Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Republicans’

Conservative Mom Who Famously Confronted Beto O’Rourke Scores Massive Election Win


Reported By Jack Davis | Published July 1, 2020 at 8:18am

Lauren Boebert, whose forthright defense of the Second Amendment at a rally for former Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke brought her national attention, on Tuesday won a Republican congressional primary in Colorado.

President Donald Trump retweeted a post from Boebert in which she said, “I am a mother to 4 boys. My husband and I are raising them to be strong men! I refuse to send my children into a socialist nation. Their freedom IS my motivator! Threaten the liberty of Americans, and I’ll be there to hold you accountable!”

“Congratulations on a really great win!” Trump said.

The president had earlier tweeted support for incumbent Republican Rep. Scott Tipton, who drew 45 percent of the vote compared with 55 percent for the challenger.

Boebert — who operates Shooters Grill, a restaurant in Rifle, Colorado, where all of the waitresses openly carry handguns — will face Democrat Diane Mitsch Bush in the November election.

“I’m excited and eager to take this fight on to the Democrats and represent the people of the 3rd Congressional District, just like I’ve been promising them I would,” Boebert said after the polls closed, according to The Denver Post.

Her website is an unapologetic, in-your-face declaration of opposition to all that leftist Democrats stand for.

“There is a battle for the heart and soul of our country that I intend on helping win,” Boebert says on the website. “I’m running for Congress to stand up for our conservative values, address our current representatives’ failed promises, and put far-left Democrats back in their place.”

Advertisement – story continues below

“Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Squad and the rest of these left-wing lunatics are taking a wrecking ball to our country while our current representative stays utterly silent,” she says. “Hard-working, patriotic Americans like you and me don’t want the Green New Deal and socialized medicine. Every time AOC and the rest of the Squad pipes up with another crazy idea, I will remind them that our belief in God, Country and Family are what built the United States of America into the greatest nation the world has ever known.”

Boebert also has taken a strong pro-police stand at a time when law enforcement is under attack across the country.

RELATED: NASCAR Driver Unveils ‘Trump 2020’ Paint Scheme He’ll Use Starting This Week

She crashed an O’Rourke rally last fall to take the former Texas congressman to task for saying he would take away Americans’ AR-15s if elected.

Boebert was wearing her Glock handgun as she confronted the Democratic candidate.

“I was one of the gun-owning Americans that heard your speech and heard what you had to say, regarding, ‘Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15s and your AK-47s.’ Well, I am here to say, hell no, you’re not,” she said as O’Rourke urged the crowd scolding her to allow her to speak.

Boebert said the only way citizens have to protect themselves against the evil of the world is to be ready to defend themselves.

“I would like to know how you intend to legislate evil. Because it is not the gun, it is the heart of the man that does that,” she said.

Boebert said gun confiscation would strip protection from“American citizens like myself, American mothers — I have four children, I am 5-feet-0, 100 pounds, cannot really defend myself with a fist.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Ann Coulter OPED: Yale Has to Go!


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter | Posted: Jun 17, 2020 6:00 PM

Yale Has to Go!

Source: AP Photo/Beth J. Harpaz

The Democratic Party is being forced into taking ridiculous positions by its insane base. Defund the police! Dishonor the flag! Throw Christopher Columbus in a lake!

What a wonderful gift! All Republicans have to do is take the other side. Make themselves the alternative to madness. Instead, Trump and the Republicans have decided they’re going to be “Democrats Lite.”

I’ll let others berate Republicans for doing nothing about the rioting, the arsons, the beatings, the corporate and social media canceling. This column will address the GOP’s moronitude in response to attacks on the destruction of Confederate monuments. Works of art are being destroyed by Maoist vandals who have no idea what they’re doing.

Literally no idea.

Quick! Who was Fort Bragg named after? What did he do? Do you even know his first name? When you have to Google the guy on a statue to figure out who he is, maybe it’s not really the daily humiliation you claim it is.

At this point, the military bases are famous in their own right. No one hears “Fort Hood” and thinks of Gen. John Bell Hood. Fort Bragg, home of the 82nd Airborne, is many orders of magnitude more famous than Gen. Braxton Bragg. It would be like demanding President John F. Kennedy change his name because his namesake, John Fitzgerald, was a corrupt Boston mayor.

Most obviously, the Democratic Party is going to have to change its name. You want an institution that represents slavery? Confederate politicians were all Democrats, Democrats created Jim Crow, and the founder of the party was a slave holder. (The Republican Party was founded to end slavery.)

Speaking of repellant Democrats, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said on the Senate floor this week that the United States “didn’t inherit slavery from anybody. We created it.”

This is the most ignorant statement ever made on the Senate floor. (And that’s saying something!)

Every society has had slavery; it existed long before America did, including by American Indians (though they preferred torturing their captives to death, inasmuch as few of the natives farmed or built things). From 1530 to 1780, at least a million Europeans were kidnapped by African Muslims and forced into slavery. The vast majority were starved or beaten to death.

In fact, unless we’re counting the Democrats’ wearing kente cloth last week, slavery is the only African institution ever adopted by this country. Portuguese — not Americans — brought the first slaves to Jamestown in 1619 (The New York Times’ favorite episode of American history!). We, are, however, the only country that fought a war to end slavery.

Isn’t slavery bad enough? No, Kaine has to make it extra bad by calling slavery an American invention. A U.S. senator committed a blood libel against his own country.

Anything to say, Republicans? Even Obama would have corrected this boob.

The BLM fanboys complain that other countries don’t honor the losing side in their civil wars. Yes, exactly — that’s why their wars never end.

Myanmar has been in a civil war since 1948. Israel’s been fighting Palestinians since 1948. The Kurds and Turks have been fighting for half a century. At last count, there are two civil wars going on in the Philippines, and at least three in India.

America concluded its civil war by dominating and subjugating the losers, but also honoring their bravery.

Even before the war, the South was eons behind the North in industrial development. If the entire country had been the South, America never would have become the richest, most advanced nation on Earth. (And that’s how slaves built America!) After the war, it was like a third world country. On the other hand, Southerners could take justifiable pride in what everyone agrees was a better class of general and soldier.

At Appomattox, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant allowed Gen. Robert E. Lee to keep his sword. As Lee mounted his horse to leave, Grant saluted him. After announcing the South’s surrender at the White House, President Lincoln ordered the band to play “Dixie.” It was an amazing way to end a civil war.

My ancestors were abolitionists who fought for the Union, but you don’t have to be a Southerner to care about Confederate monuments. I can’t help but notice that the people trying to obliterate our history are not part of that history.

Not that long ago, nearly all Americans had pre-Civil War ancestors. Not anymore! Recent immigrants, by which I mean people who arrived after 1865, think the country started with them. They find it hilarious to destroy anything that happened before they got here.

Talk about cultural imperialism!

What about the black Revolutionary heroes, like Crispus Attucks and Phillis Wheatley? Nope, you can forget about foundational black Americans, too. The first two centuries of our nation’s history are canceled. Why would that interest someone from Pune, India, Mogadishu, Somalia, or Bangkok, Thailand? (That would be Kshama Sawant, socialist Seattle city council member, Democrat; Rep. Ilhan Omar, Democrat; U.S. Sen. Tammy Duckworth, Democrat.)

Corporate plunderers, globalists, the wolf of Wall Street, 8 million “diversity” jobs (that go to Indians, not the descendants of American slaves, as intended) — that’s the America they revere.

The new arrivals are fine with Red Guards going into cemeteries, ripping up symbols of our heritage. Just don’t dare lay a finger on their privately owned Rothkos!

What do the Republicans say? No problem! Senate Leader Mitch McConnell says he’s “OK” with changing the names of military bases. Trump tweets narcissistic bluster.

How about a bill withholding all federal funds from Yale University until it changes its name? The school’s namesake, Elihu Yale, was not only a slave owner, but a slave trader. Quite a dilemma for the little snots who attend and teach there! It will be tremendously damaging to their brand. After all, true sublimity for a Social Justice Warrior is virtue signaling and advertising their high SAT scores at the same time.

If you refuse to fight, Republicans, don’t you at least want to have some fun?

Poll: 47% of Young Democrats Prefer Other Countries over America


Written by Alana Mastrangelo | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/01/14/poll-47-of-young-democrats-prefer-other-countries-over-america/

ORLANDO, FLORIDA – JUNE 18: An anti-Trump protester makes a sign during a protest against President Donald Trump outside a rally where Trump officially launched his re-election campaign on June 18, 2019 in Orlando, Florida. (Photo by Gerardo Mora/Getty Images) 

A shocking new poll has discovered that 47 percent of young Democrats believe that other countries are better than the United States. Moreover, many young Americans admit that they wouldn’t mind other countries becoming as militarily powerful as the United States.

Slightly more than one third — 36 percent — of Americans 18 to 29 say that other countries are better than the United States, according to a recent poll released by Pew Research.

Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents under the age of 30, nearly half, 47 percent, say that there are other countries that are better than the U.S. Meanwhile, just 20 percent of Democrats age 50 and over agree with this sentiment.

“Democrats have become more likely to say there are other countries that are better than the U.S.,”says Pew Research. “In telephone surveys, the share of Democrats saying this is higher than at any point since the question was first asked by Pew Research Center in 2011, and there has been a corresponding decline in the share saying the U.S. stands above other nations.” This poll demonstrates the dramatic shift in the Democrat party’s base, and the potential schism between traditional Democrat voters and young and woke progressives.

The study also noted that young Americans are “more likely to say it would be acceptable if another country became as militarily powerful as the U.S.”

According to Pew Research, a majority of adults — 61 percent — say that the United States should maintain its status as a military superpower, but that more than half — 55 percent — of Democrats under the age of 30 admit that they would find it acceptable if other nations became as militarily powerful as the United States.

Among young Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, these numbers are significantly lower, as just 19 percent of adults under the age of 30 agree with their young Democrat counterparts with regards to the idea that other countries are superior to the United States.

Among Republicans ages 50 and older, only 4 percent share agree with this sentiment.

The report added that while a majority of Republicans say that the Untied States should try to maintain its status as a military superpower, 38 percent of Republicans under the age of 30 say that it would be acceptable if another country became as militarily powerful as the U.S.

You can follow Alana Mastrangelo on Twitter at @ARmastrangelo, and on Instagram.

Poll: Democrats Cause Patriotism to Plummet Ahead of July 4th


Written by HARIS ALIC |

Protesters try unsuccessfully to burn an upside down US flag during a protest outside the White House in Washington, DC on November 25, 2014, one day after a grand jury decision not to prosecute a white police officer for the killing of an unarmed black teen in Ferguson, Missouri. AFP …
MLADEN ANTONOV/AFP/Getty
 

The number of Americans who consider themselves “extremely proud” of their country is at a record low ahead of Independence Day.

A new Gallup poll released on Tuesday found that while 70 percent of all U.S. adults say they are proud to be Americans, only 45 percent say they are “extremely” proud of their country.

This was the second consecutive year in which the number of individuals identifying as extremely patriotic fell below 50 percent. Overall the share of Americans identifying as “extremely” patriotic is now at the lowest level since Gallup began asking the question in 2001.

Gallup found the decline in patriotism to be largely driven by Democrats. Of those identifying with the party, only 22 percent said they were “extremely” proud to be Americans. Similarly “subgroups that typically identify as Democrats — women, liberals and younger adults,” also expressed lower levels of patriotism, according to Gallup.

The new polling confirms trends witnessed among Democrats since President Donald Trump took office. The share of Democrats expressing patriotism plummeted by double digits from 43 percent in 2017 to 32 percent in 2018. Although Democrats have historically reported lower levels of pride in their country, this year’s total of 22 percent is the lowest on record since Gallup began measuring the question.

Republicans, on the other hand, continue to express record levels of patriotism. Gallup found that 76 percent of individuals associated with the GOP identified as “extremely” proud to be Americans—only ten percentage points less than the group’s recorded high in 2003.

Even though Gallup shows a correlation between levels of patriotism and which party controls the White House, the level of pride among Democrats since Trump took office is exponentially low. During the administration of President George W. Bush, the percent of Democrats expressing extreme pride in their country never fell under 46 percent. In comparison, during the presidency of Barack Obama the share of Republicans identifying as extremely proud to be American never dropped below 68 percent.

Gallup, however, did find that the two parties more broadly agreed about “American economic achievements,” with 89 percent of Republicans and 64 percent of Democrats expressing pride. Likewise, Republicans and Democrats showed reverence for the U.S. military, with 98 percent of Republicans and 84 percent of Democrats saying they were proud of the institution.

Gallup conducted the poll between June 3 through June 16 by surveying 1,015 adults from across the country. The poll had a margin of error of +\- 4 percentage points.

NYT Tries To Fact Check Trump’s Tweet on Abortion, Immediately Ends Up Backfiring on Twitter


Reported By Ben Marquis | Published March 1, 2019 at 1:21am

In light of the recent fierce discussion over late-term and even post-birth abortions, Republican Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse introduced a bill called the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would require doctors and medical personnel to make all efforts to save the life of a baby that survived an attempted abortion, rather than kill it or stand idly by while it died naturally.

Incredibly, that bill failed to achieve the necessary votes for passage on Monday, according to The Daily Wire, after only three Democrats joined with Republicans to vote in favor of saving an abortion survivor’s life, while 44 other Senate Democrats heartlessly voted against the measure.

In response to that grotesque and disheartening outcome, President Donald Trump excoriated Democrats in a pair of fiery tweets Monday evening, calling the left “extreme” for being in favor of “executing babies” after they had been born.

Trump tweeted, “Senate Democrats just voted against legislation to prevent the killing of newborn infant children. The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth.”

He added, “This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress. If there is one thing we should all agree on, it’s protecting the lives of innocent babies.”

As if on cue, The New York Times set about the next day with an attempt to “fact check” the president’s outraged tweets, but that effort failed in rather stunning fashion — at least on social media.

Just scroll down through the overwhelmingly negative comments on the tweet from The Times.

The article from The Times glossed over what the bill would actually do — “require doctors to use all means available to save the life of a child born alive after an attempted abortion” — while highlighting criticism from opponents who falsely claimed the measure was “aimed at discouraging doctors from performing legal abortions.”

The article also argued that the bill was redundant due to a 2002 law known as the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, though they failed to mention that prior law had no teeth for enforcement.

The Times article then quoted a couple doctors who insisted that babies surviving attempted abortions “hardly ever happens,” and provided various facts and figures about the age of infant viability to support the notion that late-term abortions are exceedingly rare — around 1 percent of all abortions — without mentioning that the 1 percent is still in the ballpark of around 10,000 such deadly procedures per year.

Yet, the Times admitted near the end of the article that aborted babies sometimes are born alive, and that doctors and patients will allow the baby to die naturally, all while being kept comfortable” — echoing what Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam said in early February.

The article also admitted in the eighth paragraph, “The bill would force doctors to resuscitate such an infant, even if the parents did not want those measures.”

The tweet-trackers at Twitchy compiled a couple dozen of the brutal responses they received from Twitter users to highlight just how enormously the “fact check” of Trump’s tweets had backfired on The Times.

Countless users wondered why Democrats would vote against the bill if the issue the bill addressed was truly so “rare” and uncommon, as if that were indeed the case, a vote in favor of it really wouldn’t matter.

One user referenced Gov. Northam’s despicable commentary, and tweeted, “How can you work for the NYTimes and not know what Northam said, which kicked all this off? He specifically talked about newborns being born and then a discussion on what to do with them. This is why you’re fake news.”

Still another user hinted at Northam’s remarks and noted, “‘rarely born alive’ I guess that’s okay then! As long as they’re just rarely murdered after they’re already born and alive! Hopefully they’re kept comfortable!”

There isn’t near enough room here to include all of the saddened or snarky replies to The Times, but suffice it to say, the effort to “fact check” the president’s righteous and justified anger while defending Democrats voting against saving the life of newborn infants did not go over well, at all.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Ben Marquis is a writer who identifies as a constitutional conservative/libertarian. His focus is on protecting the First and Second Amendments. He has covered current events and politics for Conservative Tribune since 2014.

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.

Dems AWOL as Last Week Marked 153 Years Since the GOP Outlawed Slavery Forever


Reported By Cillian Zeal | December 10, 2018 at 9:03am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/dems-awol-last-week-marked-153-years-since-gop-outlawed-slavery-forever/

The Lincoln Memorial

The Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. (KSB / Shutterstock)

It’s a fairly short piece of law, too: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction,” the amendment reads.

It also gives Congress the power to enforce the law.

Now, the traditional anniversary of the end of slavery, at least in the African-American community, is Juneteenth — June 19, the date in 1865 when Maj. Gen. Gordon Granger of the Union Army read the Emancipation Proclamation to slaves in Galveston, Texas. However, when the 13th Amendment celebrated its 153rd birthday on Dec. 6, it didn’t get a whole lot of mention. And what definitely didn’t get mentioned is that it wouldn’t exist if Democrats had their way.

As Ourdocuments.gov notes, “The 13th Amendment was passed at the end of the Civil War before the Southern states had been restored to the Union and should have easily passed the Congress.

“Although the Senate passed it in April 1864, the House did not. At that point, Lincoln took an active role to ensure passage through Congress. He insisted that passage of the 13th Amendment be added to the Republican Party platform for the upcoming presidential elections. His efforts met with success when the House passed the bill in January 1865 with a vote of 119–56.”

Indeed, it had to be ratified before the Southern states rejoined the union. The reason is that the Democrats considered Dixie their own personal fiefdom up until the late 1960s. Jim Crow laws, segregated schools, the KKK, massive resistance, eugenics — all of these things were brought to you by the Democratic Party and vigorously fought by the Republicans.

But, you say, what about the “great switch?” That’s when the Democrats supposedly became the party of racial justice, all put into motion to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Well, yes, about that. The bill couldn’t have passed without Republican support.

Even the U.K. Guardian, of all sources, notes that “80 percent of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill. Less than 70 percent of Democrats did. Indeed, Minority Leader Republican Everett Dirksen led the fight to end the filibuster. Meanwhile, Democrats such as Richard Russell of Georgia and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina tried as hard as they could to sustain a filibuster.”

The vote was taken during the “Solid South” era, where almost every elected official below the Mason-Dixon was a Democrat. Only eight out of 102 representatives from the former Confederacy voted for the bill in the House and one of 22 voted for it in the Senate.

Yet, the fact that the South is now pretty solidly Republican always brings a asking from Democrats, who constantly mistake the new South — the product of economic growth and migration — with the old South they provided over for so many years.

They lament the racism they so successfully fomented for years, as if their party played no role in it. They’ve washed their hands clean. As “penance,” they’ve taken on a different form of identity politics which doesn’t involve standing in the schoolhouse door but is every bit as pernicious.

That’s why the 13th Amendment ought to be celebrated a bit more, we think. Not only did it officially end slavery and passed without Democratic support, it had to be passed before the Southern Democrats could rejoin the Union, lest they continue one of the most evil practices in the history of this planet.

The Democrats have always been the party of oppression and identity politics, whether it be Dec. 6, 1865 or Dec. 6, 2018. If only America would remember that. The Democrats would certainly prefer you didn’t.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Summary

More Info Recent Posts

Writing under a pseudonym, Cillian Zeal is a conservative writer who is currently living abroad in a country that doesn’t value free speech. Exercising it there under his given name could put him in danger.

Dick Morris: Trump’s Base Returns in Nick of Time


Opinion By Dick Morris | October 22, 2018 at 10:53am

The voters who elected Donald Trump in 2016 are returning to him just as the midterms approach. With their help, Trump has recorded his highest job approval in the WSJ/NBC poll since he took office — 47 percent.

But the real story is behind the numbers. Trump’s base — white non-college voters (38 percent of the country) is rallying to his candidates just as they did in the closing weeks of 2017. According to a Fox News poll, the only one that measures white non-college voters as a discrete group, Trump’s approval has surged among these folks.

In August 2016, his margin of approval over disapproval was only 11 points (54-43).  By September, it had risen to a 17 point margin (57-40).

In their latest poll, Oct. 13-16, it surged to a 21 point margin (60-39).

These voters are coming home.

This base lives in a place that is a blind spot for the mainstream media. It doesn’t really know that these voters exist. They live away from the West Coast and outside of the Northeast. They haven’t been to college. And they are white. The failure to measure their changing opinions is responsible for the media’s error in predicting a Hillary Clinton victory in 2016 — and they haven’t changed their methodology since.

Trump’s base hides in plain sight during the bulk of the year. Estranged from the political process, they don’t follow it closely except when their man is in danger and summons them forth. That’s why the GOP did not do as well in the special elections of the past two years as Trump had hoped. But when the national fireball rings, they wake up and respond.

The controversy over the Kavanaugh nomination and the phony stories of sexual abuse energized the sleeping giant and motivated the voters to return to the Trump banner. Since, by emphasizing the immigration issue and the caravan arriving from Central America, he has held their attention.

The national polling is slow to pick them up on its radar. While their participation and increasing enthusiasm shows up quickly in the national job approval polling, it is slower to make its impact felt in the less frequent polling of the nation’s Senate races. The House polling, less frequent still, takes even longer to manifest their participation, but they are there, moving the needle.

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

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Dick Morris is a former adviser to President Bill Clinton as well as a political author, pollster and consultant. His most recent book, “Rogue Spooks,” was written with his wife, Eileen McGann.

Scalia’s Daughter-in-Law Goes Nuclear on Democrats over Kavanaugh


Reported By Benjamin Arie | October 6, 2018 at

7:17am

Democrats desperately hoped that their antics surrounding the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh would keep him off the Supreme Court … but their actions seem to have seriously backfired. Instead of stopping the conservative judge, liberals appear to have unified the right.

Recent polls show that voters are re-energized to support Republicans in the upcoming midterm elections, and a majority of citizens of all backgrounds disapprove of how Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, in particular, handled the unproven accusations against Kavanaugh.

Now, it looks like the left’s treatment of Kavanaugh may be repelling political moderates and independents. That’s the message of Adele Scalia, the daughter-in-law of late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in early 2016.

The former justice may have been known as a conservative, but Adele Scalia is not.

“I’ve always considered myself politically moderate: I am unapologetically pro-life, but my views on affirmative action, Black Lives Matter, and gun control made me sympathize strongly with Democratic perspectives and occasionally led to arguments with my husband and father-in-law,” she wrote in an Op-Ed piece published by The Federalist.

Scalia checks many of the identity politics boxes revered by modern liberals. She’s a female, of course, and is also a “person of color” who immigrated from Trinidad and Tobago. As she pointed out herself in her article, she was never completely comfortable with the Republican party for a variety of reasons.

All that changed thanks to the appalling treatment of Kavanaugh by Democrats, and their rejection of evidence or presumption of innocence in favor of a political witch hunt.

“I have become a unicorn,” Scalia wrote.

“All it took was Democrats’ treatment of Brett Kavanaugh over the last few weeks to turn me into that elusive creature: a minority, immigrant woman who supports Republicans,” the former attorney and stay-at-home mother said.

Mincing no words, Scalia declared that what she saw happen over the last few weeks “convinced me that Democrats are not who they claim to be.”

“The party that established itself as a champion for the voiceless, powerless, and wrongfully accused, betrayed its values and launched a vicious attack on Kavanaugh that left him voiceless, powerless, and completely incapable of defending himself,” she wrote.

Scalia pointed out something that a few others have also noticed: Despite constantly pretending to stand for the rights of the accused when it comes to urban minorities, the left betrayed those principles when it came to a conservative white male.

“Against all logic and good faith, they released uncorroborated allegations of sexual misconduct to the public, counting on the backdrop of the ‘Me Too’ movement to make them that much harder to criticize or ignore. I still cannot reconcile these actions with the social and criminal justice reform platforms that Democrats campaign on,” she wrote.

Then she revealed something that should be a red alert to Democrats: For the first time since legally entering the country, Scalia feels compelled to officially become a full citizen so she can vote … for Republicans.

“These events opened my eyes to the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party,” Scalia declared, summarizing the problem.

The left just created a new minority, female immigrant conservative voter — and there could be many more previously undecided voters who have been motivated by the kangaroo court of last two weeks.

Well done, Democrats.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Benjamin Arie has been a political junkie since the hotly contested 2000 election. Ben settled on journalism after realizing he could get paid to rant. He cut his teeth on car accidents and house fires as a small-town reporter in Michigan before becoming a full-time political writer.

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.

Judge Jeanine Tarnishes Obama Legacy in Brutal Fashion


Reported By Lisa Payne-Naeger | September 9, 2018 at

12:58pm

You’ve got to love Judge Jeanine Pirro and her common-sense plain talk. She speaks to mainstream Americans just as well as, if not better than, President Donald Trump on matters that are near and dear to their hearts, on issues that affect their lives on a daily basis.

In her latest monologue Saturday night, Pirro brilliantly outlined why Americans rebelled against the establishment of either party to elect Trump.

On Friday former President Barack Obama spoke at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and in that speech he unloaded on the current administration with countless criticisms. Not only did he try his best to cast the Trump White House in a bad light, he tried to take credit for Trump administration successes.

That gave Pirro all the ammunition she needed to so succinctly outline the current differences between the mindset of voters who elected the current president and their mindset when they elected him.

And in the “Opening Statement” segment of Fox News’ “Justice with Judge Jeanine,” she held nothing back.

She began: “All of you have a decision to make. It has never happened in the history of this country, an ex-president viciously attacking his successor, trashing our commander in chief, his party and all those Americans who put him in the Oval Office…

“There is so much hatred and resentment over the success of this president that they simply cannot handle it. I’ve got news for you. It’s not going to stop. The haters aren’t going anywhere. But if you’re a patriot and you like the course America is on, just ignore them, get behind this president and vote.

“Yesterday, with a full-throttle savage attack on the president, Barack’s message, obstruct and resist. He pontificates about the reality of racial discrimination, slavery and the quote, ‘darker aspects of America’s story’ …”

Pirro went on to cite various instances in which Obama and his administration facilitated racial and religious division in the nation. She skillfully dissected Obama’s comments on the economy, Middle East policy, relations with Russia, money to the Clinton Foundation, antifa and the various other narratives Obama pushes to stoke his base into hatred and division.

The list is long.

Pirro addressed Obama directly and at length: “You ran the most corrupted administration since Harry Truman and you can’t stand it that every metric under Trump is better off than when you were in office.

“And Donald Trump is one of the biggest threats to our democracy? How dare you? This man is the president of the United States, someone that we put in office and he is to be respected. Your attack on him as a racist and a fascist is not about making things better for us, its about you, your ego and your corrupt, deep-state power structure…

“You desperately tried to defeat Trump and it didn’t work. And you remain in Washington to support the resistance and obstruction of a sitting American president while you stoke your racial cop -ating narrative.”

As Pirro tied it all together, it almost seems too simple. Americans have seen through the smoke-and-mirrors version of the nation presented by the left.

“Your version of America is not the America we want,” Pirro said, still addressing Obama. “To us, social justice is about justice for American citizens, and not illegal criminals. To us, social justice is about taking care of veterans who come back to our shores with fewer limbs than when they left. To us, social justice is not about burning our flag. It is about raising it and lifting it.

“I’m sorry to say this, but there’s one thing that you’re going to have to live with. The only reason that we have an outsider businessman president is because of you, your lies, your policies and your divisiveness. You, Barack. You elected Donald Trump and there’s nothing you can do about the fact that he’s sitting in the Oval Office now. So I guess I should say, thank you, Barack.”

Barack Obama should know better than to try to speak out against a sitting president, especially this one. Americans have woken up to the fact that they are better off under policies that support capitalism, less regulation and thriving economy rather than divisiveness, open boarders and socialism.

And Judge Jeanine delivered a perfect narrative to describe what Americans are thinking, regardless of the critical narrative presented by Obama and the left. If Obama is upset at seeing his legacy go up in smoke, he has no one to blame but himself .

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.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


Wave Goodbye

More and more, due to the booming economy and the recent May “Jobs Report”, the blue wave may be turning into a Small trickle.

The Blue Wave Trickle

Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

More A.F. Branco cartoons at Constitution.com here.

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

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been seen all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News” and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, and even the great El Rushbo.

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

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


The Orange Wave

The Democrats blue wave may be drowned out by the all of Trump’s achievements this coming midterm election.

Trump’s Achievements

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

More A.F. Branco cartoons at Constitution.com here.

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

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been seen all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News” and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, and even the great El Rushbo.

Pollster Gets Shock Trump Results, Immediately Disavows Own Poll


disclaimerReported By Ben Marquis | May 7, 2018 at 8:24am

Much has been said and written about the use of polls and polling data over the past few years, particularly as it related to candidate-turned-President Donald Trump and typically in regard to how poll samples are skewed to disfavor him and marginalize his support.

According to Breitbart, a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Friday contained results that were so against the grain of that poll’s usual results that the pollsters actually added in a sort of disclaimer when the results were released, seemingly disavowing the results of their own poll.

The openly stated reason for that disavowal was that the poll showed a sudden spike in support for the president and a number of his policies over the most recent polling period. 

That would be the latest weekly approval numbers compiled by the Reuters/Ipsos polling team, which placed Trump’s approval rating at 48 percent and disapproval at 49 percent among all adults — with a 49-49 tie among registered voters — for the period of April 27-May 1, a significant uptick in approval over the prior week’s results.

That sudden surge in Trump’s approval compelled the pollsters to preface their report with an explanation that cast the shocking results as an outlier they refused to accept as reality, but would report to the public nonetheless.

“This week’s Reuters/Ipsos Core Political release presents something of an outlier of our trend,” cautioned the pollsters. “Every series of polls has the occasional outlier and in our opinion this is one. 

“So, while we are reporting the findings in the interest of transparency, we will not be announcing the start of a new trend until we have more data to validate this pattern.”

Interestingly, when Trump’s approval rating was broken down by party line, it showed the president received 20-79 approval versus disapproval among Democrats, 81-18 approval among Republicans and a 51-45 split in his favor among independents.

A breakdown of the issues shows where Trump’s support is strong, as he cleared the 50 percent approval threshold on a number of incredibly important issues, including the economy (57-39), employment and jobs (59-35), dealing with the Islamic State group (58-35) and taxation (52-42).
Even on the hot-button issue of immigration, Trump came out ahead with a rating of 50-47 percent in his favor. 

The president was also winning support, albeit with slimmer margins, on the issues of foreign policy (48-45), dealing with Congress (47-46) and international trade (49-43).

On a separate but important note as we approach the midterm elections, the Reuters/Ipsos poll showed Democrats held only a slight five-point lead over Republicans on the generic Congressional ballot — 39-34 percent — with 14 percent undecided.

Unfortunately for Democrats, while their base was a bit more solid than Republicans in this measure, the poll showed independents leaning more toward the GOP — 22-19 percent — with 19 percent supporting a third party and 31 percent still undecided.

The poll of 1,548 Americans doesn’t appear to be as skewed toward the left as we have seen with other polls. Samples included 556 Democrats, 579 Republicans and 163 independents — though as a whole the respondents appeared to identify slightly more as Democrat than Republican.

If the Reuters/Ipsos poll is truly an outlier, we’ll know for sure in another week or two if those numbers remain reverse dramatically.

That said, there is no denying that Trump has recently been gaining steam — particularly in regard to the economy, jobs and potential peace with North Korea, to say nothing of a possibleKanye bump — so much so that even the pollsters have to admit that more Americans view Trump as “winning” than they would have imagined.please likeand share and leave a comment

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 INCOREECT Cartoons for Thursday March 29, 2018


Today’s TWO Politically INCORRECT Cartoons by A.F. Branco


Where do you Stand?

Democrats seem to be running against American citizen’s safety and well being with their push for open borders.

Democrats Against American CitizensPolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.
See more Conservative Daily News cartoons here

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

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

That’s Show Business

CNN and the mainstream media policy of never let a chance to damage Trump go to waste have pushed the Parkland kids aside for porn star Stormy Daniels.

Stormy Daniels TrumpPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.

More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for February 26, 2018


More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for February 14, 2018


More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for February 13, 2018


More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons February 12 2018


More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Thursday February 1, 2018


 

More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Wednesday January 31, 2018


More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for January 25, 2018


More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Wednesday January 24, 2018


More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Tuesday January 23, 2018


More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Today January 18 2018


Celebrity Billionaire Presidency


Posted by Chip Bok | January 9, 2018

celebrity billionaire presidency

It looks like we might not have corrupt campaign funding to kick around anymore. The 2020 presidential field is filling up with billionaire celebrities who can fund their own campaign corruption. And that’s not to mention the free publicity they’ll get.

Oprah gave a speech at the Golden Globes setting off speculation she wants to be president. Her celebrity colleagues went wild. Presumably she’ll run as a Democrat.

Celebrity Billionaire Presidency

And Mark Cuban, the celebrity billionaire owner of the Dallas Mavericks, has long been considering throwing his NBA championship ring in the ring. If he does so, he says he’ll run as a Republican. Though, as of November he said there’s only a 10% chance he’ll do it.

Maybe Oprah will inspire him.

Three Huge, Totally Unexpected Surprises to Look for in 2018. Check Washington’s conventional political wisdom — then look the other way to see where U.S. is headed in next 12 months


Reported by Mark Tapscott | Updated 28 Dec 2017 at 9:00 AM

Here are three leading examples of the conventional wisdom among Washington’s political experts about what will happen in 2018:

  • Democrats will ride a “blue wave” of congressional campaign victories to retake control of Congress, gaining majorities in the Senate and the House of Representatives.
  • Only the richest Americans will benefit economically from passage of President Donald Trump’s tax cuts, as the stall in middle-class prosperity continues.
  • Special counsel Robert Mueller will indict a host of former Trump campaign and administration figures — then the chief executive himself will be impeached and convicted by the blue wave Democratic majority in Congress.

Now here’s what will actually happen next year:

There won’t be a blue wave. In New York magazine’s Daily Intelligencer blog, Ed Kilgore captures the conventional wisdom’s assumption about next year’s midterm elections, saying that even if Roy Moore had somehow eked out a victory in Alabama, “It is impossible to take an honest look at the overall pattern of 2017 contests without hearing the not-so-distant rumbling of a likely 2018 wave for Democrats.”

Forget the Democrats’ blue wave. There are three reasons it won’t happen. First, Democrats will have to defend 25 Senate seats (26 if Minnesota’s Al Franken actually resigns), compared to only eight for the Republicans. Half a dozen of those Democrats are running in states Trump carried handily in 2016.

Second, Doug Jones wins in Alabama only by running against Moore in 2017. Democrats are too obsessed with identity politics to permit another Jones to win their primaries in other states in 2018. There are no more Blue Dogs capable of winning because the Democratic base views “moderation” as selling out to the White Racist Supremacy Hegemony, whatever that is.

Third, Roy Moore, the fatally flawed candidate, lost the Alabama Senate race, not populist conservative views. Democrats just don’t get that. There will be many more Republicans on the Tom Cotton model in coming years. Moore, like 2017’s snow in Houston and Galveston, is a once-in-a-lifetime event.

Put it all together, and this calculus means Democrats will more likely lose Senate seats, not gain them. And the House will be a disappointment for them as well, with very minimal gains at best. Some of us remember a similar Republican optimism going into the 1998 midterms.

Middle America prospers big-time in 2018. Now, about the economy, it has been axiomatic among the Washington elites since 1978 — when Congress enacted the Steiger Amendment cutting the capital gains tax and thereby provided a perfect predicate to the Reagan individual tax cuts in 1981 — that “only the rich benefit” from reduced federal levies.

As the Institute for Policy Studies’ Josh Hoxie put it, shortly before the Trump tax reforms were approved by Congress without a single Democratic vote, the measure represents “the biggest wealth grab in modern history.”

Similarly, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities — the gold standard for conventional liberal Democratic economic analyses — insisted the Trump reform’s corporate tax cuts won’t help individuals “because workers would only receive a quarter or less of the benefits from tax cuts. And among those workers, it’s likely the higher earners that would benefit.”

Wrong. There are two key reasons why middle-class Americans will benefit enormously beginning in 2018.

  • First, even the reliably liberal Tax Policy Center conceded, according to Vox, that “the bill would reduce taxes for Americans in all income groups in 2018 — increasing after-tax income by an average of 2.2 percent.”

That means millions of middle-class earners will keep thousands of dollars of added income every year for the next eight years. True, the amount will steadily decrease as 2025 approaches and the reductions are planned to expire, but billions of dollars in additional spending, plus job growth and continued consumer confidence, mean significantly heightened prosperity for Middle America, beginning in 2018.

  • The second reason Middle America will see big economic gains is the Trump reform’s treatment of state and local tax deductions (SALT). Prior to 2018, high-tax blue states and localities didn’t have to worry about imposing too heavy taxation, since their residents could deduct the levies. But Trump caps the deduction at $10,000. That cap will speed up the out-migration from blue states, especially New York, California and Illinois. Millions of people in recent years have left high-tax states and moved either south or west, but especially to Texas, which has for a decade been an engine of economic growth for the whole country.

As the Daily Signal reported in February 2017: “Over the past decade, New York has suffered a net loss of nearly 1.5 million residents and over 650,000 Illinoisans have moved elsewhere. Meanwhile, Texas, a right-to-work state with no income or estate tax, saw its population grow by 1.3 million.”

Capping the SALT provision of the federal tax code will accelerate the blue state out-migration, sending millions more people looking for new jobs and opportunities in growing, mostly red, southern and western states. Most of them will be middle- or lower-income earners seeking to move up.

No blue wave means no Trump impeachment. If, as predicted above, Democrats fail to regain a congressional majority, there obviously won’t be a serious impeachment effort against Trump. Where will that leave Mueller’s Russia collusion investigation? Mueller may be occupied with his own problems come spring 2018.

Watch for the report of Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz on the FBI, the Clinton email investigation, and the infamous “tarmac meeting” between former President Bill Clinton and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Horowitz has a history with the FBI and some of his former colleagues at the Department of Justice. He rallied 45 other IGs in 2014 to demand the FBI, DOJ, and multiple other agencies stop routinely violating the 1978 law giving them unlimited access to all federal documents. Congress did as Horowitz demanded. It was the FBI that especially raised Horowitz’s ire, as seen in this 2015 letter to Congress. The FBI director at the time was … James Comey.

Horowitz is a straight-arrow, tough-minded investigator, not unlike John Sopko, the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction, who has repeatedly blistered U.S. politicians and military leaders while exposing colossal waste, fraud and corruption. Nobody in either party will be spared when Horowitz releases his report.

Senior editor Mark Tapscott can be reached at mark.tapscott@lifezette.com. Follow him on Twitter.

(photo credit, homepage images: Donald Trump, CC BY-SA 2.0, by Gage SkidmoreRobert Mueller, CC BY 2.0, by Ryan J. Reilly)

More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons


Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


Merry Historic Christmas

Every Democrat voted against most Americans keeping more of their hard-earned money. how will voters react in 2018?

Tax Cuts Pass Without DemocratsPolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.

Ann Coulter Blows the Lid Off the ‘Surprising’ Number of Problems with Accusations Against Roy Moore


Reported By Randy DeSoto | December 7, 2017 at 12:22pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournalism.com/ann-coulter-blows-lid-off-surprising-number-problems-accusations-roy-moore/?

In an op-ed published Wednesday, conservative commentator Ann Coulter sought to counter the prolific misrepresentations by media outlets in their reporting about Alabama U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore.

“It’s hard to disprove accusations from 40 years ago — that’s why we have statutes of limitations — but, despite that, there are a surprising number of problems with the allegations against Moore,” Coulter — a lawyer and former federal court of appeals judicial clerk — wrote in a piece for Breitbart.

“Contrary to what you have heard one million times a day on TV, there aren’t ‘multiple accusers.’ There are two, and that’s including the one with the fishy yearbook inscription whose stepson says she’s lying,” Coulter highlighted.

As reported by The Western Journal, accuser Beverly Young Nelson’s attorney Gloria Allred has refused to turn over a yearbook she claims was inscribed by Moore in 1977 to a neutral party in order for the handwriting and the date of the ink to be analyzed. The yearbook was presented as proof by Allred at a news conference that Moore and Young knew each other.

Regarding Moore’s other accuser, Leigh Corfman (featured in the Nov. 9 Washington Post story alleging Moore sexually touched her in 1979 when she was 14), Coulter contended her account has problems too.

“The main accuser has gotten a lot of her facts wrong, such as where she was living at the time (she moved to another town 10 days after meeting Moore); the corner where she allegedly met Moore for their liaisons (she named a corner more than a mile away from her house, across a busy intersection); and when she began to get into trouble with boys and alcohol (it was before meeting Moore, not after),” Coulter wrote.

Further, “There’s a lot of room between HE’S A CHILD MOLESTER and THE WOMEN ARE LIARS,” she added.

“They could be misremembering. They could be confusing Moore with someone else. They could be suggestible. They could be delusional. They could have repeated the story to themselves so many times that they believe it,” Coulter said.

As for the other “accusers” who claimed they dated Moore when they were between 16 and 19 and Moore was in his early 30s, Coulter pointed out that comedian Jerry Seinfeld dated 17-year-old Shoshanna Lonstein in the 1990s, when he was 39. Therefore, Moore was closer in age than Seinfeld to those he allegedly dated.

Coulter circled back to one of her main concerns with the allegations.

“It was 40 years ago!” she wrote. “But it’s just weeks before the election and that’s the media’s favorite time to produce wild accusations against Republicans.”

The conservative commentator recounted other late-in-the race grenades lobbed against Republican candidates in the past, including an indictment of former Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger four days before the 1992 presidential election by independent counsel Lawrence Walsh, which seemed to implicate George H.W. Bush in a lie regarding the 1987 Iran-Contra Scandal.

In 2004, CBS’s Dan Rather employed documents easily discovered to be forged to report George W. Bush had shirked his National Guard service during the Vietnam War.

Coulter also contrasted the reporting Moore is receiving for alleged sexual contact in the 1970s versus that given to former Democrat Rep. Gerry Studds, who admitted to having homosexual relations with a 17-year-old congressional page in the 1980s. Studds defended his actions, saying it was a “consensual relationship with a young adult,” according to The Associated Press.

“Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy denounced the ‘witch hunt’ against Studds, saying his critics wanted ‘to torch the congressman for his private life,’” Coulter wrote.

The House censured him, but he was not removed from office, and successfully ran for re-election six more times.

Studds was lionized when he died in 2006 by The Washington Post (“Gay Pioneer“), The New York Times (“First Openly Gay Congressman“), NPR (“Congressional Pioneer“) among other mainstream media outlets.

Coulter, who endorsed Rep. Mo Brooks over Moore in the Alabama Republican primary this summer, concluded her piece by writing, “The media say that Republicans support Moore just because they want another GOP vote in the Senate. I support Moore just because I hate the media.”

As reported by The Western Journal, Brooks, who announced last week he had already voted for Moore by absentee ballot, offered a similar rebuttal to the allegations against Moore as Coulter.

“What you have is the mainstream left-wing socialist Democrat news media trying to distort the evidence to cause people to reach the conclusion that Roy Moore engaged in unlawful conduct with a minor and my analysis of the evidence is that is not the case,” Brooks said last week on “The Dale Jackson Show,” a program on Alabama radio station WVNN-AF.

“Most importantly, the media likes to say ‘well, there are nine complainers.’ Seven of them aren’t complainers. In fact, I would be calling seven of those ladies as witnesses on behalf of Roy Moore on the issue of whether he is engaged in any kind of unlawful conduct,” the former prosecutor added.

Brooks continued, “There are only two that have asserted that Roy Moore engaged in unlawful conduct. One of those is clearly a liar because that one forged the ‘love, Roy Moore’ part of a yearbook in order to try to for whatever reason get at Roy Moore and win this seat for the Democrats and there’s a lot more to it as to why I believe that the evidence is almost incontrovertible about whether the yearbook was forged.”

The congressman went on to note that just left one accuser. “Well, that one witness’ testimony is in direct and stark contrast with that of the other seven ladies, who said that he acted like an officer and a gentleman.”

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

Student’s T-Shirt Steals Show During Melania Visit


Reported By Ben Marquis | October 24, 2017 at 3:11pm

URL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/students-t-shirt-steals-show/?

First lady Melania Trump — joined by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos — paid a visit to a school in Detroit on Monday afternoon to spend some time speaking with the children.

According to Politico, Trump spoke to the students about identifying and guarding against the act of bullying, and urged them “be yourself” while also making sure to treat each other with “respect and compassion.”

On top of that, she also urged the children to always say “no” to alcohol, cigarettes and drugs, and joined the students in the cafeteria to promote her “No One Eats Alone” campaign that encourages students to take it upon themselves to join others sitting alone at a table at lunch time.

While the visit went quite well and Trump was well-received by the children — with whom she is obviously at ease — one particular student garnered some attention for the shirt that he was wearing during the visit, according to Independent Journal Review.

The young boy was wearing what appeared to be a Nike T-shirt bearing the words “Destroy Excuses,” a message likely intended as a challenge for those pushing to improve themselves in their workouts or athletics, but one that can also be applied to just about every other aspect of life.

To be sure, that message needs to be heard by failed Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who can’t seem to come up with enough excuses as to why she lost the 2016 election, as well as the rest of her Democrat Party, which always seem able to find an excuse for bad behavior from anybody … provided they share the same liberal ideology.

The “Destroy Excuses” message also needs to be taken to heart by the Republican Party, which for years have begged and pleaded with voters to grant them more control and power to push forward their agenda — yet have done next to nothing but offer up excuses now that they hold the House, Senate, and the presidency.

In the rest of the non-politicized world (or what little that’s left of it), the message of destroying excuses can be applied to one’s job, studies, relationships or virtually any other of life’s endeavors in which obstacles need to be overcome, not excused and allowed to persist.

This young student’s T-shirt bore a message that exemplifies the attitude of Trump and his supporters, one of taking responsibility, assigning accountability and persevering towards victory no matter what. It is a message we all should adopt and hold dear.

FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow


Reported

 
 
 

Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.

Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.

They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.

The racketeering scheme was conducted “with the consent of higher level officials” in Russia who “shared the proceeds” from the kickbacks, one agent declared in an affidavit years later.

ADVERTISEMENT

Rather than bring immediate charges in 2010, however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, essentially leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefiting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions.The first decision occurred in October 2010, when the State Department and government agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States unanimously approved the partial sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to the Russian nuclear giant Rosatom, giving Moscow control of more than 20 percent of America’s uranium supply.

When this sale was used by Trump on the campaign trail last year, Hillary Clinton’s spokesman said she was not involved in the committee review and noted the State Department official who handled it said she “never intervened … on any [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] matter.”

In 2011, the administration gave approval for Rosatom’s Tenex subsidiary to sell commercial uranium to U.S. nuclear power plants in a partnership with the United States Enrichment Corp. Before then, Tenex had been limited to selling U.S. nuclear power plants reprocessed uranium recovered from dismantled Soviet nuclear weapons under the 1990s Megatons to Megawatts peace program.

“The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns. And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions,” a person who worked on the case told The Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution by U.S. or Russian officials.

The Obama administration’s decision to approve Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One has been a source of political controversy since 2015. That’s when conservative author Peter Schweitzer and The New York Times documented how Bill Clinton collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in Russian speaking fees and his charitable foundation collected millions in donations from parties interested in the deal while Hillary Clinton presided on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

The Obama administration and the Clintons defended their actions at the time, insisting there was no evidence that any Russians or donors engaged in wrongdoing and there was no national security reason for any member of the committee to oppose the Uranium One deal.

But FBI, Energy Department and court documents reviewed by The Hill show the FBI in fact had gathered substantial evidence well before the committee’s decision that Vadim Mikerin — the main Russian overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion inside the United States — was engaged in wrongdoing starting in 2009.

Then-Attorney General Eric Holder was among the Obama administration officials joining Hillary Clinton on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States at the time the Uranium One deal was approved. Multiple current and former government officials told The Hill they did not know whether the FBI or DOJ ever alerted committee members to the criminal activity they uncovered.

Spokesmen for Holder and Clinton did not return calls seeking comment. The Justice Department also didn’t comment.

Mikerin was a director of Rosatom’s Tenex in Moscow since the early 2000s, where he oversaw Rosatom’s nuclear collaboration with the United States under the Megatons to Megwatts program and its commercial uranium sales to other countries. In 2010, Mikerin was dispatched to the U.S. on a work visa approved by the Obama administration to open Rosatom’s new American arm called Tenam.

Between 2009 and January 2012, Mikerin “did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire confederate and agree with other persons … to obstruct, delay and affect commerce and the movement of an article and commodity (enriched uranium) in commerce by extortion,” a November 2014 indictment stated.

His illegal conduct was captured with the help of a confidential witness, an American businessman, who began making kickback payments at Mikerin’s direction and with the permission of the FBI. The first kickback payment recorded by the FBI through its informant was dated Nov. 27, 2009, the records show.

In evidentiary affidavits signed in 2014 and 2015, an Energy Department agent assigned to assist the FBI in the case testified that Mikerin supervised a “racketeering scheme” that involved extortion, bribery, money laundering and kickbacks that were both directed by and provided benefit to more senior officials back in Russia.

“As part of the scheme, Mikerin, with the consent of higher level officials at TENEX and Rosatom (both Russian state-owned entities) would offer no-bid contracts to US businesses in exchange for kickbacks in the form of money payments made to some offshore banks accounts,” Agent David Gadren testified.

“Mikerin apparently then shared the proceeds with other co-conspirators associated with TENEX in Russia and elsewhere,” the agent added.

The investigation was ultimately supervised by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, an Obama appointee who now serves as President Trump’s deputy attorney general, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, now the deputy FBI director under Trump, Justice Department documents show.

Both men now play a key role in the current investigation into possible, but still unproven, collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s campaign during the 2016 election cycle. McCabe is under congressional and Justice Department inspector general investigation in connection with money his wife’s Virginia state Senate campaign accepted in 2015 from now-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe at a time when McAuliffe was reportedly under investigation by the FBI.

The connections to the current Russia case are many. The Mikerin probe began in 2009 when Robert Mueller, now the special counsel in charge of the Trump case, was still FBI director. And it ended in late 2015 under the direction of then-FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump fired earlier this year.

Its many twist and turns aside, the FBI nuclear industry case proved a gold mine, in part because it uncovered a new Russian money laundering apparatus that routed bribe and kickback payments through financial instruments in Cyprus, Latvia and Seychelles. A Russian financier in New Jersey was among those arrested for the money laundering, court records show.

The case also exposed a serious national security breach: Mikerin had given a contract to an American trucking firm called Transport Logistics International that held the sensitive job of transporting Russia’s uranium around the United States in return for more than $2 million in kickbacks from some of its executives, court records show.

One of Mikerin’s former employees told the FBI that Tenex officials in Russia specifically directed the scheme to “allow for padded pricing to include kickbacks,” agents testified in one court filing.

Bringing down a major Russian nuclear corruption scheme that had both compromised a sensitive uranium transportation asset inside the U.S. and facilitated international money laundering would seem a major feather in any law enforcement agency’s cap. But the Justice Department and FBI took little credit in 2014 when Mikerin, the Russian financier and the trucking firm executives were arrested and charged. The only public statement occurred a year later when the Justice Department put out a little-noticed press release in August 2015, just days before Labor Day. The release noted that the various defendants had reached plea deals.

By that time, the criminal cases against Mikerin had been narrowed to a single charge of money laundering for a scheme that officials admitted stretched from 2004 to 2014. And though agents had evidence of criminal wrongdoing they collected since at least 2009, federal prosecutors only cited in the plea agreement a handful of transactions that occurred in 2011 and 2012, well after the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United State’s approval.

The final court case also made no mention of any connection to the influence peddling conversations the FBI undercover informant witnessed about the Russian nuclear officials trying to ingratiate themselves with the Clintons even though agents had gathered documents showing the transmission of millions of dollars from Russia’s nuclear industry to an American entity that had provided assistance to Bill Clinton’s foundation, sources confirmed to The Hill.

The lack of fanfare left many key players in Washington with no inkling that a major Russian nuclear corruption scheme with serious national security implications had been uncovered.

On Dec. 15, 2015, the Justice Department put out a release stating that Mikerin, “a former Russian official residing in Maryland was sentenced today to 48 months in prison” and ordered to forfeit more than $2.1 million.

Ronald Hosko, who served as the assistant FBI director in charge of criminal cases when the investigation was underway, told The Hill he did not recall ever being briefed about Mikerin’s case by the counterintelligence side of the bureau despite the criminal charges that were being lodged.

“I had no idea this case was being conducted,” a surprised Hosko said in an interview.

Likewise, major congressional figures were also kept in the dark.

Former Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), who chaired the House Intelligence Committee during the time the FBI probe was being conducted, told The Hill that he had never been told anything about the Russian nuclear corruption case even though many fellow lawmakers had serious concerns about the Obama administration’s approval of the Uranium One deal.

“Not providing information on a corruption scheme before the Russian uranium deal was approved by U.S. regulators and engage appropriate congressional committees has served to undermine U.S. national security interests by the very people charged with protecting them,” he said. “The Russian efforts to manipulate our American political enterprise is breathtaking.”

Indictment Affidavit by M Mali on Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/361782806/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-1KruSlw1gQLLv68Bb1ZB&show_recommendations=true

 

Warrant Affidavit by M Mali on Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/361783030/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-N455a4bz5qQFSYWLdHvG&show_recommendations=true

 

 

Mikerin Plea Deal by M Mali on Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/361783782/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-9FqAb64N1wtBrEk5gxzZ&show_recommendations=true

Corporate Tax Cut Will Raise Middle-Class Wages


Reported 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournalism.com/corporate-tax-cut-will-raise-middle-class-wages/?

Advertisement – story continues below

A study released Monday by Kevin Hassett, President Donald Trump’s chief economist, gives a boost to Trump’s proposed corporate tax cut. The study shows that if the tax cut is implemented, the average family could see an income boost in the thousands of dollars.

The tax cut would lower the current rate of 35 percent to 20 percent. Based on “conservative estimates,” this decrease would boost the average household income by $4,000, the paper said. But more “moderate estimates” reveal increases of $9,000 per family.

“Put simply, capital deepening, which brings additional returns to the owners of capital, brings substantial returns to workers as well,” said the paper, which studied evidence from other countries that have lowered their corporate tax rates.

But Democrats have disapproved of Trump’s proposed tax cut from the start. They believe it will not benefit ordinary families, but only business themselves.

The new study will allow Republicans to offer a rebuttal.

Hassett, the chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, insists that American families would benefit the most from significantly lower corporate tax rates, more so than the companies themselves.

Advertisement – story continues below

“America’s broken corporate tax system creates incentives for firms to hold their money outside of our borders,” Hassett told reporters on Sunday, according to the Washington Examiner. “When firms hold their money overseas rather than invest them in America, they’re holding down the productivity of the American economy and the wages of American workers.”

The United States has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, leading many companies to keep their profits abroad in lower-tax countries to avoid significant tax hits back home.

By cutting the tax rate, the idea is that companies would then invest more within the United States. This would cause a boost in productivity throughout the country.

This productivity would then boost wages, according to Hassett’s study.

“More assets like machines let workers produce more, and when workers can produce more, businesses can afford to pay their workers more,” Hassett said, as reported by The Hill. 

But some economists and tax policy experts have voiced their concerns about the tax cut directly benefiting workers. Although they agree this would attract companies to invest more in the United States economy, they cannot predict how much money will bring back home. There is also concern over what corporations will do with their tax savings.

Trump announced his tax proposal during a September a speech in Indianapolis. Calling it a “revolutionary change,” he said it would boost wages to “levels that you haven’t seen in many years,” according to The New York Times. 

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.

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.

Proof that Mass Voter Fraud Swung New Hampshire Election?


Reported By Onan Coca | September 8, 2017

Republicans have been warning about the dangers of voter fraud for years, and for most of that time Democrats have been pretending that the problem just doesn’t exist.

Democrats argue that the GOP fixation on voter fraud is all  about denying some citizens the right to vote, meanwhile Republicans argue that the Democrats near-monolithic defense of voter fraud is all about winning extra votes. Both arguments have merit, but the Democrats are lying when they pretend that the problem simply doesn’t exist.

Every election there are countless examples of voter fraud (sometimes even mass voter fraud) that come to light, and this election has been no different. However, the latest shoe to drop on the voter fraud front could be a game changer… if the national media will pay any attention to the story.

In New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton won the vote by the slimmest of margins. Less than 3K votes separated the two candidates. The race for Senator was even closer, and some local elections were decided by just a handful of votes. These facts make what the state government just discovered all the more troubling. 

State law requires that anyone moving to the state must acquire a new driver’s license within 60 days of establishing residency, but more than 5K 2016 voters have still not done that, leading authorities to believe that these were fraudulent voters who came to the state to influence the outcome of the election.

On Nov. 8, 2016, 6,540 voters used an out-of-state driver’s license as identification to vote but as of Aug. 30, 2017, only 1,014 of those individuals – 15.5 percent – had been issued a New Hampshire driver’s license, according to the data. 

Of the remaining 5,526 individuals, only 3.3 percent – about 213 people – had a registered motor vehicle.

That would leave 5,313 people who used an out-of-state license to vote but never obtained a new New Hampshire license despite being required to by state law after implying that they were establishing residency or domicile in the state to vote in November. 

Of the 5,313 individuals who registered to vote same-day on Election Day, 81 percent – 4,314 people – neither held a New Hampshire driver’s license nor had a registered vehicle in the state ever. 

With the exception of the gubernatorial race – where Republican Chris Sununu easily bested Democrat Colin Van Ostern by more than 16,000 votes – Democrats won all the other statewide and Congressional races.

But three races were determined by less than 5,000 votes: Gov. Maggie Hassan, a Democrat, beat incumbent U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte by 1,017 votes although many have suspected that last minute, illegal campaign mailers pushing votes to independent Aaron Day cost Ayotte the race. Hillary Clinton bested Donald Trump by 2,736, earning the state’s 4 Electoral College votes even though she ultimately lost the presidency. U.S. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter was sent back to Congress after she bested incumbent U.S. Rep. Frank Guinta by a few more than 4,900 votes.

In the grand scheme of things 5K fraudulent votes in a nation of 315 million people may not seem like much, but in a state where 3 of the most important races were decided by less than 5K votes, it’s monumental. Consider the failed Obamacare repeal vote; could Senator Kelly Ayotte have helped the GOP ram repeal through? Or how much help could Rep. Frank Guinta be giving the House GOP if he’d actually defeated his liberal opponent?

The state government must continue its investigation and these fraudulent voters must be brought to justice. Voter fraud is a felony and it should be investigated and prosecuted as such.

Moer Pollitcally INCORRECT Cartoons for Friday September 8, 2017


Image

Another Politically INCORRECT Cartoon for Thursday September 7, 2017


Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


Nightmare

Democrats and Republicans could care less that the American workers pay the price for amnesty.

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.

To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

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

The Ann Coulter Letter: “Why the Media are in a Never-ending Hunt for Right-wing Violence”


Commentary by Ann Coulter  

After I’d spent a decade begging Republicans, including a few presidential candidates, to take up the immigration issue, Donald J. Trump came along, championed the entire thesis of “Adios, America,” and swept all contenders aside. It’s too late for the likes of Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan to avoid humiliation, but if they don’t want to keep making asses of themselves in public by, for example, praising today’s version of the KKK, they should read my entire corpus of work, starting with “Demonic.” (Trump somehow grasped the whole point of that book, too.)

The reason normal people are suspicious of the media’s narrative on Charlottesville is that we’ve heard this exact same story many, many times before.

Facts on the ground:

— Approximately every other year since forever, liberal hooligans have been rampaging through the streets, beating people up, setting off bombs, killing cops, smashing store windows, assassinating politicians and burning down neighborhoods — against capitalism, Vietnam, Nixon, Wall Street, a police shooting, Trump, Starbucks, a sunny day.

— Conservatives, mostly families, have generally avoided even the mildest forms of political protest, and, when they finally are driven to petition the government over their grievances, they pick up after themselves — at tea parties, town halls, Trump rallies and so on.

Result: The entire media are constantly on Red Alert for the threat of Right-Wing Violence.

The explanation for this apparent madness is that the left — both the scribblers and the shock troops — bear all the characteristics of a mob, as set forth more than a century ago by the father of group-think, French psychologist Gustave Le Bon. No behavior of the left is mysterious if you’ve read Le Bon — or “Demonic.” In “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind,” Le Bon observed that the “complete lack of critical spirit” prevents crowds from “perceiving … contradictions.”

No matter the year or the circumstances, the media and their eunuch politicians are quick to blame any surprising violence on the Right-Wing Nazis of their imaginations — from Lee Harvey Oswald (communist) to Jared Lee Loughner and James Holmes (psychopaths) to the two stabbing murders on a Portland train earlier this year committed by a Bernie Sanders supporter, whom the media — to this day — insist, all evidence to the contrary, was a Trump supporter.

When, a few months after the first murders by a Sanders supporter, a second Sanders supporter opened fire on a congressional Republican baseball practice, putting GOP Rep. Steve Scalise in critical condition, that political attack was simply discarded. The media put the story of left-wing assailant James Hodgkinson in a lead casket and dropped it to the bottom of the sea.

There are the scores of other examples of imaginary right-wing violence invented by the media — then quietly abandoned when the facts come out. After weeks of hair-on-fire headlines, suddenly you just stop reading about the Duke lacrosse “rapists,” homicidal maniac Officer Darren Wilson or legions of Trump-supporters ripping off Muslim women’s hijabs.

But I remember! Here are as many as my word limit allows — maybe more!

SARAH PALIN AND THE RISE OF NAZISM IN AMERICA:

During the 2008 campaign, the media were in a perpetual state of fright that racist Republicans would assassinate Barack Obama. Naturally, when a local reporter claimed he’d heard someone in a crowd at a Sarah Palin rally yell, “Kill him!” about Obama, the media didn’t wait for more facts! The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank promptly reported the reed-thin allegation, which was then repeated in hundreds of other news outlets.

On CNN, David Gergen said that Palin was “whipping up these crowds,” creating “ugly scenes” with audience members yelling, “Kill him. Kill him” — and also claimed (without evidence) that they were yelling “racial epithets.” A CNN article on the alleged shout-out appeared under the headline: “Rage rising on the McCain campaign trail.”

Vice presidential candidate Joe Biden weighed in, somberly calling the alleged incident “dangerous.”

MSNBC’S Rachel Maddow railed against the “mere mention of killing someone at a political rally,” saying, “it’s horrific.”

MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann took the gold, yammering on and on about the claim in nightly updates, culminating in one of his prissiest ever “Special Comments,” in which he demanded that John McCain suspend his campaign until “it ceases to be a clear and present danger to the peace of this nation.”

Needless to say, the Secret Service undertook a complete review. Agents listened to tapes of the event, interviewed attendees and interrogated the boatloads of law enforcement officers spread throughout the crowd. Conclusion: It never happened. As even the nutty left-wing site Salon noted, “If (the Secret Service) says it doesn’t think anyone shouted, ‘kill him,’ it’s a good bet that it didn’t happen.”

No apologies, no retractions, no memory.

THE TEA PARTY AND THE RISE OF NAZISM IN AMERICA:

Remember when polite, hardworking Americans came together to oppose Obamacare at tea party rallies in 2009 and 2010?

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Steny Hoyer called the protesters “un-American.” The Democratic National Committee called them “rabid right-wing extremists.” Sen. Harry Reid called the tea partiers “evil-mongers.” Jimmy Carter pronounced an “overwhelming portion” of them racists. ABC called them a “mob.” CNN called them “rabble-rousing critics.”

Democratic congressman Brian Baird of Washington accused tea partiers of using “close to Brown-shirt tactics.” The AFL-CIO called them an “extremist fringe,” using “mob rule.”

As Le Bon explained, “one of the surest means of making an idea enter the mind of crowds” is to affirmatively state something, “free of all reasoning and all proof.” Indeed, “the more destitute of every appearance of proof and demonstration” a claim is, “the more weight it carries” with a mob.

As usual, once the dust had settled, the only violence at the tea parties and town halls had been committed by liberals.

On Aug. 6, 2009, for example, a black tea partier was beaten up by union thugs shouting the N-word at him at a St. Louis town hall. Six members of the Service Employees International Union were arrested. About a month later, on Sept. 3, 2009, 65-year-old tea partier Bill Rice had his finger bitten off at a health care rally in Thousand Oaks, California, by a lefty Obamacare supporter.

To this day, The New York Times has never mentioned either incident, so it can happily return to railing against the non-existent right-wing rage surging in the red states.

THE CENSUS WORKER AND RISE OF NAZISM IN AMERICA:

In the fall of 2009, the naked body of Census worker Bill Sparkman was found hanging from a tree in southwestern Kentucky, with the word “fed” written across his chest. Liberals wasted no time in concluding that right-wing extremists had murdered Sparkman in a burst of anti-government hate. A Census worker? Who hates Census workers? Unlike an IRS agent, an EPA inspector or even an agriculture inspector, a Census worker can’t arrest you, seize your property or fine you hundreds of thousands of dollars. They just hand out questionnaires.

No matter. The left has been waiting for right-wing violence for centuries and, finally, here it was!

  • New York magazine ran an article about the dead Census worker, asking, “Has Nancy Pelosi’s Fear of Political Violence Been Realized?”
  • The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan blamed “Southern populist terrorism” for Sparkman’s death, “whipped up by the GOP and its Fox and talk radio cohorts.”
  • But MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow owned the Bill-Sparkman-was-murdered-by-right-wingers story. Night after night, she breathlessly reported this “breaking national news.” Although Rachel’s main move is giggling and eye-rolling, she was all deadly earnestness when it came to the “troubling story” and the “worry that he was killed in fact because he was a federal employee.”

In case you missed the point, Maddow reminded viewers there’s “a strong suspicion of government generally among people who live in that area.”

A month later, investigators announced that Sparkman had committed suicide in an insurance scam. Rachel left it to her guest host, Howard Dean, to break the bad news to her conspiracy-minded viewers, sparing her the humiliation.

And then we never heard the story of the Census worker again.

A media capable of turning tea partiers, Palin supporters and a random insurance scam into weeks of terror at right-wing violence are not going to let a few nuts waving Nazi flags at a “Unite the Right” rally pass without leaping at the opportunity to outlaw conservatism.

Based on the media’s 100-year history of fantasizing a burgeoning Nazi Party in America, the rest of us would like to wait for the facts on Charlottesville.

What Keeps the Swamp the Swamp


Commentary by Walker Wildmon | Assistant to the President of AFA.net

Wednesday, August 9, 2017 @ 2:38 PM
What Keeps the Swamp the Swamp

Note: The establishment in Washington, DC consists of both Republicans and Democrats. Those of both parties who are for maintaining the status quo are commonly referred to be a part of “the swamp” as President Trump calls it. What follows are different ways the status quo establishment keep the swamp at full capacity.

Republicans In Name Only

The problem with the Republican Party is not its platform or its principles. The problem is that many of those in Congress with an “R” beside their names aren’t true Republicans. One thing the election of President Trump has done is to expose those who are merely posing as Republicans. You can’t be an authentic conservative Republican and be for one of the most disastrous pieces of legislation passed solely by Democrats, Obamacare. Yet, we see Republicans who are in favor of keeping this horrible healthcare law.

Occasionally, politicians have a change of mind or heart about an issue and will vote their conviction even if it runs counter to the party line.  But it is not okay to use the Republican label to get elected only to vote like a Democrat once in office. This is exactly what some Republicans have done. They have rented out the Republican label while campaigning only to arrive in Washington and side with Democrats.

Forcing Trump’s hand

For years Congress has rushed through spending bills every few months. The negative effect of passing one massive spending bill every few months is the lack of vetting that takes place. What’s called an Omnibus or Continuing Resolution is what Congress passes to fund the government when they fail to go through the appropriations process. If Congress were to get back to regular order (passing twelve separate spending bills) it would possibly mean cuts in wasteful spending and Americans could hold their representatives more accountable for their votes. By Congressional leadership bringing up these jumbo spending bills, it puts representatives and the president in a bad position. There’s no room for negotiation and deliberation.

The swamp uses this last minute budget tactic to force the conservatives in Congress and the president to support a spending bill full of waste. Who determines whether Congress begins passing appropriation bills in a timely manner? House Speaker Paul Ryan. He controls the legislative agenda and he is responsible for Congress not going through the proper spending process.

If Congress were to get back to regular order then it could balance the budget each year and possibly have a surplus in tax revenue. A surplus would enable the government to use that money to pay off the national debt.

As it stands today, America is recklessly irresponsible with its finances and Congress is to blame. Voters send representatives to Congress to handle our tax dollars wisely but they continue to do the opposite. Not only does Congress spend our money on wasteful projects, it often sends our money to organizations who oppose basic American values.

The next budget is set to come up for debate in mid-September. Don’t expect Congress to send President Trump a responsible budget. This is why President Trump must be prepared to veto any bill that has wasteful spending included. The president must demand that his agenda be funded. A government shutdown might be necessary to get Congress to return to regular order.

Handcuffing yourself

As the Senate rules stand today, the body needs sixty votes in order to pass any legislation. There are 52 Republicans in the Senate. With politics as divided as they are today, we all know that no Democrat is going to side with President Trump on a border wall, tax reform, or health care. Democrats are known as obstructionists when it comes to productivity during a Republican Administration and majority. The only way for the Senate to pass meaningful legislation is for the Senate Majority Leader to rally his party together and change the rules to where only 51 votes, a simple majority, is necessary to pass legislation. This is the only way good legislation will become law under President Trump.                                                              

I’m beginning to wonder if the unwillingness to change the rule is to prevent meaningful legislation from passing in order to protect the swamp. You’d think that Republican Senators who campaigned on repealing Obamacare, pass tax reform, and building a border wall would be in favor of a simple majority to pass legislation. House Speaker Ryan and Senate Majority Leader McConnell hold a fair share of responsibility for what is going on in Washington. These two gentlemen do not share the same vision for America as President Trump (and those who voted him into office). Ryan and McConnell are satisfied with the status quo. President Trump wants to transform our country for good and the only folks standing in his way are lawmakers. Along with not sharing the president’s vision, the House Speaker and Senate Leader do not want to have to deal with the most pressing issues of our country.  Are Republican lawmakers hiding behind a Senate rule so they won’t have to deal with difficult issues and an obstructionist opposition? Establishment Republicans have placed handcuffs on themselves in order to keep the status quo.

MSNBC Accidentally Proves that the Democrat Party is Toast


Reported By Onan Coca | August 7, 2017

This Week’s Ann Coulter Letter: “Contract With Republicans”


Commentary by Ann Coulter

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2017/08/02/contract-with-republicans/

In 1994, after 40 years in the wilderness, Republicans swept both houses of Congress, running on Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America,” in which the GOP promised to hold votes on 10 popular policies in the first 100 days. They won, fulfilled the contract, and went on to control the House for more than a decade.

More recently, the country gave the GOP the House in 2010, the Senate in 2014 and the presidency in 2016. But we’re not seeing any difference. The GOP has become a ratchet, never reversing Democratic victories, but only confirming them with teeny-tiny alterations.

It’s time for the voters to issue a “Contract With Republicans.” Unless our elected representatives can complete these basic, simple tasks, we’re out. There will be no reason to care about the GOP, anymore.

Whether these objectives are accomplished by President Trump or a rhesus monkey, the Democrats, the Bull Moose Party or the U.S. Pirate Party — it will make no difference to us. We just need somebody to fulfill this contract in order to get our vote.

Here are our first three contract terms.

1) BUILD THE WALL

People said the chant, “Build the wall!” was mere shorthand for a whole slew of immigration policies, unified by the single idea of putting Americans’ interests if not “first,” then at least above the interests of complete strangers to whom we owe absolutely nothing.” It was called a term of art, meaning we want to stop sacrificing the welfare of our nation on the altar of liberal idiocy.

“Build the wall” was said to entail: a Muslim ban, deporting illegals, ending unconstitutional sanctuary cities, ending Obama’s unconstitutional “executive amnesty,” a dead-stop to the refugee scam and a massive reduction in legal immigration.

Yes, it means all that. But it also means: Build the wall.

If this is done only for reasons of conservative ideology, in recognition of the fact that the United States is a sovereign nation, entitled to protect its homeland, that’s fine with me.

But I note in passing that, if I were a progressive constantly virtue-signaling on transgenders and refugees, and occasionally pretending to care about African-Americans, the very last thing I’d want to see is the continuing dump of low-wage workers on the country, undermining black fathers’ ability to earn a living, to stay married and to pass down savings and a work ethic to their children.

The great civil rights hero Barbara Jordan understood that. The fact that our current low-rent liberals are unable to rise to her level is all the proof we need of their uselessness.

Moreover, in the future, we will once again have presidents with a taste for fascist executive orders, purporting to grant “amnesty” to illegal aliens. We will continue to have bought-and-paid-for legislators, pushing cheap labor in return for campaign donations. In the blink of an eye, they can undo every part of Trump’s America First agenda on immigration, just as Obama undid our victory in Iraq.

A wall is the only part of Trump’s immigration reforms that will not be instantly reversed by the next Barack Obama or George Bush. Allowing border patrol agents to do their jobs is a policy that lasts only as long as Trump is president. A wall is forever.

2) SUPREME COURT

Republicans need to stop having their victories written in wet sand. During the campaign, Trump vowed to impose a Muslim ban if elected; both political parties hysterically denounced him; he won the election; issued a highly modified, temporary travel restriction from a handful of majority Muslim countries; and … a handful of carefully selected federal court judges announced that, during the Trump administration, they would be implementing immigration policy.

That’s why President Trump must appoint, and the Senate confirm, brilliant conservative judges, preferably in their 30s and with good EKGs, so that they can keep issuing opinions well into their 90s.

As long as they are sufficiently vetted to ensure we’re getting no David Souters or Harriet Miers — vettings even MORE exhaustive than the alleged rectal probes given to the San Bernardino terrorists before admitting them to commit mass murder — Supreme Court justices can have nearly the same permanence as the wall.

3) STOP WASTING MONEY AND PRECIOUS LIVES ON POINTLESS WARS

The left is way ahead of us on this one, already hard at work turning the greatest military in the world into taxpayer-funded adventures in lesbianism and transgenderism. (Sorry, taxpayers! We gave your Social Security to mental-case penis-choppers.)

Every recent war has been counterproductive at best. At worst, they have been meat-grinders for our bravest young men. Imagine that some small portion of the trillions of dollars poured into the endless — and ongoing! — war in Afghanistan had been used to build a 100,000-seat soccer stadium in Baghdad. And then imagine that we built 100 more just like it, right next to one another.

If we had taken a satellite photo of all those stadiums filled to capacity, the caption would be: “Not one American life is worth all the lives pictured here.”

That’s not anti-Arab. I’m sure they would feel exactly the same. I would respond, “Yes, of course, you’re right to feel that way.”

If we’re ever attacked, we should be prepared to unload our full arsenal. But it’s not our job to create functioning democracies in primitive rape-based societies around the globe.

Apart from an attack on U.S. soil by a foreign country, we are going to live our lives, go to work, celebrate the Fourth of July, and never bother learning the difference in Sunni and Shia Arabs. Once a decade, when we fleetingly remember Yemen or Saudi Arabia, we will hope they’re doing well, then get back to our lives — surrounded by a wall and living in a constitutional democracy, where our greatest young men aren’t continually sacrificed in pointless wars.

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

 

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: