Democrats Thought Reagan Was Nuts. Yesterday Proved He Was Right.. Linda Sarsour- New Radical Darling Of The Radical Democrat Party. The Long Knives. Call ORKIN!

Today Ronald Reagan's, the third rate actor buffoon's  Star War concept shot down a missile we launched.  This came over 30 years after Democrats did everything they could to mock his idea, to prevent the funding of this program which could, one day, save Americans from a successful nuclear attack by some rogue nation like Iran and/or North Korea or terrorist group. (See 1 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++
More about Linda Sarsour. The radical darling of the Democrat Party.(See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++
What Democrats and left extremists are doing to Trump's son-in-law is partly "pay back" but, more importantly, it is why the swamp will never be drained. Power brings out the worst in people and what we are witnessing is a perfect example.

It is little wonder why so many of our nation's very best do not wish to serve because they know their character and reputation will be open game and they will become a magnet for smears and undocumented, outrageous attacks.

D.C.is a dangerous rat infested city. Call ORKIN!

Time and again we have witnessed the long knives become unsheathed in order to go for the jugular.(See 3 below.)
.
++++++
Whether happened or not still worthy. (See 4 below.)
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++
1)

N.Korea warns of 'bigger gift package' for US after latest test

By REUTERS

Kim Jong Un promises to develop more powerful weapons as South Korea conducts joint drill with US bomber and Japan looks for Chinese intervention.North Korea warns of 'bigger gift package' for US (credit: REUTERS)

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un supervised the test of a new ballistic missile controlled by a precision guidance system and ordered the development of more powerful strategic weapons, the North's official KCNA news agency reported on Tuesday.

The missile launched on Monday was equipped with an advanced automated pre-launch sequence compared with previous versions of the "Hwasong" rockets, North Korea's name for its Scud-class missiles, KCNA said. That indicated the North had launched a modified Scud-class missile, as South Korea's military has said.

The North's test launch of a short-range ballistic missile landed in the sea off its east coast and was the latest in a fast-paced series of missile tests defying international pressure and threats of more sanctions.

Kim said the reclusive state would develop more powerful weapons in multiple phases in accordance with its timetable to defend North Korea against the United States.

"He expressed the conviction that it would make a greater leap forward in this spirit to send a bigger 'gift package' to the Yankees" in retaliation for American military provocation, KCNA quoted Kim as saying.

South Korea said it had conducted a joint drill with a US supersonic B-1B Lancer bomber on Monday. North Korea's state media earlier accused the United States of staging a drill to practice dropping nuclear bombs on the Korean peninsula.

The US Navy said its aircraft carrier strike group, led by the USS Carl Vinson, also planned a drill with another US nuclear carrier, the USS Ronald Reagan, in waters near the Korean peninsula.

A US Navy spokesman in South Korea did not give specific timing for the strike group's planned drill.

North Korea calls such drills a preparation for war.

Monday's launch followed two successful tests of medium-to-long-range missiles in as many weeks by the North, which has been conducting such tests at an unprecedented pace in an effort to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of hitting the mainland United States.

Such launches, and two nuclear tests since January 2016, have been conducted in defiance of US pressure, UN resolutions and the threat of more sanctions.

They also pose one of the greatest security challenges for US President Donald Trump, who portrayed the latest missile test as an affront to China.

"North Korea has shown great disrespect for their neighbor, China, by shooting off yet another ballistic missile ... but China is trying hard!" Trump said on Twitter.

PRECISION GUIDANCE Japan has also urged China to play a bigger role in restraining North Korea's nuclear and missile programs.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's top national security adviser, Shotaro Yachi, met China's top diplomat, State Councillor Yang Jiechi, for five hours of talks near Tokyo on Monday after the North's latest test.

Yachi told Yang that North Korea's actions had reached a new level of provocation.

"Japan and China need to work together to strongly urge North Korea to avoid further provocative actions and obey things like United Nations resolutions," Yachi was quoted as telling Yang in a statement by Japan's foreign ministry.

A statement from China's foreign ministry after the meeting made no mention of North Korea.

North Korea has claimed major advances with its rapid series of launches, claims that outside experts and officials believe may be at least partially true but are difficult to verify independently.

A South Korean military official said the North fired one missile on Monday, clarifying an earlier assessment that there may have been more than one launch.

The test was aimed at verifying a new type of precision guidance system and the reliability of a new mobile launch vehicle under different operational conditions, KCNA said.

However, South Korea's military and experts questioned the claim because the North had technical constraints, such as a lack of satellites, to operate a terminal-stage missile guidance system properly.

"Whenever news of our valuable victory is broadcast recently, the Yankees would be very much worried about it and the gangsters of the south Korean puppet army would be dispirited more and more," KCNA cited leader Kim as saying.

++++++++++++++++++++

2)  Linda Sarsour and the progressive zeitgeist

In US academic tradition, university administrators choose commencement speakers they believe embody the zeitgeist of their institutions and as such, will be able to inspire graduating students to take that spirit with them into the world outside.

In this context, it makes perfect sense that Ayman El-Mohandes, dean of the Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy at City University of New York (CUNY), invited Linda Sarsour to serve as commencement speaker at his faculty’s graduation ceremony.

Sarsour embodies Mohandes’s values.

Mohandes’s Twitter feed makes his values clear. His Twitter feed is filled with attacks against Israel.

Mohandes indirectly accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of wishing to commit genocide. Netanyahu, he intimated, wishes to “throw the Arabs in the sea.”

He has repeatedly libeled Israel as a repressive, racist, corrupt state.

Mohandes has effectively justified and legitimized Islamic terrorism and the Hamas terrorist regime in Gaza. The Islamic terrorist assault against Israel, led by Hamas from Gaza, is simply an act of “desperation,” he insists.

By Mohandes’s lights, Hamas terrorists are desperate not because they uphold values and beliefs that reject freedom, oppress women and aspire to the genocide of Jewry and the destruction of the West. No, they are desperate because Israel is evil and oppressive.

Who could Mohandes have chosen to serve as his commencement speaker other than Sarsour, given his positions? Sarsour, the rising star of the Democratic Party, not only shares Mohandes’s values and positions, she has taken those common values and positions and amplified them on the national stage.

Sarsour has taken support for Islamic terrorism and Jew hatred – positions that not long ago were considered beyond the pale in the Democratic Party – and moved them into the mainstream of the Democratic Party.

In fact, Sarsour has gone far beyond Mohandes. She has left him in the dust with her willingness to shill for radical Islam and its oppression of women and express openly her desire to see Israel destroyed while embracing Islamic terrorists and murderers.

Whereas Mohandes generally has shielded himself from accusations of bigotry, support for Hamas, and misogyny by basing his Twitter posts on statements by non-Muslim opponents of Israel like Kenneth Roth from Human Rights Watch, Sarsour has publicly embraced Hamas and other Palestinian terrorists.

She unapologetically justifies Islamic misogyny, attacks opponents of Islamic misogyny and terrorism and whitewashes Islamic violence against women.

Indeed, Sarsour has mainstreamed all of these things by fusing support for Islamic terrorism, misogyny and antisemitism with black anti-white racism and leftist hatred for police and law enforcement agencies more generally.

So in light of Sarsour’s trailblazing role in advancing Mohandes’s apparent values as signaled through his Twitter feed, his decision to have her speak to his graduating class this Thursday is entirely understandable.

The only truly challenging aspect of Mohandes’s invitation is that he didn’t tell the truth about why he chose to honor her. He didn’t say he invited her for her pioneering work in mainstreaming antisemitism, anti-Americanism, anti-white bigotry, Islamic misogyny and terrorism in the Democratic Party.

To the contrary, he hid those things.

Mohandes wrote that he invited Sarsour to speak at commencement because her work “has emphasized women’s health issues in the New York area.”

No it hasn’t.

At least, not unless you consider calling for women to have their vaginas carved out “emphasizing women’s health issues.”

In 2011, Sarsour used her Twitter feed to call for precisely that in a shocking verbal assault against two female icons – Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has dedicated much of her career to protecting Muslim girls from female genital mutilation and was herself victimized by the barbaric practice, and Brigitte Gabriel, who as a Lebanese Christian suffered firsthand the wrath of Islamic supremacism during the Lebanese Civil War.

In Sarsour’s words, “Brigitte Gabriel= Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She’s asking 4 an a$$ whippin’. I wish I could take their vaginas away – they don’t deserve to be women.”

Earlier this month, during a speech at Dartmouth College, Sarsour was asked by a student how her professed feminism could be squared with her expressed support for genital mutilation of her ideological opponents.

Sarsour’s response was telling.

First, she delegitimized the student, insisting that since he is “a young white man” he had no right to ask her such a question.

Then, she intimated that she never wrote the offensive post.

Then, she insisted that her words are unimportant because she wrote them when she was in her 20s. (She was 31 in 2011).

In her uplifting words, “People say stupid sh*t sometimes, right?” Finally, Sarsour insisted that what she said is irrelevant.

“I will be judged by my impeccable record for standing for black lives and immigrant rights, and women’s rights and LGBT rights. You judge me by my record and not by some tweet you think I did or did not tweet 10 years ago or seven years ago, or whenever it was.”

But if we judge her by her record, we see the only thing that is impeccable about it is her consistent, unapologetic defense of Islamic misogyny, terrorism and Jew hatred.

Sarsour has been extolled for her championing of women’s rights by former president Barack Obama, and New York Senator Kristin Gillibrand. But it is not clear when she has ever done so in her own community.

For instance, as Ian Tuttle reported in National Review, in 2014 Sarsour (who was then leading efforts to fuse the Black Lives Matter movement with anti-Zionism) published an article on CNN.com titled, “My hijab is my hoodie.”

There Sarsour conflated the death of Trayvon Martin with the 2012 murder of Shaima Alawadi.

Alawadi was a Muslim woman who was beaten to death in her California home.

Sarsour alleged that Alawadi was murdered because of Islamophobia. But this was a lie. And it would be bizarre if Sarsour didn’t realize it was a lie when she wrote the article.

If Islam had anything to do with Alawadi’s murder, it may have served as a justification for her Muslim husband’s decision to beat her to death. Her husband was arrested for her murder in 2012. He was convicted and sentenced to 26 years to life in prison in 2014.

That wasn’t the only time that Sarsour used false allegations of American anti-Muslim bigotry to whitewash Islamic misogyny.

In 2014 she took to her Twitter feed to defend Saudi Arabia’s treatment of women while belittling Saudi gender apartheid that among other things, bars women from driving cars.

In her words, “10 weeks of PAID maternity leave in Saudi Arabia. Yes PAID. And ur worrying about women driving. Puts us to shame.”

In 2015, she extolled Sharia law, which among other things allows men to marry four women and sanctions wife beating and child brides.

As she did in her defense of Saudi misogyny, Sarsour defended Sharia by ignoring its hatred of women and pretending it is no different from progressive socialism.

Again turning to Twitter, she wrote, “You’ll know when you’re living under Sharia law if suddenly all your loans and credit cards become interest free. Sounds nice, doesn’t it?” As for LGBT rights, Sarsour pretends to support them. But she is silent about the systematic oppression of homosexuals in Muslim society.

With everything related to Jews and Israel, Sarsour has been outspoken in her bigotry, support for terrorism and anti-Jewish supremacism. Sarsour is a leader of the antisemitic boycott, divestment and sanctions movement that seeks to bar pro-Israel voices from college campuses and wider American society.

Sarsour was one of the organizers of the anti-President Donald Trump woman’s marches in January. 

Yet, Sarsour insists Zionist women cannot be feminists.

She recently publicly embraced a Hamas terrorist. She rejects any cooperation with Jewish groups that support Israel. Her relatives have been served time in Israeli prisons for terrorist activities on behalf of Hamas. Hamas of course, calls for the genocide of world Jewry in its charter.

Sarsour supports the Palestinian terrorist Rasmea Odeh who murdered two Israeli students in a bombing in a Jerusalem supermarket in 1970.

The most notable aspect of Sarsour’s “impeccable record” is that it is all in the public square. She has hidden nothing.

This tells us the most distressing thing about the Left’s decision to promote her. The Left is empowering Sarsour not despite her views, but because of them.

She is being elevated by CUNY, by the Democratic Party and by major American media outlets because she mainstreams Jew hatred, anti-Zionism and Islamic misogyny, not despite the fact that she does those things.

Sarsour has been rightly condemned by opponents of Islamic misogyny, supremacism and terrorism and by supporters of Israel.

But the truth is she’s not the real problem.

The real problem is that Mohandes was right to invite her. Not only does she share his values, she embodies the zeitgeist of the American Left today.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)

mugged by the media mob

By Gregg Jarrett

“This nation was dedicated to freedom under law, not under mobs.”

So wrote the late Justice, Tom Clark, who gave me my first tour of the Supreme Court in the 1970s.  Justice Clark cared deeply about the role of the news media in holding our government accountable.  But he would be dispirited to see their embrace of “mobocracy,” as he once described it. 

The mob as a ruling class is today’s mainstream media.  They assert political control by denigrating and vilifying.  No act by the Trump administration, however slight, will be spared a full-throated “scandal” as declared by the media.  All deeds are treated as crimes or impeachable offenses.   

The latest victim is President Trump’s son-in-law and White House adviser, Jared Kushner.  His crime appears to be no crime at all.  He met with two foreign officials from Russia –an ambassador and a banker.  Back channel communications were allegedly discussed.  Mass hysteria in both print and television ensued. 

There was no attempt at reasoned analysis, no context of historical precedence.

The media all but shouted, “off with his head!”   Execution first.  A trial with real or imagined evidence sometime later, if ever. 

Back Channel Communications

The Washington Post ignited the media firestorm by publishing a story that Kushner met with Sergei Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to Washington, in December and allegedly sought a private communications channel with the Kremlin. 

Within an hour, television reporters and pundits were declaring it a “bombshell” –their favorite description of anything related to Trump.  No one bothered to point out that nearly every recent president has established and relied on similar back channel contacts. 

Notably, President John Kennedy depended on two sets of back channel communications with the Soviets to diffuse the Cuban Missile Crisis in October of 1962.   His brother Bobby Kennedy arranged an urgent deal with Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin to remove the missiles in Cuba in exchange for the U.S. removing obsolete missiles in Turkey.  At the same time, the State Department commandeered ABC correspondent John Scali to work out other details with Soviet Embassy official Alexander Fomin.  A catastrophic nuclear exchange was averted.

But nowhere in the hyper-media coverage was this mentioned in the hours after the Kushner story broke.  Only two days later, in an opinion column by David Ignatius, did the Washington Post admit the value of secret contacts when he observed, “Such back channels can add stability and predictability in foreign relations.”  Few in the media have picked up on it.

It makes no difference whether the idea of a private communications channel was broached before or after President Trump took office.  It is a distinction without a difference.  As Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly observed, “It’s both normal, in my opinion, and acceptable.”   

So much for the “bombshell.”  More like a media dud.  Of course, they’ll never admit to it. 

The Logan Act Charade

Because the Kushner meeting occurred after Trump was elected but before he took office, the media continues to claim that the Logan Act was violated.  Passed in 1799, it prohibits private citizens from interfering in diplomatic disputes with foreign governments.  Surely, Kushner violated that law, the media exclaimed. 

But no one has ever been prosecuted under the Logan Act.  Therefore, it is legally inoperable because it has remained dormant for more than two centuries.  Prosecutors are not allowed to use a statute that has fallowed for such a long period of time.  In other words, it is dead.  It sits on the books of our criminal codes only as words collecting dust.  Nothing more. 

Even if it was somehow germane and valid, Kushner was not acting as a private citizen as the Act requires.  He was serving as a representative of the incoming administration.  Other presidents have had discussions with foreign governments before taking office, including President Obama. 

Yet the media seems oblivious to both the law and its application. 

Security Clearance Form

The media continues to speculate that Kushner committed a crime by omitting his Russian meetings when he filled out his security clearance forms.  But the press almost never mentions that people are rarely prosecuted because it is exceedingly difficult to demonstrate that it was “knowingly falsified or concealed,” as the law demands.   

Have you ever seen one of these forms?  They are long and confusing.  Few people manage to fill them out correctly or completely. 

Since violation is not a strict liability crime, the feds would have to prove “specific intent.”  That is, Kushner tried to deliberately deceive the government.  Incomplete paper work, by itself, is not a criminal act. 

Significantly, the day after Kushner submitted his form, his attorney alerted the FBI it was in error and would be amended to include several meetings with foreign officials.  These circumstances hardly constitute a crime.  Immediate notification of a filing mistake vitiates any legal culpability.  

But, again, journalists seem to conveniently overlook this.  The story is too good to let the facts get in the way.   

Kushner Not a “Target”   

Media madness switched gears into overdrive when it was reported that Kushner is a focus by the FBI in their Russian investigation.  But what does that really mean?

It means, quite simply, the Bureau would like to speak with him about his meetings with Russian officials.  It does not necessarily imply there is a scintilla of evidence that he committed any crimes.  If the feds had such evidence, he would have received a “target letter” as Justice Department rules require.

The media tends to forget (or not realize) that it is not a crime to talk with a Russian, including an ambassador.  After all, it is Kislyak’s job to meet as frequently as possible with current and incoming government officials.  Does he endeavor to influence those people and our government’s policies?  Of course.  That’s why he’s stationed in Washington.  Our ambassador in Moscow serves the same function.  It’s called diplomacy and advocacy. 

Kushner also met with a Russian banker, Sergey Gorkov, the head of Vnesheconombank, which is the subject of U.S. sanctions.  Such a meeting, by itself, does not violate the sanctions order nor is it a crime. 

Neither is it a crime to collude with a foreign government to influence an election.  As I explained in a recent column, there is no criminal statute prohibiting it.  President Trump insists there was no collusion.  But even if there was, it is not unlawful. 

The lawyer for Jared Kushner says he is prepared to answer any and all questions.  Perhaps when he does, he will expose the media for its slanted coverage and hyperbolic headlines.   

The media deserves a good mugging

+++++++++++++++++++
4)

College Professor's first instructions

Welcome back to class, students! I am Mike Adams your criminology professor here at UNC-Wilmington. Before we get started with the course I need to address an issue that is causing problems here at UNCW and in higher education all across the country. I am talking about the growing minority of students who believe they have a right to be free from being offended. If we don’t reverse this dangerous trend in our society there will soon be a majority of young people who will need to walk around in plastic bubble suits to protect them in the event that they come into contact with a dissenting viewpoint. That mentality is unworthy of an American. It’s hardly worthy of a Frenchman.

Let’s get something straight right now. You have no right to be unoffended. You have a right to be offended with regularity. It is the price you pay for living in a free society. If you don’t understand that you are confused and dangerously so. In part, I blame your high school teachers for failing to teach you basic civics before you got your diploma. Most of you went to the public high schools, which are a disaster. Don’t tell me that offended you. I went to a public high school.

Of course, your high school might not be the problem. It is entirely possible that the main reason why so many of you are confused about free speech is that piece of paper hanging on the wall right over there. Please turn your attention to that ridiculous document that is framed and hanging by the door. In fact, take a few minutes to read it before you leave class today. It is our campus speech code. It specifically says that there is a requirement that everyone must only engage in discourse that is “respectful.” That assertion is as ludicrous as it is illegal. I plan to have that thing ripped down from every classroom on campus before I retire.

One of my grandfathers served in World War I. My step-grandfather served in World War II. My sixth great grandfather enlisted in the American Revolution when he was only thirteen. These great men did not fight so we could simply relinquish ou r rights to the enemy within our borders. That enemy is the Marxists who run our public universities. If you are a Marxist and I just offended you, well, that’s tough. I guess they don’t make communists like they used to.

Of course, this ban on “disrespectful” speech is really only illusory. The university that created these speech restrictions then turns around and sponsors plays like The Vagina Monologues, which is loaded with profanity including the c-word – the most offensive and disrespectful word a person could ever possibly apply to a woman. It is pure, unadulterated hypocrisy.

So, the university position can be roughly summarized as follows: Public university administrators have a First Amendment right to use disrespectful profanity but public university students do not. This turns the First Amendment on its head. The university has its free speech analysis completely backwards. And that’s why they need to be sued.

Before we go, let us take a few minutes to look at the last page of your syllabus where I explain the importance of coming to class on time, turning off your cell phone, and refraining from talking during lectures. In that section, I explain that each of you has God-given talents and that your Creator endowed you with a purpose in life that is thwarted when you develop these bad habits.

Unbelievably, a student once complained to the Department chairwoman that my mention of God and a Creator was a violation of Separation of Church and State. Let me be as clear as I possibly can: If any of you actually think that my decision to paraphrase the Declaration of Independence in the course syllabus is unconstitutional then you suffer from severe intellectual hernia.

Indeed, it takes hard work to become stupid enough to think the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional. If you agree with the student who made that complaint then you are probably just an anti-religious zealot. Therefore, I am going to ask you to do exactly three things and do them in the exact order that I specify.

First, get out of my class. You can fill out the drop slip over at James Hall. Just tell them you don’t believe in true diversity and you want to be surrounded by people who agree with your twisted interpretation of the Constitution simply because they are the kind of people who will protect you from having your beliefs challenged or your feelings hurt.

Second, withdraw from the university. If you find that you are actually relieved because you will no longer be in a class where your beliefs might be challenged then you aren’t ready for college. Go get a job building houses so you can work with some illegal aliens who will help you gain a better appreciation of what this country has to offer.

Finally, if this doesn’t work then I would simply ask you to get the hell out of the country. The ever-growing thinned-skinned minority you have joined is simply ruining life in this once-great nation. Please move to some place like Cuba where you can enjoy the company of communists and get excellent health care. Just hop on a leaky boat and start paddling your way towards utopia. You will not be missed.

Thank you for your time. I’ll see most of you when classes resume on Monday.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++