And look how I turned out: (10) The America I Grew Up In. Jeff Allen - YouTube
And:
AOC not as new as you thought:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Was Michelle behind Smollett's total exoneration? If so, was it timed to take the Mueller Investigation, which absolved Trump of collusion, off the headlines?
We know the Clinton's, The DNC, The Democrat Party, a slew of corrupt and lying FBI officials and several highly placed intelligent officials and most of America's mass media are corrupt.
We know Democrats named Schiff and Nadler, among others, are liars and several Democrat House members are avowed anti-Semites.
Finally, we know Trump's 2016 victory shocked all of the above and efforts began, even before Trump was elected, to interfere with his campaign and continue as they reject the Mueller investigation's conclusion.
Trump was correct when he argued a deep state did in fact exist. His threat to drain the swamp was taken to heart by those who felt compelled to protect their power at all costs. They did so by paying for a false dossier which formed the basis of further illegal activities.
While all of this has been taking place The Democrat Party has shifted far to the left and several high young high profile radicals have gained the upper hand.
When I asked David Bossie, recently, what would happen if Democrats lost in
2020, he told me they would double down because they are incapable of accepting their embrace of radicalism could possibly be the basis of their defeat. When he said that, I remained somewhat unconvinced but now I believe Bossie was correct. Why? Because if Democrats cannot accept Mueller's conclusions regarding collusion they, obviously, are committed to rejecting reality. Now they are using Barr and Rosenstein's decision, no collusion no obstruction, as the basis of doubling down.
Mueller exonerated not only Trump but found no evidence any American citizen engaged in collusion. If there was no collusion then Democrats and Trump Haters needed a fall back position to keep their charade going and it is obstruction. The problem with obstruction is Mueller was allowed to complete his investigation. That Trump called it a witch hunt, that the mass media accused him of all kind of obdurate activities, Mueller could not find Trump colluded so all the mud, allegedly thrown at Mueller by Trump, missed because there never was a legal target,
This is the American political scene as of this moment and I suspect it will get more contentious because there is no desire, on the part of the above, in placing the interests of the nation beyond their own.They are far more concerned about retaining power and defeating Trump in 2020.
What the Democrats, the Trump haters and the mass media have done to thwart Trump's presidency, to set him up for impeachment is tragic enough. What they have done to weaken him for the good of the nation is beyond excusable. Bring back horse whipping!
Meanwhile, if their actions continue, I believe the Democrats stand to go down in a resounding defeat. You decide. (See 1, 1a and 1b below.)
And:
Ed Morrissey, The Week
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is about time. (See 2 below)
++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) Democrats and the Mueller Report
Robert Mueller is done. Trump-Russia collusion is dead, but the war on the Trump presidency rages on. As many congressional Democrats and their lackeys in the left-wing media continue to pursue their foolish dream of removing President Trump from office, it’s important to remember that swing-district Democrats -- whose victories gave control of the U.S. House to their party -- won their elections not by promising to impeach President Trump.
In other words, all those Democratic Party chairs now promising endless investigations of the President are only in the position to do so because their swing-state comrades laid off the impeachment chatter. Or, as John Lawrence of The Hill put it the day after the Mueller report summary was released:
Democrats did not win the majority on a promise to relentlessly pursue Trump; they won because candidates for Republican seats persuaded voters, long before the Mueller report was issued, that they could be trusted to address tough issues like health care, immigration, campaign finance reform, and integrity in government. If Democrats hope to retain those seats -- and a majority -- in 2020, they will have to demonstrate that the voters’ confidence was not misplaced. They assuredly will not retain the hard-won majority if they are perceived as single-mindedly heading down the impeachment, or even the Mueller-Barr, rabbit hole.
Again, not only did swing-district Democrats avoid or downplay talk of impeachment, they also frequently spoke of waiting on the Mueller report -- as well as relying upon Mueller’s report -- before deciding on whether impeachment of President Trump was indeed called for. Let’s review their own words.
In September of 2018, the Washington Free Beacon reported,
Gil Cisneros (CA-39) and Katie Porter (CA-45), have generally said they support the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller, and that decisions on impeachment should wait for a conclusion and report by Mueller and his team.
Lucy McBath (GA-6) said she “would not call for impeaching Trump unless there was a bad report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of possible Russian influence on the 2016 presidential campaigns.” Reporting on Haley Stevens (MI-11) just three weeks prior to the 2018 midterms, the Detroit News declared,
Stevens takes a wait-and-see approach on possible impeachment hearings for Trump, saying that conversation depends on the outcome of special counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiry. “We need to see the Mueller investigation through,” Stevens said. “I believe we need to put the country first and certainly treat anything along those lines very seriously.”
In May of 2018, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram asked 22 Texas Democrats running for U.S. Congress whether they would vote to impeach President Trump. Two Democrats -- Lizzie Pannill Fletcher and Colin Allred -- flipped seats in Texas. When asked about impeachment, Fletcher declared, “Congress must ensure that [Mueller’s] investigation is completed, and that if President Trump has committed impeachable offenses must be prepared to bring the charge.” Allred added, “We need to make sure the Mueller probe is protected and that it’s able to reach its conclusion.”
Reporting on Jennifer Wexton (VA-10) last year, ABC News noted,
Wexton was also cautious when discussing Trump and possible impeachment. A former prosecutor, she said she wants special counsel Robert Mueller to continue his work and that “we need to follow the facts and we can’t rush to judgment.”
A week before the 2018 election, New Jersey’s Mikie Sherrill joined her New Jersey swing-district colleagues in calling for restraint on impeachment. She declared, “Congress should support Special Counsel Robert Muller's investigation and allow him to finish his work.”
And so on. (I chronicle 2018 swing-district Democrats on Trump, Mueller, and impeachment here.) Democrats flipped dozens of GOP-held seats because they painted themselves as rational, nonhyperpartisan candidates who would follow the facts -- especially on impeachment. Now that Mueller’s report has further revealed the Trump-Russia-collusion farce for what it really was, these Democrats must be held accountable to their words.
Furthermore, ever since the Mueller investigation began, there was a bipartisan chorus of politicians telling us that the Mueller investigation should be “protected” and that Mueller must be “allowed to complete his work.” Of course, to a great extent this was because so many liberals and #NeverTrumpers were convinced that the end of the Mueller investigation would spell the end of the Trump administration.
Whether or not they felt that the Mueller investigation would be the ultimate undoing of President Trump, many Democrats put all of their impeachment eggs in the Mueller investigation basket. Leon Panetta -- defense secretary and CIA director under Barack Obama and chief of staff to Bill Clinton -- summed up this position well. Two months prior to the 2018 midterms, ABC News reported Panetta saying,
Panetta continued, “I think Bob Mueller’s work will ultimately determine whether or not there are going to be additional steps taken against the president and they ought not to get ahead of that report because that will be the key to determining what happens.”“I think the most important thing that the Democrats could do is to allow Bob Mueller to complete his work.”
Now that the collusion narrative has finally officially collapsed, impeachment-obsessed Democrats must look elsewhere to satisfy their anti-Trump hate. Of course, as they chase this political unicorn, they only reinforce the notion that the Mueller investigation was never really about Russian collusion at all, but rather just a convenient means of undoing the results of the 2016 presidential election. In other words -- as the actions of congressional Democrats prove -- it seems that the Mueller investigation was little more than a “witch-hunt” all along.
Trevor Grant Thomas
1a)
The Incalculable Damage of the Russia Hoax
It is very simple. There have been two individuals who entered the maelstrom of this fake news hurricane to emerge after the event and to have their positions made stronger on the world stage. Both President Trump and President Putin knew the real truth of a fake narrative from the first moment the collusion issue was raised as a vehicle for a hide in plain sight what must acknowledged as political/media coup attempt.
President Trump was incredibly strong in standing firm, and his daughter Ivanka nailed it, in essence: the truth is the truth:
The Trump presidency has just reaped a global foreign policy and defense benefit: No world leader would never, ever doubt how tough he is, having survived this attempted coup.
Tragically, in terms of world peace slipping away, the other winner was President Putin. He is perhaps the second-best global information warrior in a leadership position in the world today. (President Trump is an order of magnitude better, but faces a hostile media establishment that works against him, and by default helps Putin.
Not since Stalin and one of the original fake news reporters, Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times journalist Walter Duranty, has a Russian leader scored such an important information warfare victory in the United States. pyrrhic victory been achieved by. Duranty spread propaganda denying Stalin’s starving of millions of Ukrainians, estimated at over 10 million.
It took more than half a century for the New York Times to publicly acknowledge the insidiousness of Duranty’s and its own role in Stalin’s information warfare victory:
Ironically, history shows Duranty knew he was writing BS. Just as I suspect a few ideologically driven reporters have, deep down, known over the last two years that they were also publishing their asserted opinions in the form of hard “breaking news.” Those and many others were useful dolts and will live in infamy.
The damage to America is they have shown to Putin the strengths and weakness of our First Amendment safeguards in real time. He has greatly benefited in seeing this American media suicide attempt.
While the U.S. media was focusing on Trump, Putin was enjoying a relatively free ride in making trouble -- from the Baltics in sending his planes out to threaten our Intel aircraft, to probing UK airspace, to continuing to move aggressively in Ukraine and Syria. Putin has gotten mostly a free ride, his aggressions escaping significant American media focus
President Putin has recently threatened a direct attack against the United States if we do not comply with his strategic approach to Europe and the rest of the world. And the Russian PR machine has really kicked in. Why are all his blustery nuclear threats, some real and others notional (fake) not being reported on?
Instead of attacking President Trump with now proven “fake news,” our media need to grow up and focus on the real danger of Putin’s capabilities and intentions.
Is President Putin diabolically smart or simply a psychopath? Perhaps he is both, because by his direct action, the world is now a much more dangerous place as the former KGB officer creates a nuclear doomsday scenario backed by real Russian naval capabilities.
And the American media establishment has been his unwitting (we charitably assume) partner.
President Trump was incredibly strong in standing firm, and his daughter Ivanka nailed it, in essence: the truth is the truth:
The Trump presidency has just reaped a global foreign policy and defense benefit: No world leader would never, ever doubt how tough he is, having survived this attempted coup.
Tragically, in terms of world peace slipping away, the other winner was President Putin. He is perhaps the second-best global information warrior in a leadership position in the world today. (President Trump is an order of magnitude better, but faces a hostile media establishment that works against him, and by default helps Putin.Not since Stalin and one of the original fake news reporters, Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times journalist Walter Duranty, has a Russian leader scored such an important information warfare victory in the United States. pyrrhic victory been achieved by. Duranty spread propaganda denying Stalin’s starving of millions of Ukrainians, estimated at over 10 million.
It took more than half a century for the New York Times to publicly acknowledge the insidiousness of Duranty’s and its own role in Stalin’s information warfare victory:
On Christmas Day in 1933, Joseph Stalin conferred this orchid on his favorite Western journalist:''You have done a good job in your reporting the U.S.S.R., though you are not a Marxist, because you try to tell the truth about our country... I might say that you bet on our horse to win when others thought it had no chance and I am sure you have not lost by it.''
The reporter was Walter Duranty, then The New York Times's Moscow correspondent, who is credited with coining the term ''Stalinism.'' He was fascinated, almost mesmerized by the harsh system he described. And having bet on Stalin's rise in the 1920's, Mr. Duranty remained loyally partial to his horse. The result was some of the worst reporting to appear in this newspaper. (snip)The biggest Duranty lapse was his indifference to the catastrophic famine in 1930-31, when millions perished in the Ukraine on the heels of forced collectivization. He shrugged off the famine as ''mostly bunk,'' and in any case, as he admonished the squeamish, ''You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.''
Ironically, history shows Duranty knew he was writing BS. Just as I suspect a few ideologically driven reporters have, deep down, known over the last two years that they were also publishing their asserted opinions in the form of hard “breaking news.” Those and many others were useful dolts and will live in infamy.
The damage to America is they have shown to Putin the strengths and weakness of our First Amendment safeguards in real time. He has greatly benefited in seeing this American media suicide attempt.
While the U.S. media was focusing on Trump, Putin was enjoying a relatively free ride in making trouble -- from the Baltics in sending his planes out to threaten our Intel aircraft, to probing UK airspace, to continuing to move aggressively in Ukraine and Syria. Putin has gotten mostly a free ride, his aggressions escaping significant American media focus
President Putin has recently threatened a direct attack against the United States if we do not comply with his strategic approach to Europe and the rest of the world. And the Russian PR machine has really kicked in. Why are all his blustery nuclear threats, some real and others notional (fake) not being reported on?
Instead of attacking President Trump with now proven “fake news,” our media need to grow up and focus on the real danger of Putin’s capabilities and intentions.
Is President Putin diabolically smart or simply a psychopath? Perhaps he is both, because by his direct action, the world is now a much more dangerous place as the former KGB officer creates a nuclear doomsday scenario backed by real Russian naval capabilities.
And the American media establishment has been his unwitting (we charitably assume) partner.
With powerful free press constitutional safe guards, Americans have empowered our media with an important mission in an informed democracy: reporting accurately with full transparency on important events. Now with the Russia! Russia! Russia! Trump! Trump! Trump! Hoax, with its incredibly inaccurate and malicious reporting blown to hell and back, there is a significant lesson to be learned.
I have not seen anyone focus on both President Trump and President Putin winning; one man for good the other for evil.
It is very simple. There have been two individuals who entered the maelstrom of this fake news hurricane to emerge after the event and to have their positions made stronger on the world stage. Both President Trump and President Putin knew the real truth of a fake narrative from the first moment the collusion issue was raised as a vehicle for a hide in plain sight what must acknowledged as political/media coup attempt.
I have not seen anyone focus on both President Trump and President Putin winning; one man for good the other for evil.
It is very simple. There have been two individuals who entered the maelstrom of this fake news hurricane to emerge after the event and to have their positions made stronger on the world stage. Both President Trump and President Putin knew the real truth of a fake narrative from the first moment the collusion issue was raised as a vehicle for a hide in plain sight what must acknowledged as political/media coup attempt.
1b) How Dems Plan to Lock In a Majority
Restrictions on speech, court packing, adding new states—51 senators would be enough to do it all.
By Steven Law
Democrats are so certain they’ll win the White House in 2020 that they aren’t only measuring the drapes; they’re contemplating an extreme makeover of government that would advance and lock in an ambitious progressive legacy.
The 2016 presidential election was a traumatic loss for progressives—worse than losing the House in 2010 after Democrats muscled through ObamaCare. What progressives learned from these defeats is that changing policy is not enough; they must change the rules of the game to cement their control and prevent the voters from reversing their agenda. Thus Democrats are methodically pursuing a strategy to restructure our democratic system and permanently shift the playing field in their favor.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi kicked off this strategy with the first bill she introduced after taking back her gavel: H.R. 1, which would aggressively regulate speech that criticizes (or applauds) any federal politician, even on policy terms. H.R. 1 would also federalize state voting systems, effectively wiping out registration deadlines and anti-fraud safeguards, as well as requiring automatic registration of people as young as 16. The bill would even force taxpayers to subsidize political campaigns by matching low-dollar contributions. It would also express the “sense of Congress” that the District of Columbia should become a state. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer quickly endorsed that idea, which would expand his caucus by two.
All this is just a warm-up act for the progressives’ most audacious plan yet: a hostile takeover of the Supreme Court by expanding its size from nine justices to as many as 15. This idea, discredited in the 1930s, is gaining steam among Democrats infuriated by President Trump’s and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s effectiveness at appointing conservative judges.
Taken together, these efforts to restructure our federal government reveal a radicalized Democratic Party still seething over Mr. Trump’s victory in 2016 and the undoing of many Obama-era policy achievements. The party’s leading presidential contenders all vow massive economic and social upheaval that would change the face of America. To secure these audacious goals, the party is fixated on making structural changes that would prevent Republicans from ever regaining power in Congress, neuter the Supreme Court, and punish those who speak out against the new order.
What’s astonishing is that all of this—draconian speech controls, adding a new state, packing the Supreme Court—requires nothing more than a statute (in contrast with another progressive dream, abolishing the Electoral College). Under current Senate rules, 41 senators can invoke the filibuster to block legislation from coming to the floor. But if Democrats take a majority in 2020, they could effectively abolish the filibuster for legislation, as they did for nominations in 2013.
Thus the Republican-led U.S. Senate is America’s firewall against one-party rule. That’s why the fight for Senate control in 2020 will be as consequential as the White House campaign.
Mr. Law is president of the Senate Leadership Fund/One Nation, a super PAC that seeks to elect Republicans to the Senate.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)
Court Kicks CAIR Out of San Diego School District
By Clarion Project
In a landmark case, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has been forced out of the San Diego Unified School District.
A lawsuit was brought against the district for partnering with CAIR and allowing the Islamist organization to run a discriminatory, unconstitutional propaganda program in its schools.
The court agreed with this assessment.
The program in question gave Muslim students special privileges and gave CAIR the power to change the district curriculum to make sure Islam was looked upon more favorably.
Students and parents were made to watch biased videos, CAIR officials were allowed to teach students and teachers about Islam and students were trained “how to become allies with Muslims students.”
The program, which began in April 2017, was based on false evidence that, in the wake of President Donald Trump’s electoral victory, Muslim students were subjected to “Islamophobic” bullying. However, state records indicated there was no evidence of such bullying in the district’s schools.
The court ruled that the program was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause by favoring one religious group over another and mixing government with religion.
Under the terms of the ruling, the school district is required to permanently drop the program and prevented from allowing CAIR to be involved in school activities in the future.
Further, school officials must correct the pro-Muslim student bias and disproportionate emphasis on Islamic history in its curriculum, which were both instituted through the program.
The court further gave the following guidelines to the schools:
- “Educators should treat each religion with equal respect, with the time and attention spent discussing each religion being proportionate to its impact on history.”
- “Educational material on religious subjects must be neutral and may not be presented in a manner that promotes one religion over another.”
- “Educators or other staff sponsoring guest speakers at District events must ask them not to use their position or influence on students to forward their own religious, political, economic or social views and shall take active steps to neutralize whatever bias has been presented.”
- “Guest speakers from religious organizations are not permitted to present to students on religious topics.”
- “This is a tremendous victory, because CAIR intended this plan to be a pilot program for a nationwide rollout,” said Daniel J. Piedra, executive director of the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund (FCDF), the organization which brought the suit against the school district.
The FCDF said that other school districts similarly affected by CAIR are Seattle Public Schools, Minneapolis Public Schools, Cajon Valley Unified School District and Gilroy Unified School District.
“This settlement agreement will serve as a warning to politically correct school boards nationwide to think twice about partnering with CAIR,” said Charles LiMandri, chief counsel for FCDF.
LiMandri called the court’s decision a “victory against radical Islamic indoctrination in America’s schools.”
The FBI and the Justice Department have both banned CAIR as an outreach partner because of its Islamist agenda and ties to Hamas and terror funding.
In 2007, the U.S. government labeled CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation for financing the Hamas terrorist group.
CAIR was listed by the U.S. government as being among “individuals/entities who are/were members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee and/or its organizations.” The Palestine Committee was a secret body set up by the Brotherhood to advance the Brotherhood/Hamas agenda in America.
A secret meeting of the committee held in Philadelphia in 1993 was wiretapped by the FBI. Nihad Awad, co-founder and executive director of CAIR participated in that meeting where members agreed that a new “neutral” entity for influencing U.S. policy and opinion was agreed upon.
Awad founded CAIR the following year.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment