same disregard for classified information as Hillary Clinton, whom he was criminally investigating for before declaring that he would not indict Clinton.

“It’s absolutely contemptible,” Levin said of Comey’s behavior, declaring that Comey must be subjected to an investigation.”

Further, Levin has noted how there is ample evidence of how the Obama administration colluded to cover up its knowledge of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

This letter by House Republicans is just the first step in what must be a comprehensive investigation of the Obama administration’s actions during the 2016 election.

Here is the letter in full:

House Judiciary Letter by Chris on Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/354905846/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-YsJ3EedNhoXiqaAcY6IN&show_recommendations=true

Chris Pandolfo is a staff writer and type-shouter for Conservative Review. He holds a B.A. in politics and economics from Hillsdale College. His interests are conservative political philosophy, the American founding, and progressive rock. Follow him on Twitter for doom-saying and great album recommendations @ChrisCPandolfo.

Arrested Dem IT staffer’s attorney is MAJOR Clinton ally. Chris Gowen worked for both Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.


Posted July 26, 2017 09:32 AM by Jordan Schachtel

URL of the original posting site: https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/arrested-dem-it-staffers-attorney-is-major-clinton-ally

 

Bill and Hillary Clinton | USMC Lance Cpl. Cristian L. Ricardo | WikimediaCommons 

The attorney for a prominent Democratic congressional employee at the center of a major criminal investigation has deep ties to the Clinton machine in Washington.

Attorney Chris Gowen is serving as the lawyer for Imran Awan, a Pakistani-American IT professional who was apprehended at Dulles Airport this week as he reportedly attempted to leave the country for Pakistan.

Awan has been charged with bank fraud (which the Daily Caller reports as a potentialplaceholdercharge for much more serious coming charges), and the FBI has been deeply involved in the process, leading some to suspect that there may be a foreign espionage component to the investigation. As an IT staffer, Awan secured highly sensitive information from several members of Congress, including representatives in the House Intelligence and Foreign Affairs committees. Imran Awan is just one of the individuals in a criminal probe. Other suspects in the investigation reportedly fled to Pakistan.

After Awan’s arrest, Gowen immediately jumped into the fray, alleging that Awan was a victim of Islamophobia. He labeled Awan’s arrest as part of “a right-wing media-driven prosecution by a United States Attorney’s Office that wants to prosecute people for working while Muslim.”

His statement displays a remarkably similar tone to the one often promulgated by his former boss, Hillary Clinton, who often spoke of a vast right-wing conspiracy” to undermine her family and her leftist ideals.

Gowen’s past includes several stints in the Clinton machine’s orbit. He began his legal life as a public defender but left that job for the Bill Clinton White House. At the time, he also worked for then-Senator Hillary Clinton. Years later, he jumped on board Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, directing advance operations there, according to his biography from his law firm, Gowen Rhoades Winograd & Silva, PLLC. In another bio page, Gowen states he has consulted with former Democratic presidential contenders John Kerry and John Edwards.

Another biography, from American University, says Gowen worked with several controversial Clinton projects, including The Clinton Global Initiative, The Clinton Foundation, and The Clinton Health Access Initiative.

In 2012, Gowen went to bat for Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin, whose family is deeply connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. After GOP reps explored Abedin’s nefarious ties, Gowen pledged to “stand with Huma.”

Along with his private practice, the longtime Clinton aide is also an adjunct professor at American University Washington College of Law, where he teaches courses in legal ethics and law practice management.

Gowen’s Clinton connections are intriguing on another level, given that Awan’s employer in the House, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, remains a close Clinton confidant. The former Democratic National Committee chair resigned from her position after emails surfaced alleging she attempted to tip the scales of the Democratic primary in Clinton’s favor. Wasserman Schultz was also the 2008 campaign co-chair of Hillary Clinton’s first failed run for president.

It remains unclear at this time how Imran Awan managed to link up with Gowen and retain his services.

A preliminary hearing for Mr. Awan is scheduled for August 21.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoons from A.F. Branco


Gimme A Break

URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/06/30/gimme-a-break/#Tpft3CYDtG8ADWz1.99

Congress is to recess for 4th of July without repealing and replacing Obamacare like they have promised.

Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.

 

Happy Independence Day – Big League!

URL of the original posting site:
http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/06/30/happy-independence-day-big-league/#zEoHzBHEYOAgK9cp.99

Keeping the Media bullies at bay, Trump is making this Independence day great again.

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.

More A.F. Branco Cartoons at Net Right Daily.

A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoons


Mueller hires large staff of democrat prosecutors giving critics reason to cry foul.

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017


TODAY’S POLITICALLY INCORRECT CARTOONS FROM TOWNHALL.COM

George W. Bush Offers Prayers And Encouragement To Wife Of Wounded Congressman


Reported

URL of the original posting site: http://www.westernjournalism.com/george-w-bush-offers-prayers-encouragement-wife-wounded-congressman/

He posted on Facebook Friday saying, “Last night I had a nice chat with Jennifer Scalise, who reports that Steve is fighting hard and getting better. They are both staying #ScaliseStrong, and Laura and I are praying for the Congressman’s full and speedy recovery.”

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fgeorgewbush%2Fposts%2F1587408871301499%3A0&width=500

Advertisement – story continues below

Many of the former president’s followers praised him for his care and compassion.

“Thank you Mr. President and Mrs. Bush for being such wonderful role models and genuinely compassionate people,” one follower wrote.

Scalise, the House Majority Whip, was shot Wednesday in Alexandria, Va., by a lone gunman while he and other Republican congressmen were practicing for the annual Congressional Baseball Game for Charity. Witnesses to the event said Scalise was shot in the left hip while standing at second base. He was transported to the MedStar Washington Hospital Center where he is currently in critical condition. However, doctors said Friday they are encouraged by his improvement over the past 36 hours.

On Wednesday night, President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania went to the hospital for a short visit with the congressman and his wife. After the visit, Trump tweeted: “Just left hospital. Rep. Steve Scalise, one of the truly great people, is in very tough shape – but he is a real fighter. Pray for Steve!”

Steve Scalise’s wife, Jennifer Scalise, released a statement Friday on her husband’s Twitter page, thanking people for “the incredible amount of prayers and warm wishes.”

The shooter, James T. Hodgkinson, was shot by the police and subsequently died from his injuries.

 

Nancy Pelosi Melts After Being Asked 1 Simple Question


URL of the original posting site: http://conservativetribune.com/nancy-pelosi-melts-simple-question/

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has been on the front lines of the Democrat party’s war against President Donald Trump since his inauguration, except her outrageous statements have only hurt her more than the president.

During a CNN town hall on Monday night, Pelosi once again showed how completely clueless she is after she was asked by an audience member about the hypocrisy Democrats are showing over the firing of former FBI Director James Comey, The Daily Wire reported.

“Good evening, Madam Leader. Before the election on Nov. 8, your side of the aisle were asking for the former head of the FBI to resign,” said an audience member identified as small business owner Jake Lee. “Now that he has been let go, why the sudden and selective outrage from your side of the aisle?”

The question really threw Pelosi off guard. After initially denying that she ever wanted Comey fired, and stating that “Some people were asking to be let go,” (which we’re assuming was meant to state that some people wanted Comey let go) she started complaining about why Trump fired him,

“For the president of the United States to fire with his own self-admission that he didn’t like — he was tired of the Russia-Trump probe,” she said, before stumbling over her own words.

After spending a good five seconds looking around for the right word and stammering out “uh,” Pelosi finally decided upon “distressing.”

“It’s distressing. We believe in the FBI as being an independent law enforcement agency, to be respected, and not to be fired by president because he’s tired of an investigation they’re doing,” she stated.

Throughout the entire thing Pelosi was flailing her arms about, looking like some sort of bird that didn’t quite know how to fly.

Of course throughout her answer, Pelosi never actually answered the question. That’s because the Democrats have displayed their hypocrisy for the world to see, and they are counting on the liberal media to protect them from Americans demanding answers.

You can watch the moment here:

Right now, Democrats are too busy screaming about impeachment and demanding a special prosecutor to articulate why exactly they are upset about Comey being fired.

Maybe in a few weeks they will calm down and be able to form coherent sentences. I mean, as much as they were ever able to.

12 states in for freedom: Missouri votes for Convention of States


Posted May 15, 2017 11:01 AM by Chris Pandolfo

URL of the original posting site: https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/12-states-in-for-freedom-missouri-votes-for-convention-of-states

Missouri Convention of States screenshot / Convention of States Project | YouTube

Last Friday, Missouri became the 12th state to adopt a Convention of States resolution, passing SCR4 on a vote of 26 to 7.  SCR4, sponsored by Senator Mike Kehoe, R-Jefferson City, calls for an Article V Convention of States to propose constitutional amendments “that impose fiscal restraint on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for federal officials and members of Congress.”

The Convention of States Project released a video to commemorate the resolution’s passage.

 

“The American people are growing weary of a federal government that is operating outside of its Constitutional bounds,” said Keith Carmichael, Missouri State Director for the Convention of States Project. “Neither party represents the people, but rather outside influences that help them get re-elected, so by calling a Convention of States under Article V, the states can recalibrate the balance between the federal government and return power back to the people—not to mention that a convention of this magnitude would be the biggest civics lesson of our lifetime.”

Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin broke the news on his radio program Friday evening.

“This is a big deal,” Levin said. “We’re more than a third of the way there.” 

Chris Pandolfo is a staff writer and type-shouter for Conservative Review. He holds a B.A. in politics and economics from Hillsdale College. His interests are conservative political philosophy, the American founding, and progressive rock. Follow him on Twitter for doom-saying and great album recommendations @ChrisCPandolfo.

Betrayal beyond belief: Dem priorities funded; Trump’s scuttled


Posted May 01, 2017 11:09 AM by Daniel Horowitz

URL of the original posting site: https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/betrayal-beyond-belief-dem-priorities-funded-trumps-scuttled

status quo mega phone / Ildo Frazao | Getty Images

During the 2014 elections in my home state of Maryland, there were problems with some of the ballot machines, whereby many ballots cast for Republicans “coincidentally” were automatically rendered as Democrat ballots. With the omnibus deal forged at 2 a.m. last night in Congress, this is essentially what has happened on a national level. People voted for a revolution – to drain the swamp – and out popped a Democrat budget. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find anything different about this budget from the one we would have gotten if Hillary had been elected.

Amazingly, the FY 2017 budget was deliberately held over until this year instead of being completed in October or December 2016, precisely so that the victor of the election would reap the spoils of war. Well, Democrats lost the election but won this year’s budget. The reason why it took an extra few days to forge the “deal” is because once Republicans telegraphed the message that they’d jettison every conservative priority from the budget, Democrats then held out for their priorities. By and large, they got them.

Here is the end result:

Funded

  • The bill continues funding refugee resettlement and visas from the six countries from which Trump wanted to suspend immediate immigration, despite this budget being the last recourse against the judicial tyranny. The refugee program gets $3.1 billion, the same as it did under Obama.
  • Sanctuary cities were funded, despite the judicial tyranny and the need for Congress to weigh in.
  • Planned Parenthood was funded, despite the long-standing GOP promise to fight to defund it, even when they only controlled Congress. Yes, they couldn’t even defund a private organization getting taxpayer funds to traffic baby organs.
  • Increased spending for a number of liberal priorities rather than codifying Trump’s requested $17 billion in non-defense spending cuts.
  • EPA was saved from the cuts proposed for this year by Trump’s OMB.
  • A $295.9 billion bailout for Puerto Rico’s irresponsible Medicaid program. This is on top of the bailout from last year.
  • Sec. 543 of the omnibus contains a provision opening the door for more H2-B low-skilled workers this fiscal year.
  • $990 million increase of the “Food for Peace” program in Africa.
  • Government-run health care? HHS will see a $2.8 billion boost in spending, of which $2 billion will go to the NIH, which was supposed to be cut by the Trump budget.
  • Green energy programs within the Department of Energy, programs Trump would have eliminated, received a modest spending increase.
  • The federal judiciary saw its budget increased by three percent, to $7.4 billion, from fiscal 2016, despite engaging in civil disobedience against the rule of law.
  • The unconstitutional Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is fully funded despite GOP promises to dismantle it. Richard Cordray is still serving as its director despite the change in administration.
  • California’s high-speed rail will continue to be funded by the Federal Rail Administration.

Not Funded

  • The border wall. Although $1.5 billion in additional “border security” funds were allocated, Democrats made certain to bar funding for the fence. As I’ve noted before, given the legal problems with those who step foot on our shores and the cumbersome nature of interior enforcement, anything short of the permanent deterrent of a border wall will not solve the problem.  

Indeed, the 1,665-page, $1.16 trillion omnibus is everything we would have gotten had Democrats been in charge. After they successfully got Republicans to jettison all of Trump’s priorities, Democrats secured the Puerto Rico bailout. And while the bill does not contain an Obamacare bailout (cost-sharing subsidies), the White House agreed to continue illegally promulgating the insurer bailout without congressional appropriations as part of the condition for Democrats affording Republicans the honor of capitulating to them.

The only plus side of this bill is that the president did secure a $15 billion boost for the military, but Democrats always agree to spending more on the military, as it has become a consensus, albeit without offsetting the cost with cuts to non-defense spending. That is exactly the deal they secured. They increased spending in many of the areas where Trump proposed cuts.

Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi is bragging about blocking 160 GOP priorities in the bill!

Some defenders of this deal will claim that we should wait for “the next time.” The president is coming out with the FY 2018 budget this week, and they will fight for it in September. But that budget is a complete joke. If they can’t fight for modest cuts and their basic campaign promises with control of all of government – with the momentum of the first 100 days – they certainly won’t fight later in the year for real spending cuts. Instead, the fear of a shutdown led them to increase spending. That will not change in September.  

I would have more sympathy for the president had he not spent the past month attacking conservatives on health care. He should have, instead, been shaming McConnell and the appropriators into funding his priorities the same way he shamed the Freedom Caucus to accept 20 percent repeal of Obamacare. The way for him to distinguish himself from congressional Republicans is to immediately issue a veto threat.

And now we are to believe this administration that we will repeal Obamacare in any meaningful way and get massive tax cuts when it tossed an interception on the first budget! At some point, conservatives need to wake up and smell the political adultery unfolding. Merely shouting “Gorsuch” as if it’s a punchline in itself to distract from the broader betrayal is sophomoric. Of course, we were going to get a decent judge to replace our very best when we have a GOP president, a GOP Senate, and were rid of the SCOTUS filibuster. Then again, I guess if we are judging expectations for judicial picks based on what just happened with the budget, we could have gotten an Elena Kagan.

But fear not, the best is yet to come. Gary Cohn, the Democrat running domestic policy for the administration, is promising a vote on “Obamacare” this week.

Now we can understand why McConnell and the NRSC are threatening anyone who works for Judge Roy Moore in the Alabama Senate race: They don’t want anyone elected to the Republican Party who will actually support the Republican budget and GOP platform.

At some point, conservatives need to realize they are just not wanted in the Republican Party.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: