We spend billions on roadside noise abatement walls yet Democrats refuse to protect our borders.

I would love to hear Democrats explain the rationale beyond wanting to defeat Trump by denying him his ability to uphold the oath he took and campaign commitments he made.

Oh I forgot, they already have.

a) Building a wall is immoral.

b) Building a wall costs a lot of money and does not work.

c) Building a wall is hard for unaccompanied children to climb.

d) Building a wall makes it difficult for those hooked on drugs to obtain same.

e) Building a wall makes it more difficult for gangs to enter our country and kill police.

However, Democrats do not talk about morality when it comes to sex slave traffic, nor do they raise an eyebrow when children are encouraged to take a dangerous trip without parents.

Democrats seek and embrace end results and willingly believe because the end justifies the means they can be self-righteous in their own immorality. (See 1 and 1a below.)

And:

While Democrats are at it, let's impeach Trump for licking Hillary. (See 1b below.)

As the crows mount on Trump, Schumer and Pelosi's plates the question is who will choke first.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
How can this be? (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I constantly hear from my liberal friends what a pathological liar Trump is and I readily admit he is loose with facts.

However, they conveniently deny Obama and the Clinton's are pathological liars and when I remind them of the many lies they told and still tell they say why do I always bring up Obama, and the Clinton's.

My response is to roll my eyes because they make me feel I am in Jerusalem talking To The Wailing Wall!

The same when it comes to their Bible - The New York Times. (See 3 below.)

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

Shapiro says we can laugh at Trump when he is funny and politically incorrect because he is not Obama (See 4 below.)
_______________________________________________

I served on The Board of The Woodrow Wilson Center and met some very bright analysts and fellows. This is an article supporting Trump's move out of Syria.

You decide. (See 5 below)

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

Now that Muslims have become members of Congress and the increasingly radicalized Democrat Party, map revisions will become commonplace.(See 6 below.)

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

Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) Here’s How President Trump Could Build The Wall
By True Daily Staff

President Trump has announced that he could declare a state of emergency on the border in order to build the wall without Congress. Breitbart reports:

President Donald Trump said he was willing to declare a state of emergency on Friday, in order to build a wall on the Southern border.

“Absolutely, we can call a national emergency,” Trump said when asked about the idea by a reporter. “I haven’t done it. I may do it. I may do it.”
The president spoke to reporters in the Rose Garden on Friday at the White House after meeting with Congressional leaders for more than two hours to try to make a deal.

Trump confirmed that he said that he was willing to keep the government shut down for up to a year, if necessary, if Democrats refused to make a deal on border security funding.

“I did say that, absolutely I said that,” he said. “I don’t think it will but I am prepared and I think that I can speak for Republicans in the House and Republicans in the Senate they feel very strongly about having a safe country.”

This would be an unusual way to build the wall, but the threat of its use could put pressure on Democrats to agree to fund border security.

1a) President Trump stated during a Friday press conference that he does not need Congress in order to build the wall. Trump stated that he could declare a national emergency in order to circumvent Congress to get the wall built.

According to The Daily Mail:

Donald Trump told Congressional leaders Friday that he will shut down the government for 'months or years' if he does not get money for his Mexican wall - and said he was 'proud' to do 'the right thing.'

Trump described his wall as a vital security measure, and in a free-wheeling performance claimed that illegal immigrants were being driven across it away from ports of entries, in some cases with their mouths taped over.

The president also disclosed that he had considered declaring a national emergency to build the wall without legislative approval and said: 'I still might.'

'We can call a national emergency because of the security of our country. I haven’t done it. I may do it,' he said.

Trump also hinted that he is hopeful a deal will be done and the government will reopen in the near future.

1b) President Trump Speaks Out on Impeachment

President Trump shot back at Democrat calls for impeachment, citing his successful record as President as a counterpoint. The Washington Examiner reports:

President Trump and his top spokeswoman on Friday dismissed the idea that House Democrats will be able to impeach him, and said he’s been too successful for that to happen.

“How do you impeach a president who has won perhaps the greatest election of all time, done nothing wrong (no Collusion with Russia, it was the Dems that Colluded), had the most successful first two years of any president, and is the most popular Republican in party history 93%?” Trump asked on Twitter.

Trump's Tweet:

How do you impeach a president who has won perhaps the greatest election of all time, done nothing wrong (no Collusion with Russia, it was the Dems that Colluded), had the most successful first two years of any president, and is the most popular Republican in party history 93%?

Trump tweeted just moments after White House press secretary Sarah Sanders was asked to respond to freshman House Democrat Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., who said in a video “we’re gonna go in and impeach the motherf–ker.”

Sanders ignored the vulgarity of the comment, and instead said Democrats would have a hard time impeaching a president who has done so much.

With Democrats only holding a relatively slim majority in the House, impeachment would be a highly difficult process and could backfire on Democrats.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) Parkland shooting commission recommends teachers should be ARMED, says cops should have to confront active shooters in the future and slams deputies who shied away during the attack that left 17 dead

Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission on Wednesday unanimously approved a 446-page report
It contains a proposal to allow teachers who volunteer and undergo extensive training to be armed
The proposal is now in the hands of Governor Rick Scott, governor-elect Ron DeSantis and the Legislature
It is highly critical of the Broward County sheriff's office and recommends they change its policy so deputies are required to confront active shooters
By Associated Press

The commission investigating a shooting massacre at a Florida high school have unanimously approved its initial findings and recommendations, including a controversial proposal that teachers who volunteer and undergo training be allowed to carry guns.

The 15-member Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission's 446-page report, which was released on Wednesday, details what members believe happened before, during and after the February 14 shooting attack that left 17 dead dead and 17 others wounded.

The commission has sent the report to Governor Rick Scott, incoming governor Ron DeSantis and the Legislature.

The Legislature would have to approve the proposal to allow teachers to carry guns. It is currently opposed by the teachers union and the Parent Teacher Association.

The 15-member Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission on Wednesday unanimously approved a recommendation that teachers who volunteer and undergo training be allowed to carry guns

The report is highly critical of the Broward County sheriff's deputies who failed to confront suspect Nikolas Cruz, and of Sheriff Scott Israel, whose office did not at the time have a policy requiring them to rush the three-story freshman building where the shooting happened.

Israel's critics hope the report will result in DeSantis suspending Israel shortly after the new governor takes office Tuesday. Israel has said that he has done nothing to warrant his removal.

As part of the recommendations, the commission said the sheriff's office should change its policy to ensure deputies are required to immediately seek out active shooters.

The report also recommends that the sheriff's office conduct reviews of the seven deputies who arrived at the scene but failed to take immediate action. The sheriff's office are investigating two of the officers and said it would consider additional reviews based on the report.

School resource officers should also have rifles and bulletproof vests available on campus, according to the recommendations. The report also adds that the resource officers should also have frequent and realistic training to handle high-stress situations.

Surveillance video captured gunman Nikolas Cruz stalking the hallways of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School with an assault rifle where he killed 17 people

The report details what is believed to have happened before, during and after the February 14 shooting attack that left 17 dead and 17 others wounded when gunman Nikolas Cruz opened fire. Pictured above is bullet holes in the glass following the shooting

The report also details failures in the county school district's security program that members believe allowed Cruz, a former student known to have serious emotional and behavioral problems, to enter campus while carrying an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle in a bag.

Even since the shooting, not all Florida school districts and campuses have been taking security seriously, the report says, noting that several districts have been slow to complete mandated reviews of their safety plans and procedures.

'Safety and security accountability is lacking in schools, and that accountability is paramount for effective change if we expect a different result in the future than what occurred at Marjory Stoneman Douglas,' the report says.

It further recommends that the state Legislature should increase funding to ensure adequate school security and prevention measures.

In terms of school safety, the report recommends that classrooms should have certain safety measures like hard corners and bullet proof windows, as well as safe areas where students can hide in case of an active shooter.

Teachers should be able to lock classroom doors from the inside and all school gates should be locked to prevent unauthorized access, according to the recommendations.

The report also recommends that a student's mental health and counselling records should be included in their records and be transferred if the student changes schools.

The release of the report comes just days after the Broward Sheriff Scott Israel outlined steps his agency has taken in response to the massacre.

Israel sent a letter to the commission saying all deputies completed an additional eight hours of active-shooter training, and all school deputies attended a week of similar training and received carbines to give them more firepower.

The sheriff's office also created a Threat Assessment Unit, headed by a former New York Police Department inspector, and an internal committee that will address the commission's ultimate findings and recommendations.

'Be assured, the reforms adopted to date are not the end of this process,' Israel wrote.

'Rather, they are a midway point as we continue working towards addressing all of the findings related to our agency and implementing all of the Commission's recommendations.'

The sheriff's office also changed written policy to mandate that deputies have to try to confront active shooters; the previous wording only said deputies 'may' intervene in such situations.

SOME OF THE PANEL'S CHIEF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

State law should be changed to allow teachers who pass an intense training program and background check to carry concealed weapons on campus. Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri, the panel's chairman, argued last month for the change, saying teachers are often the ones who have the best chance to stop a school shooting quickly. Under a law passed after the shooting, districts can elect to arm non-classroom employees such as principals, other administrators, custodians and librarians who undergo training. The only teachers allowed to arm themselves are current or former police officers, active military members or Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps instructors. Thirteen of the state's 67 districts arm non-teaching employees, mostly in rural parts of the state. The state teachers union and PTA oppose the proposal to arm teachers. They argue that adding more armed people will make campuses more dangerous and say teachers should not also be acting as armed guards.

Deputy Scot Peterson, the long-time school resource officer assigned to Stoneman Douglas, 'was derelict in his duty' by not entering the freshman building and confronting Cruz. Video shows Peterson drawing his gun and taking cover outside the building. He retired shortly after the shooting and has denied wrongdoing. The report also criticizes other deputies who failed to enter the building during the shooting, but praises officers from the Coral Springs Police Department who quickly ran inside.

The report says Israel is partly to blame by eliminating a requirement that his deputies confront active shooters, in direct contrast with current law enforcement practices. Israel told the commission he did not want his deputies engaging in suicide missions. He has since changed the policy again, however, to require deputies to confront shooters.

Neither Stoneman Douglas nor the Broward School District had clear procedures for locking down classrooms during a shooting, which led to a three-minute delay in classrooms being shut and 'left students and staff vulnerable to being shot.'
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)THE PATHOLOGICAL ANIMUS OF ‘THE NEW YORK TIMES’

The paper is regarded as the bible of America’s intellectual classes. Yet for years, its coverage of Israel has been a disgrace.

BY MELANIE PHILLIPS

The paper is regarded as the bible of America’s intellectual classes. Yet for years, its coverage of Israel has been a disgrace.

Of course, it’s entitled to criticize Israel as it would any other country. But it doesn’t treat Israel like any other country. It singles it out for demonization based on falsehoods, distortion and selective reporting which makes no attempt at objectivity, fairness or truth.
Last weekend, it published a 4700-word story on the life and death of Rouzan al-Najjar, a young Gazan female doctor who was killed during the riots on the southern border last June.

The story, by its Jerusalem correspondent David Halbfinger, oozed sympathy for al-Najjar and her cause. It described the rioters as “protesters”, obscuring their leaders’ aim of storming the border to murder Israelis.

It presented Al-Najjar’s death with studied but false equivalence as part of a “cycle of violence” with simplistic “narratives” on either side.

Israelis were then portrayed as trigger-happy killers who “obliged” Hamas’s aim of using bloodshed to win international sympathy and whose snipers – despite the IDF’s stated tactic of aiming at rioters’ legs unless they presented an immediate danger – deliberately shot Gazan civilians in the back.

This included al-Najjar. It was only towards the end that the story revealed she was in fact killed accidentally, when an Israeli bullet struck the ground away from her and ricocheted into her body.

This epic account resulted from a six-month investigation by Halbfinger and six others. They collected 30 testimonies and more than 1,000 pictures and videos. That’s a tremendous financial and human investment for just one story.

Yet one week after al-Najjar’s death, the IDF had said it was accidental. Despite all their time and effort, The New York Times couldn’t shift from the fact that it was an accident. But they still dressed it up improbably as a likely war crime.

Yet they didn’t suggest that Hamas was guilty of war crimes thousands of times by setting out to murder innocent Israelis. They skated over the missile attacks from Gaza, the terror tunnels, the fact that Israelis were forced to live in bomb shelters.

Instead, the paper produced a radically decontextualized and tendentiously slanted version to obscure the fact that Israel was defending itself against a genocidal onslaught, and wickedly depicted it instead as a criminal aggressor.

The malicious distortion of Israel by the Times has been doggedly chronicled by CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America.

Its 2018 timeline for the paper’s biased reporting of Israel includes describing a deadly Palestinian attack on Israelis waiting at a bus stop as “bold,” a word later removed from the story; quoting twice as many critics of Israel as supporters in its Oslo accords 25th anniversary coverage – which obscured Palestinian rejectionism and falsely presented Israel as the aggressor; portraying campaigners against antisemitism as “squelching” Palestinian rights; describing Palestinian arson attacks as “ingenious”; characterizing the well-documented fact that the Palestinian Authority pays hundreds of millions of dollars to terrorists’ families as a “far Right conspiracy”; and on and on.

Moreover, the paper goes to quite extraordinary lengths to smear Israel. When the Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi was reportedly murdered in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul last year, the Saudi crown prince was (rightly or wrongly) held responsible.

00:02

But in its online edition, The New York Times headlined its story: “Israeli Software Helped Saudis Spy on Khashoggi, Lawsuit Says”. It said that a Saudi dissident close to Khashoggi filed a lawsuit claiming that an Israeli software company helped the Saudi royals take over his smartphone and spy on his communications with Khashoggi.

The paper said the lawsuit was filed by an Israeli lawyer, Alaa Mahajna, in cooperation with a lecturer at London’s City University, Mazen Masri. Although it identified Mahajna as an Israeli, it failed to mention Masri’s work as a legal adviser to the Negotiations Affairs Department of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

The paper’s troubling problem with Israel seems to have deeper roots. In its book review pages recently, novelist Alice Walker recommended the book And the Truth Shall Set You Free by the virulent antisemite and conspiracy theorist David Icke.

Along with suggesting that the world is run by a cabal of giant shape-sifting lizards – many of whom happen to be Jews – his book endorses as genuine the 19th century antisemitic hoax The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Walker herself has form in this regard. In 2017, she posted on her blog an antisemitic poem, “It is Our (Frightful) Duty to Study the Talmud”. In this, she asks: “Are Goyim (us) meant to be slaves of Jews?” “Are three year old (and a day) girls eligible for marriage and intercourse? Are young boys fair game for rape?”

When asked why the paper hadn’t questioned Walker over her choice of book, the paper’s literary editor, Pamela Paul replied: “The people’s answers are a reflection of their opinions, tastes and judgment.”

So for The New York Times, antisemitism is just a matter of taste or judgment.

Last weekend, the paper published a fawning profile of Representative-elect Ilhan Omar, skating over her deeply disturbing record of promoting anti-Israel falsehoods and antisemitic conspiracy theories and depicted her critics as bigots.

These appalling attitudes towards Israel and the Jews take on an even more disturbing character given that the paper has long been owned by Jews, the Ochs-Sulzberger family.

This clan has been characterized over the generations by distinctly equivocal attitudes towards Judaism and Jewish identity.

Notoriously, it failed to give adequate coverage to the Holocaust. Arthur Hays Sulzberger, the publisher during that era, was said to have experienced antisemitism and was worried about his paper being perceived as too Jewish.

In a 2001 article on its 150th anniversary, former Executive Editor Max Frankel wrote that Sulzberger “believed strongly and publicly that Judaism was a religion, not a race or nationality – that Jews should be separate only in the way they worshiped.

“He went to great lengths to avoid having the Times branded a ‘Jewish newspaper.’” As a result, his editorial page “was cool to all measures that might have singled [Jews] out for rescue or even special attention.”

It would seem that not much has changed. To fend off antisemitism, the paper’s owners allow it to buy into antisemitism itself.

The paper might merely be thought to display hostility to Israel generally exhibited in progressive intellectual circles. But its obsession with bashing Israel, together with its reluctance to acknowledge Jew-hatred, suggests something more pathological is at play at The New York Times.

Melanie Phillips is a columnist for The Times (UK).

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

4) Yes, It's Okay To Laugh At Donald Trump's Elizabeth Warren Meme

By Ben Shapiro

Today, President Trump tweeted out a hilarious meme created by the Daily Wire team. That meme concerned Senator Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) bizarre decision to take a DNA test to confirm her alleged Native American ancestry — a DNA test that showed she could possibly be 1/1024th Native American. Here was Trump’s tweet:

Now, as I’m fond of saying, two things can be true at once. First, it’s true that it would be better for the president of the United States not to troll his political opponents. You can’t imagine Washington, Lincoln, or Reagan doing this.

Second, this is hilarious.

These two things are not mutually exclusive. And in the long pantheon of Trumpian crudities, absurdities, and sins, this tweet doesn’t crack the top 1,000.

Does this mean I’m grading Trump differently than I would, say, Barack Obama? Of course! That’s because Trump is a different human being than Obama. Obama had pretentions at class and glamor, at sophistication and panache. Obama was supposed to be — and saw himself as — a serious person. Trump has never pretended to be a serious person. He’s a reality game show host who plasters his toilets in gold and creates fake magazine covers about himself. If Obama had tweeted this, it would have demonstrated the gap between the reputation he sought and his actual character; for Trump, there is no gap. Obama betraying his image showed that he lied to Americans about who he was, and in the process, degraded the presidency without the full consent of the American people; the American people responded by electing Trump, who has been pretty damned obvious about who he is.

By way of example, on occasion, my two-year-old son hits me on the head while I’m carrying him on my shoulders. This is bad. He receives a punishment. But I don’t treat his behavior the same I way I would identical behavior from my four-year-old daughter. They’re different people, with different capacities, and thus different expectations. The same is true for Trump and Obama. I mocked Obama incessantly when he did an interview with Glozell. That’s because Obama aspired to be a Mandela-like figure. I’m not going to mock Donald Trump for meming on Twitter. That’s because Trump aspired to be a member of the WWE Hall of Fame.

Only one of these men achieved his goal.

So, are we allowed to laugh at Trump’s ridiculous and hilarious trollery? Sure. Should we also acknowledge that it’s bad for the country? Sure. Is it as bad for the country as, say, a Very Serious Person™ like Joe Biden saying that Mitt Romney was going to re-enslave black people in 2012? Not quite.

So let’s get a little perspective and spare ourselves the hysterics. There are plenty of things to get enraged over. Trump laughing at a sitting senator falsifying her Native American story isn’t one of those things, nor is the occasional silly meme a cause for serious consternation over the future of the republic. For the love of God, the same president said yesterday that the Soviets were right to invade Afghanistan. That seems like a far more serious issue over which to get angry.

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

5) 5 reasons why Trump is right about getting America out of Syria

By AARON MILLER AND RICHARD SOKOLSKY

Much of America’s foreign policy establishment, on both the right and the left, has been in an uproar over President Trump’s decision to withdraw 2,000 U.S. troops from Syria. If Trump’s critics are to be believed, it amounts to one of the worst foreign policy blunders in American history, a catastrophe for the nation’s interests and influence in the Middle East. Although the president’s failure to consult and coordinate with Congress and allies in making the decision was a head-spinning case of diplomatic and political malpractice, on balance, critics’ fears about the withdrawal are overblown.

Here are five reasons why.

The Islamic State “caliphate” isn’t going to return.

Islamic State now controls 1% of the territory it once held in Syria and Iraq. It has lost thousands of fighters and recruitment is down. Syria is not Iraq in 2011, where Islamic State militants advanced when there were no countervailing forces. The group’s fighters still confront thousands of determined Kurdish forces, and Syria, Iran, Israel, Turkey and Russia share a common interest in preventing an Islamic State resurgence. Jihadist attacks in northeast Syria will continue and could certainly contribute to keeping Syria unstable. But a continued U.S. military presence won’t change that, or eliminate the risk of a terrorist attack on the United States. Wiping out Islamic State was never realistic — the political, economic and sectarian grievances that inspire its fighters cannot be eliminated by military means alone, and the Trump administration refuses to invest in the kind of stabilization efforts that might address those issues.

Israel and the Kurds can survive without U.S. troops in Syria.

It’s true that the foothold that Iran and its Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah, have established in Syria threatens Israeli security. But Israel is capable of defending itself and is doing so by attacking Iranian and Hezbollah targets in Syria. “Our enemies understand our intelligence and air superiority,” said the Israel Defense Forces chief of staff after Trump’s announcement.

Enter the Fray: First takes on the news of the minute from L.A. Times Opinion »

As for the Kurds, U.S. officials always made it clear that Washington viewed its partnership with these fighters as transactional, temporary and tactical. It simply isn’t in U.S. interests to help carve out the autonomous enclave the Kurds seek in northeast Syria. That fight could lead to a direct military confrontation with Syrian President Bashar Assad’s forces or with our NATO ally Turkey, which sees the Syrian Kurds, allied as they are with the militant Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, as a mortal enemy. The major actors, including Turkey, have an interest in avoiding an all-out battle with the Kurds, who, in the wake of Trump’s decision, have begun to seek reconciliation with the Assad regime.

Vital U.S. interests won’t be sacrificed when the troops are withdrawn.

The United States doesn’t have vital interests in Syria. This was true under President Obama just as it is under Trump. Yes, the Syrian war is a proxy conflict between the U.S. and Iran and Russia, and yes the war has had a horrific toll — hundreds of thousands of civilians killed, a massive refugee crisis, whole cities destroyed, terrorists sent around the world — but neither the White House, Congress nor the American public, after protracted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, support a huge military and economic investment in Syria.

Syria is not a major source of oil. It does not pose an existential threat to Israel. The terrorist threat it poses to the United States has been inflated and is better handled by means other than military action. The country is so broken and dysfunctional that neither Russia nor Iran will be able to use its influence there as a springboard to establish hegemony in the Middle East.

As U.S. troops depart, Russia and Iran aren’t left with a win.

Iran and Russia will dominate Syria as they have done for years. Both countries have always had a greater strategic stake in Syria than the U.S. and thus were more willing to accept a high price to protect their interests there. Now both will struggle with the difficulties of pacifying and reconstructing a war-torn state. With American forces in place, Putin and the Iranians could leave some of the dirty work of confronting the remnants of Islamic State to Washington; no longer. And with the U.S., a common adversary, gone, tensions between Iran and Russia could rise. The more Syria becomes a burden for Russia and Iran, the better for the United States.

American credibility hasn’t been destroyed.

Any damage to the U.S. stems from our own reckless rhetoric and confused policy in Syria — we never committed to ousting Assad, pushing out Iran or helping the Syrian Kurds realize their political goals. Other U.S. allies and partners will judge America’s support based on how the U.S. responds to them individually, not on how Washington has behaved in a country where it has no vital interests.

Two U.S. presidents have failed to come up with an effective policy toward Syria and the Syrian civil war. Withdrawing 2,000 U.S. forces from a battlefield in which other powers have the will and resources to prevail may make Syria even messier than it is now. But keeping U.S. military forces in place with no serious, long-term strategy or attainable objectives to guide them would not make the situation significantly better. Syria was never America’s to win or lose, and getting out now is not a catastrophe.

Aaron David Miller, a vice president at the Woodrow Wilson Center, has been a State Department advisor in Republican and Democratic administrations. Richard Sokolsky, a non-resident senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, worked in the secretary of State’s Office of Policy Planning from 2005 -2015.

6) Now that Democrats have elected Muslims to Congress blatant lying will become commonplace:

awe dropping Alteration Seen On Map In New Muslim Congresswoman’s Office

So just to make sure we're all on the same page, it's time to start wiping countries out?

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

Middle East and Other Musings

Friday, January 4, 2019

Democrats Self-Righteous In Their Own Immorality Because Their Desired Ends Justify Means!