WHY IS GEN.  MARK MILLEY A PATRIOT BUT GEN. MICHAEL FLYNN A TRAITOR?

                                                             By Daniel John Sobieski

  The liberals who pilloried Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn when he was nominated as President-elect Donald J. Trump’s National Security Adviser for talking with his Russian counterpart, something an incoming National Security Adviser would be expected to do, are defending Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley for calling his Chinese counterpart and promising a heads-up if a rogue Trump decided to attack China as he was leaving office, something a Joint Chiefs Chairman is not constitutionally or legally authorized to do.Gen. Flynn, who was prosecuted and persecuted to death and eventually pardoned for his crimes against Trump, was entrapped in a false statement charge after an ambush interview by James Comey and his minions regarding his conversation with his Russian counterpart, was overcome by the stench of hypocrisy and corruption and genuine and arguably treasonous law-breaking by Gen. Milley and called for Milley to resign:In an interview today with Newsmax, Gen. Michael Flynn called for Mark Milley to resign “in disgrace” over phone calls with Chinese general Li Zuocheng.            “It’s illegal, it’s immoral, and it’s unethical, and Mark Milley should be immediately, immediately told to drop his stars and he should be resigning in disgrace if not fired publicly,” Flynn told Newsmax host Eric Bolling.

Flynn continued, “Mark Milley is doing such incredible… grave damage to the institute of the military by continuing to stay in the office of chairman of the joint chiefs.”

In regards to Afghanistan, Flynn added, “For him to stand up there and say that they didn’t know, that’s an excuse. You don’t make excuses at this level of our armed forces.”

Prior to the interview, news broke that a spokesman for Milley defended the calls in a statement, essentially confirming that they took place as they were originally alleged in books scheduled to be released soon.

Allowing Milley to simply resign and be free to write his memoirs and become a CNN analyst is too good a fate for a man who has been rightly dubbed “Benedict Milley” for calling someone who would be his adversary and ours in the event of war, Chinese general Li Zuocheng, and promising a heads-up if we attacked. That is called collaborating with the enemy. That is called treason and is certainly worthy of a court0martial.

Defenders of the “woke” and thoroughly modern Milley, who was so busy looking for white supremacists in the military and learning about “white rage” that he slept through the fall of Afghanistan due to President Biden’s surrender to the Taliban, caked Millry the “adult in the room” who was there to safeguard democracy, preserve the peace, and keep a rogue Trump in check.

The man who Milley thought a rogue warmonger was in fact the only President in recent memory who did not initiate a new conflict, was the recipient of multiple Nobel Peace Prize nominations for engineering the Abraham Accords bringing peace between Israel and formerly hostile Arab states, among other efforts. Instead of a nuclear war. Trump stopped the North Korean nuclear and missile programs in their tracks, actually meeting with their Dear Leader, little fat boy Kim Jong-un.

What Milley did was to insert himself into the civilian chain of command which runs from the President through the Secretary of Defense and to the various theatre commanders. By telling staff to ignore Trump and follow Milley’s lead in a conflict is rank insubordination bordering on sedition. Milley is the insurrectionist and rather than preventing misunderstandings, which military-to-military hotline contacts are designed to do, Milley’s rogue actions could actually have triggered a nuclear war if the Chinese misunderstood what he might tell them about Trump’s alleged intentions and decided to launch a preemptive strike.

Certainly, 33-year military veteran Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn was not treated with the same deference when he became the focus of the deep state coup attempting to keep Donald Trump out of the White House. He served his country with genuine honor and distinction, unlike Bowe Bergdahl, traded by Biden/Obama for the current Taliban leadership.   He served in Afghanistan in Iraq as the director of intelligence for Joint Special Operations Command which included units like Seal Team 6.  President Obama appointed him director of the Defense Intelligence Agency where he served until he fell out of favor  for his criticism of President Obama precipitously withdrawing from Iraq, which created a vacuum the Islamic State rose to fill, with Obama doing nothing as he watched it grow except dismiss it as the “JV team.”

Because Flynn knew the secrets and machinations of the deep state and would advise Trump about them, he had to be stopped. He did not collude with the Russians as Milley colluded with the Chinese. After the ambush interview to set him up, the FBI altered his 302s, essentially written reports based on witness interviews, to make him look guilty, and leaking information on Flynn’s calls to the Washington Post.

 Even the likes of former National Security Council staffer Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman thinks Millry should resign, though one suspects Vindman is trying to refurbish his image which was tarnished when he similarly stabbed President Trump in the back by being the “whistleblower” that painted the call between President Trump  and Ukrainian President Zelensky as treasonous, leading to a bogus impeachment of Trump. Even so, Vindman said of Milley:

A key witness in the first impeachment of then-President Donald Trump said Tuesday that Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “must resign” if he is confirmed to have made secret calls to his Chinese counterpart in order to reassure Beijing that Trump would not order military action against the Communist superpower.

Retired Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a former member of the National Security Council, tweeted that if the calls were made, Milley “usurped civilian authority, broke Chain of Command, and violated the sacrosanct principle of civilian control over the military.

Milley and his ilk are what’s left over after Biden and Obama purged the military of those generals and admirals who believed that wars should always end in an American victory. Hie is more of a social justice warrior than a military one. Consider his reaction to the George Floyd riots:

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley dismissed the George Floyd riots as “penny packet protests” — insisting they weren’t an insurrection because the mobs only “used spray paint,” according to a new book.

The under-fire general — accused of going behind President Donald Trump’s back to contact his Chinese counterpart — wildly downplayed the riots when Trump raised fears they were “burning America down,” according to Fox News excerpts from the new book, “Peril.”

Milley’s reaction to the Jan.6 “insurrection” in which the only killed was Ashlii Babbitt, an unarmed Trump supporter was quite different.

The picture he painted of the Jan. 6 protestors in his reent congressional testimony is nonsense:

The four-star general said it was important for military personnel to be well-informed and “open-minded.” Gen. Milley said he wanted to understand “white rage.”

“What is it that caused thousands of people to assault this building and try to overturn the Constitution of the United States?” What caused that? I want to find out,” Gen. Milley said, citing the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol by supporters of President Trump challenging the 2020 presidential election result.

Milley has apparently forgotten this nation was born in messy protests such as the Boston Tea Party when patriots protested unjust taxation by throwing British tea into Boston Harbor. Was that “white rage” Gen. Milley? Or was it white racism since they were dressed as Indians, cultural misappropriation at the very least? The Constitution you say is under attack gives us the right to petition for redress of grievances and sometimes it ain’t pretty. Just witness the angry patriot parents at local school board meetings as so-called educators try to force critical race theory down the children’s throats just as you want to force it down our soldiers' throats.

You say you read Mao because you want to understand a potential adversary/ But we are not the enemy even though you think you have met the enemy and you think he is us. Yout enemy, the one you are trained to kill and blow up, wear Red Chinese and Russian uniforms, not red MAGA hats. Tell us, Gen. Milley, how you expect young men and women of all ethnicities and colors, are expected to fight and die for what you believe and critical race theory teaches is a fundamentally racist society.

This is what Trump really said on Jan. 6, Gen. Milley, after reciting a list of documented unconstitutional election law changes, vote tampering, manipulation and fraud, as reported by the Palm Beach Post:

"And after this, we're going to walk down there, and I'll be there with you, we're going to walk down ... to the Capitol and we are going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women," Trump told the crowd. "And we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong."…

"We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn't happen. You don't concede when there's theft involved," Trump said. "Our country has had enough. We're not going to take it anymore."…

e further said: "You're the real people. You're the people that built this nation. You're not the people that tore down this nation."

The president did also say: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

And he added in a bit of irony: "Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy."

“Peacefully and patriotically” are not words you gears when progressives formed their “resistance” against Trump or as our cities burned in Antifa and BLM led riots. The George Floyd/BLM protests cost 1-2 billion dollars in damage. They protested in over 140 Cities. Dozens of people died and over 14,000 were arrested, a federal courthouse in Portland was burned, as well as a historic church in Washington, D.C. but only the Capitol Hill protestors threatened our democracy. Really, Gen. Milley? You weren’t concerned about insurrectionists or rage of any color last year as American cities from Portland to Minneapolis burned, destroying largely minority neighborhoods and businesses, riots led by BLM and Antifa.

Speaking of historic St. John’s Church in Washington, D.C.’s Lafayette Square which BLM and Antifa rioters set on fire along with other local buildings as they tried to pull down historic statues, much to Gen. Milley’s indifference,   after the arson attempt failed, President Trump walked with an entourage to the church, Bible in hand, to show we would not cower to the BLM and Antifa rage Gen. Milley seems to find acceptable.

Gen. Milley then proceeded his commander-in-chief, publicly apologizing for being “forced” to appear in what he called a politically motivated photo-op. As RedState reported:

Gen. Mark Milley, the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was among that group.

On Thursday morning, during a prerecorded commencement address to the graduating class of the National Defense University, Milley said, “I should never have been there.”

He apologized to the graduates because it had been a “political event” and that the military must remain apolitical.

He told them:

As senior leaders, everything you do will be closely watched and I am not immune, as many of you saw the results of the photograph of me at Lafayette Square last week. That sparked a national debate about the role of the military in civil society. I should not have been there. My presence in that moment, and in that environment, created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics. As a commissioned, uniformed officer, it was a mistake that I have learned from and I sincerely hope we can all learn from it.

Gen. Milley should have kept his big mouth shut. The walk and subsequent photos had political connotations but so does Trump speaking at a military service academy graduation. A historic frequented by presidents was under attack as was the rest of the city. Isn’t it the sworn duty of the President and all military officers under his command to protect us against all enemies foreign and domestic Which part of that does Gen. Milley not understand? Which part of commander-in-chief does he not understand?

Milley follows the equally “woke” Chief of Naval Operation, Adm. Michael Gilday. Instead of preparing our fleets for battle, Admiral Gilday is damning the torpedoes and going full speed ahead on pushing critical race theory on the Navy by putting a book espousing critical race theory on the Navy’s reading list for sailors.

It is the Trump-hating Milley who is being political and disgracing his uniform and his country in doing so. His job is not to be “woke” but to make sure our enemies on the battlefield never wake up again.

For a variety of reasons, the “woke” Milley should resign or be court-martialled. Few dare call it treason. I will. The double standards in the treatment between Gen. Michael Flynn and Gen. Mark Milley are mind-boggling.

            Daniel John Sobieski is a former editorial writer for Investor’s Business Daily and free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.               

                              ANOTHER HILLARY MOLE INSIDE MUELLER PROBE EXPOSED 

                                                                                     By

                                                                       Daniel John Sobieski

How objective can an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email investigation be when the FBI agent who played a lead role was removed from it this summer for texting his pro-Hilary and anti-Trump sympathies?  And why does House Intelligence committee Chairman Devin Nunes have to read about it in the New York Times and the Washington Post? As Byron York reports in the Washington Examiner:

House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes has issued an angry demand to the FBI and Department of Justice to explain why they kept the committee in the dark over the reason Special Counsel Robert Mueller kicked a key supervising FBI agent off the Trump-Russia investigation.

Stories in both the Washington Post and New York Times on Saturday reported that Peter Strzok, who played a key role in the original FBI investigation into the Trump-Russia matter, and then a key role in Mueller's investigation, and who earlier had played an equally critical role in the FBI's Hillary Clinton email investigation, was reassigned out of the Mueller office because of anti-Trump texts he exchanged with a top FBI lawyer, Lisa Page, with whom Strzok was having an extramarital affair. Strzok was transferred to the FBI's human resources office — an obvious demotion -- in July.

Are we to believe that Strzok was diligently and impartially examining evidence related to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Er, matters while being unable to contain his anti-Trump bias? Is he the only Hillary mole? Just look at Robert Mueller’s staff and James Comey’s exoneration of Hilary Clinton after the infamous tarmac meeting between AG Loretta Lynch and unindicted conspirator in Uranium One William Jefferson Clinton. Stop when  you detect a pattern.

This news comes as House Republicans, tired of leaks and finding out about things in the legacy media are moving to find both the FBI and the DOJ in contempt of Congress for failing to provide requested material:

U.S. House Republicans are moving to bring a Contempt of Congress resolution against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray for stonewalling the production material related to the Russia-Trump probes and other matters.

According to Bloomberg, House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes and other Republicans decided to move against Rosenstein and Wray after the New York Times reported Saturday about the removal of a top FBI official assigned to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of the alleged Russia-Trump election collusion had been removed from the investigation.

If its hurtful to Team Trump, it gets leaked. If its damaging to Team Hillary, its treated like the gold at Fort Knox. That’s not really surprising in a probe where Michael Flynn gets dinged for making false statements to the FBI, the same crime committed by famous Russian colluder Martha Stewart, but Hillary Clinton is not. But then Hillary was never put another oath in an interview which was not conducted under oath and for which no notes were taken, unlike former FBI Director James Comey’s meeting with President Trump  Comey did not attend that meeting, nor was a grand jury convened.  And where are the Podesta indictments, pray tell?

Comey had the fix in for Hillary We now know why the FBI made the absurd claim that it would not release its files on the Hillary Clinton email investigation for alleged lack of public interest. The FBI was covering up its obstruction of justice in the, er, “matter” knowing full well that former Director James Comey had already exonerated Hillary Clinton before the alleged investigation was complete and all witnesses had been interviewed and months before Comey falsely claimed in his announcement that no competent prosecutor would take Hillary’s case.

In withholding the files sought under Freedom of Information Act requests, the FBI forgot that it and former Secretary of State Clinton are and were employees of the American taxpayer, taxpayers who have a right to know whether justice is being served or denied.  Claims that Hillary had privacy rights that trumped the public interest were absurd:

The FBI is declining to turn over files related to its investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails by arguing a lack of public interest in the matter.

Ty Clevenger, an attorney in New York City, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in March of 2016 asking for a variety of documents from the FBI and the Justice Department, including correspondence exchanged with Congress about the Clinton email investigation….

In July 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey famously called Clinton’s email arrangement “extremely careless” though he decided against recommending criminal charges….

On Aug. 8, the FBI asked Clevenger to detail why the public would be interested.

“If you seek disclosure of any existing records on this basis, you must demonstrate that the public interest in disclosure outweighs personal privacy interests,” the letter stated. “In this regard, you must show that the public interest sought is a significant one, and that the requested information is likely to advance that interest.”

Say what? ? Did it serve the public interest or James Comey’s interest when he publicly detailed all the reason Hillary Clinton should be criminally charged before saying lack of intent, a criteria which appears nowhere in the law, was the reason Comey was giving Hillary a gt out of jail free card, a judgment he did not have the authority o make? Didn’t his exoneration announcement violate Hillary’s alleged privacy rights by detailing the criminal violations of a subject that was not going to be charged?

If James Comey was seriously looking for evidence of intent he couldn’t have possibly taken a single step without tripping over it. Wasn’t having a private server that contained classified information, multiple devices that were later physically smashed, and using bleach bit to destroy 33,000 emails that were under subpoena sufficient evidence of intent?

Only a corrupt and complicit FBI director, acting as Hillary Clinton’s surrogate campaign manager, who months earlier had decided he would exonerate her, could ignore the damning evidence:

As FBI director last year, James Comey began writing drafts of a statement exonerating Hillary Clinton, even before all witnesses in the investigation — including Clinton herself — had been interviewed.

The Senate Judiciary Committee obtained the Comey memos as part of its investigation into his firing by President Trump, which occurred on May 9.The revelation that Comey had begun drafting memos of his exoneration statement comes from transcripts of interviews given last fall by two FBI officials.

James Rybicki, Comey’s chief of staff, and Trisha Anderson, the principal deputy general counsel of national security and cyberlaw at the FBI, gave the interviews as part of an investigation conducted by the Office of Special Counsel into the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email investigation.

In a July 5, 2016, press conference, Comey said that he would not be recommending charges against Clinton for mishandling classified information despite her use of a private email server as secretary of state.

While the transcripts of those interviews are heavily redacted, they indicate that Comey started working on an announcement clearing Clinton in April or May of last year, before the FBI interviewed 17 witnesses in the case, including Clinton and some of her top aides.

Having already deciding he would exonerate her regardless of the evidence explains why he did not attended the Jult 2, 2016 interview of Hillary Clinton, did not put her under oath, or ever impaneled a grand jury in, there’s that word again, mater. The fix was in.

Yes, Virginia, this is a witch hunt. Robert Mueller III was appointed special counsel after his friend, the vindictive James Comey, committed a federal crime by leaking a memo which was a government record to the press. Mueller has picked staff and prosecutors as if he were stocking Hillary Clinton’s Department of Justice. He has picked a bevy of Clinton donors, an attorney who worked for the Clinton Foundation, a former Watergate assistant prosecutor, and evn a senior advise to Eric Hiolder. Objective professionals all (snarkiness intended ).

Mueller is in fact colluding with Comey to enact revenge on President Trump for Comey’s firing, something which even Comey said Trump was constitutionally entitled to do. There is no evidence of collusion with Russia or obstruction of justice. It is not obstruction of justice for a President to exercise his legal and constitutional authority.

The facts and the lack of an actual crime will not stop Robert Mueller. Robert Mueller is following in the proud tradition of Stalin’s chief of the secret police, Laverentiy Beria. Just show him the man, or woman, and he will show you the crime.

And then there’s Hillary mole Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. McCabe was in a key position overseeing the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s scandalous and treasonous handling of classified emails on her private server, a position from which he could assist FBI Director James Comey in putting the fix in. As Judicial Watch notes: 

Judicial Watch today released Justice Department records showing that FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe did not recuse himself from the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s unsecure, non-government email server until Tuesday, November 1, 2016, one week prior to the presidential election. The Clinton email probe was codenamed “Midyear Exam.”

While working as Assistant Director in Charge of the Washington Field Office, McCabe controlled resources supporting the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. An October 2016 internal FBI memorandum labeled “Overview of Deputy Director McCabe’s Recusal Related To Dr. McCabe’s Campaign for Political Office,” details talking points about McCabe’s various potential conflicts of interest, including the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s illicit server, which officially began in July 2015:

While at [Washington Field Office] did Mr. McCabe provide assistance to the Clinton investigation?

After the referral was made, FBI Headquarters asked the Washington Field Office for personnel to conduct a special investigation. McCabe was serving as [Assistant Director] and provided personnel resources. However, he was not told what the investigation was about. In February 2016 McCabe became Deputy Director and began overseeing the Clinton investigation.

The Overview also shows if asked whether McCabe played any role in his wife’s campaign, the scripted response was: “No. Then-[Assistant Director] McCabe played no role, attended no events and did not participate in fundraising or support of any kind.”

Of course that statement was a lie.  The exposing of Agent Strzok is just another shoe dropping in the course of a  corrupt and criminal enterprise masquerading  as an investigation in which the FBI, the DOJ, and now the special counsel are all involved.

Lady justice is not blind here. She has been bound and gagged and held for ransom by Robert Mueller and his political cronies.

          Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publication

                         HILLARY’S ELECTION RIGGING WARRANTS SPECIAL PROSECUTOT

                                                                                     By

                                                                       Daniel John Sobieski

And don’t forget Uranium One, Fusion GPS, keeping classified emails on an iunsecured private server, deleting 33,000 emails under subpoena, and, well, you get the idea. Unfortunately our AWOL AG Jeff Sessions, whose face was last seen on the side of a milk carton, does not. So we are left with the absurdity of a spcial prosecutor looking into Trump-Russia collusion where there is none while overlooking the multiple Clinton elephants in the room.

The revelation that both the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign were funneling money through a law firm to Fusion GPS to produce a slimy and fake dossier on Trump culled from foreign sources was bad enough. Now we find, courtesy of the one truthful and remorseful Democrat on this planet, former DNC Chairperson Donna Brazile, that the DNC was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton, who probably violated multiple FEC campaign laws in rigging the primaries against Bernie Sanders and shifted cash around in a manner that could only be called, what’s the word Robert Mueller would use, money-laundering:

In an excerpt from her upcoming book, Brazile says she discovered a document that explained why the Clinton campaign had such a stranglehold on the DNC. It was published in Politico Thursday.

“When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard,” she wrote, “I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.”

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias — specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

Hillary Clinton staged a political coup worthy of a banana republic. Brazile has confirmed what the Sanders campaign claimed as early as May of 2016, charges that Hillary Clinton was engaging in money-laundering to help her campaign:

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, on Monday criticized a Hillary Clinton campaign fundraising scheme that state party leaders told Politico has been used as a self-serving “money-laundering” conduit.

Despite Clinton’s pledges to rebuild state parties, Politico found that less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by the Victory Fund has stayed in the state parties’ coffers.

“Secretary Clinton is looting funds meant for the state parties to skirt fundraising limits on her presidential campaign,” Weaver said. “We think the Clinton campaign should let the state parties keep their fair share of the cash.”

Sanders’ and Clinton’s primary campaigns both raised about $26 million in April, but Politico documented how the Hillary Victory Fund, a supposedly joint fundraising committee, has been exploited to inflate her presidential primary campaign.

“Secretary Clinton has exploited the rules in ways that let her high-dollar donors like Alice Walton of Wal-Mart fame and the actor George Clooney and his super-rich Hollywood friends skirt legal limits on campaign ontributions,” Weaver added. “If Secretary Clinton can’t raise the funds needed to run in a competitive primary without resorting to laundering, how will she compete against Donald Trump in a general election?”

Turns out that even with money-laundering, Hillary couldn’t win. On a receny edition of Fox News Sunday. House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-SC, notes that in addition to laundering her campaign cash through her wholly-owned subsidiary, the DNC, Hillary Clinton used a law firm to funnel cash to Russia-linked Fusion GPS:

Gowdy said, “I’m not an election law expert, but the good news is you don’t have to be too understated the absurdity believing you can just launder all of your campaign money by just hiring a law firm. Imagine if you and I were running for Congress, and we just hired a law firm and said ‘Hey, you go to all the opposition, you go buy all the television, you go buy all the bumper stickers, you go higher all the experts, and we will launder all of this through a law firm. I can’t think of anything that defeats the purpose of transparency laws more than that.”

He continued, “I am interested in that, and I am also interested in sharing some memory tricks with folks at the DNC because no one can remember who paid 10 million dollars to a law firm to do oppo research. I find that stunning. $10 million and no one can remember who authorized it, who approved it. So you’ve got two issues, a memory issue and then the lack of transparency by laundering money through a law firm.”

And did we forget the Clinton Foundation? As Fox News legal analyst Greg Jarrett notes, it was used in an influence peddling scheme to enrich the Clintons and advance their political ambitions, colluding with the Russians to, among other things, sell 20 percent of our uranium supplies to interests and donors aligned with Moscow:

It is against the law for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to funnel millions of dollars to a British spy and to Russian sources in order to obtain the infamous and discredited Trump “dossier.”  The Federal Election Campaign Act (52 USC 30101) prohibits foreign nationals and governments from giving or receiving money in U.S. campaigns.  It also prohibits the filing of false or misleading campaign reports to hide the true purpose of the money (52 USC 30121).  This is what Clinton and the DNC appear to have done.

Most often the penalty for violating this law is a fine, but in egregious cases, like this one, criminal prosecutions have been sought and convictions obtained.  In this sense, it could be said that Hillary Clinton is the one who was conspiring with the Russians by breaking campaign finance laws with impunity.

But that’s not all.  Damning new evidence appears to show that Clinton used her office as Secretary of State to confer benefits to Russia in exchange for millions of dollars in donations to her foundation and cash to her husband.  Secret recordings, intercepted emails, financial records, and eyewitness accounts allegedly show that Russian nuclear officials enriched the Clintons at the very time Hillary presided over a governing body which unanimously approved the sale of one-fifth of America’s uranium supply to Russia.   

Hillary Clinton was the godfather, or is it godmother, that ran multiple criminal enterprises. The existence of a special prosecutor investigating Trump-Russia collusion is based on a fake dossier she controlled the financing of. Paul Manafort and his co-defendants could make the “fruit of a poison tree” argument, that since the dossier that sparked the investigation into collusion and resulting indictments was politically motivated and financed, and its unverified contents may have been used by the FBI to obtain FISA warrants, anything that resulted from it should be summarily dismissed.

As for the aforementioned Marc Elias, his involvement in Hillary’s crimes is just one facet of his involvement with the crimes of Hilary and the Democrats. Remember he sat between former DNC Chair and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and John Podesta as they invoked the Sergeant Schultz (no relation) defense regarding Fusion GPS

Did DNC and Team Hillary attorney Marc Elias lead John Podesta and Debbie Wasserman Schultz into a perjury trap? According to CNN, the two testified to congressional investigators that they did not have any knowledge of the funding for the Fusion GPS dossier that prompted an FBI probe into Donald Trump campaign figures.

In recent closed-door interviews with the Senate intelligence committee, Podesta and Wasserman Schultz said they did not know who had funded Fusion GPS, the intelligence firm that hired British Intelligence Officer Christopher Steele to compile the dossier on Trump, the sources said.

Podesta was asked in his September interview whether the Clinton campaign had a contractual agreement with Fusion GPS, and he said he was not aware of one, according to one of the sources.

Sitting next to Podesta during the interview: his attorney Marc Elias, who worked for the law firm that hired Fusion GPS to continue research on Trump on behalf of the Clinton campaign and DNC, multiple sources said. Elias was only there in his capacity as Podesta’s attorney and not as a witness.

Whether or not this testimony was under oath, it is a crime to provide false testimony to Congress.

Indeed it is. Add it to the list of crimes that go uninvestigated and unprosecuted as AG Jeff Sessions contemplates his navel. A special prosecutor needs to be appointed and a grand jury empanelled to investigate this list of crimes that would make a mafia don proud. Justice should be blind and not brain-dead. Unless there is a double standard at play here, there is no equal justice under the law and Hillary Clinton was right when she said laws are for the little people.

          Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.               

                                 WHY IS SESSIONS HIDING URANIUM ONE INFORMANT?

                                                                                     By

                                                                       Daniel John Sobieski

Perhaps as startling as the revelation that the FBI was investigating the Hillary Clinton/Russia/Uranium One collusion  and that key figures like Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Special Counsel Robert Mueller and Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe knew about it and said nothing, is the refusal by Attorney General Jeff Sessions to remove the non-disclosure agreement gag order on the FBI informant who arguably could put Bill and Hillary Clinton and a few others in federal prison.

It was said the Jeff Sessions recused himself from all things Russian because of election campaign conflicts but is it really because he thought it would insulate him from having to divulge what he knew about Uranium One and the people who at the very least knew about the deal, some who approved the deal, including past and present members of the FBI, the DOJ, and Special Counsel Robert Miller’s team? Is Jeff Sessions part of the Uranium One cover-up? If not then he needs to explain why he is thus far refusing Sen. Chuck Grassley’s request to lift the gag order imposed by the Obama administration as part of the Uranium One cover-up :

A top Senate Republican is calling for the Justice Department to lift an apparent “gag order” on an FBI informant who reportedly helped the U.S. uncover a corruption and bribery scheme by Russian nuclear officials but allegedly was “threatened” by the Obama administration to stay quiet….

“Witnesses who want to talk to Congress should not be gagged and threatened with prosecution for talking. If that has happened, senior DOJ leadership needs to fix it and release the witness from the gag order,” Grassley said in a statement.

Victoria Toensing, a lawyer for the former FBI informant, told Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom” that her client has “specific information about contributions and bribes to various entities and people in the United States.”

She said she could not go further because her client has not been released from a nondisclosure agreement but suggested the gag order could be lifted soon. Toensing also claimed that her client was “threatened by the Loretta Lynch Justice Department” when he pursued a civil action in which he reportedly sought to disclose some information about the case.

In a letter sent Wednesday to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Grassley said such an NDA would “appear to improperly prevent the individual from making critical, good faith disclosures to Congress of potential wrongdoing.”…

The Hill reported earlier this week that the FBI had evidence as early as 2009 that Russian operatives used bribes, kickbacks and other dirty tactics to expand Moscow’s atomic energy footprint in the U.S. Grassley on Wednesday released a series of letters he fired off last week to 10 federal agencies, raising the question of whether the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) which approved the uranium transaction was aware of that FBI probe -- and pointing to potential “conflicts” involving the Clintons. The committee included then-Secretary of State Clinton.

So why not just lift the gag order, vacate the non-disclosure agreement, which Sessions has the power to do, and key the informant come forward with information on how and why the Clintons conspired to put 20 percent of our uranium assets under Russian control while lining the pockets of the Clintons and their pay-for-play foundation? As Toensing notes, Sessions could do it, and thereby bring to light the details of this criminal enterprise:

The lead investigators on the case included Rod Rosenstein, who is now the deputy attorney general, and Andrew McCabe, who is now the deputy FBI director. Rosenstein is the DOJ official who appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller to investigate alleged collusion between the Trump presidential campaign and Russia.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the collusion/campaign investigation.  He could waive the Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) signed by the informant, said Toensing. "Yes, Jeff could do it," she said. "He is not recused from this matter and should not be."

However, Rod Rosenstein "is conflicted," said Toensing, "because he was the U.S. attorney who oversaw the case involving my client."  Toensing added that she has "asked an oversight committee to pursue the release" of the NDA so her client may testify before Congress about what he knows.

In lifting the gag order, Sessions might have to explain the real reasons behind his recusal and why people who knew of actual collusion between Russia and the Clintons were silent, only to reappear to investigate and pursue prosecution of non-existent collusion between Russia and Team Trump. He might have to explain why Mueller, McCabe, Rosenstein and other were allowed to hide the truth from the American people and why they should not be summarily fired. As Grassley notes, neither Sessions or anyone in the Justice Department has the authority to block the informant from testifying before Congress or issue non-disclosure agreements to thwart Congressional oversight:

“The Executive Branch does not have the authority to use non-disclosure agreements to avoid Congressional scrutiny," Grassley wrote. "If the FBI is allowed to contract itself out of Congressional oversight, it would seriously undermine our Constitutional system of checks and balances. The Justice Department needs to work with the Committee to ensure that witnesses are free to speak without fear, intimidation or retaliation from law enforcement."

Again, perhaps the reluctance of Jeff Sessions stems from the web of deceit and complicity that ensnares many in the FBI and the Justice Department. As Fox News analyst Gregg Jarrett notes on the Uranium One scandal:

It seems it was all covered up for years by the same three people who are now involved in the investigation of President Donald Trump over so-called Russian “collusion.”…

But why has there been no prosecution of Clinton?  Why did the FBI and the Department of Justice during the Obama administration keep the evidence secret?  Was it concealed to prevent a scandal that would poison Barack Obama’s presidency?  Was Hillary Clinton being protected in her quest to succeed him?

The answer may lie with the people who were in charge of the investigation and who knew of its explosive impact.   Who are they?

Eric Holder was the Attorney General when the FBI began uncovering the Russian corruption scheme in 2009.  Since the FBI reports to him, he surely knew what the bureau had uncovered.

What’s more, Holder was a member of the “Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States” which approved the uranium sale to the Russians in 2010.  Since the vote was unanimous, it appears Holder knowingly and deliberately countenanced a deal that was based on illegal activities and which gave Moscow control of more than 20 percent of America’s uranium assets.

It gets worse.  Robert Mueller was the FBI Director during the time of the Russian uranium probe, and so was his successor James Comey who took over in 2013 as the FBI was still developing the case.  Rod Rosenstein, then-U.S. Attorney, was supervising the case.  There is no indication that any of these men ever told Congress of all the incriminating evidence they had discovered and the connection to Clinton.  The entire matter was kept secret from the American public.

It may be no coincidence that Mueller (now special counsel) and Rosenstein (now Deputy Attorney General) are the two top people currently investigating whether the Trump campaign conspired with the Russians to influence the 2016 presidential election.  Mueller reports to Rosenstein, while Comey is a key witness in the case.  It is not unreasonable to conclude that Mueller, Rosenstein and Comey may have covered up potential crimes involving Clinton and Russia, but are now determined to find some evidence that Trump “colluded” with Russia.

Boom. The question is now whether Jeff Sessions wants to help President Trump to drain the swamp be vacating the gag order and letting evidence come forth proving the Clintons orchestrated the greatest criminal conspiracy in U.S. history at the expense of American national security or whether he is just another swamp thing committed to clogging up the drainage pipes. Justice may be blind, but it should never be gagged.

          Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.               

                   JIMMY KIMMEL LIES ABOUT TRUMP, GUNS AND THE MENTALLY ILL

                                                                                     By

                                                                       Daniel John Sobieski

There is a delicious sense of irony in gun-control advocate Jimmy Kimmel beefing up his armed security after falsely claiming on his late night talk show after the Las Vegas massacre that President Trump had made it easier for the mentally ill to get guns. Guns are okay to protect the liberal elites but not for the rest of us who can’t be trusted or don’t know any better.   

The same double standard exists for Democratic members of Congress who demand their constituents be disarmed even as they welcome back Rep, Steve Scalise, the victim of a shooting where a bad guy with a gun was stopped by a good guy with a gun. Many members of Congress are alive today only because Scalise, being a member of the House leadership, had his armed security detail with him

Dr. Kimmel has no way of knowing even now that the Las Vegas shooter was mentally unstable. Certainly the meticulous planning and preparation by the shooter over a long period of time would seem to indicate that while the shooter was evil, he was perfectly competent and sane. Certainly Kimmel’s charge against Trump is not true:

Noting that President Trump had offered prayers for the victims’ families, and that Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, had said that this wasn’t the time for political debate, he went on: “We have fifty-nine innocent people dead. It wasn’t their time, either. So I think now is the time for political debate.” He reminded his audience that, in February, Trump had signed a bill that made it easier for people with mental illness to buy guns. “The Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, a number of other lawmakers who won’t do anything about this because the N.R.A. has their balls in a money clip, also sent their thoughts and their prayers today. Which is good. They should be praying. They should be praying for God to forgive them for letting the gun lobby run this country.”

Steve Scalise owes his life to the Second Amendment, which was written, not to shoot dear, but to shoot tyrants. The Second Amendment was written to protect the other nine in the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment which gives Jimmy Kimmel the right to sound like the blooming idiot he is.

What President Trump signed was a bill overturning an executive order that would tar the innocent with the broad brush of mental illness, people which included the elderly and veterans, in order to pursue the Obama administration’s gun control agenda:

Here's what happened earlier this year: Congress voted to overturn a last-minute Obama-era regulation that would give the Social Security Administration the power to revoke a person's Second Amendment rights based on whether he receives disability for a mental impairment that keeps him from working, or if he "[uses] a representative payee to help manage their benefits."

As my Washington Examiner colleague David Freddoso explained at the time, the repeal of the Obama-era regulation, "doesn't allow people to buy guns who have been properly adjudicated by a court of law as mentally ill or unstable."

The Obama-era rule was designed to take away people's rights without due process of law. It would have flagged the names of people who, for example, have an anxiety disorder or depression which keeps them from working, and who, as the SSA puts it, ‘need help in managing [their] personal money affairs,'" he added. "As the many non-political mental health and autism advocacy groups that supported the House action noted, there is no link between these factors and a propensity for violence."

The Obama administration repeatedly tried to use mental health as a means, not to make us safer, but to deny us our gun rights under the Second Amendment. Consider President’s pick of Dr. Vivek Murthy to be our Surgeon General, someone who firmly believes gun control is a health issue, something that can and should be used to gut out Second Amendment Rights. As Investor’s Business Daily editorialized during his confirmation process:

Murthy's approach to attacking the Second Amendment has been to say private ownership of firearms is a public health issue. The 37-year-old Murthy is president and co-founder of the anti-gun group Doctors for America, which advocates ObamaCare and gun control laws. His group, which has been dubbed Docs vs. Glocks, has pushed Congress to ban "assault" weapons and "high capacity" magazines.

Doctors for America has promoted the invasion of privacy by doctors by advocating they ask patients if they have guns at home, including asking children if their parents own guns. He would have doctors counsel their patients against exercising their Second Amendment rights. One wonders how private that information would remain if entered into the medical records the government would be privy to under ObamaCare.

Back in 2013 a piece of legislation called Toomey-Manchin proposed that doctors be allowed to unilaterally place a patient’s name in the background check system in a way that violated patient doctor confidentially under HIPAA as well as our Second Amendment Rights:

The Toomey-Manchin proposal contains a provision that lets a doctor add a patient to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) without ever telling the patient he or she has been added.

This would seem to violate doctor-patient confidentiality, due process and the presumption of innocence in one fell swoop.

As the Heritage Foundation reports, this "gun control legislation eliminates any (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) privacy protection for mental health records in connection with the NICS system, leaving only what privacy protection the attorney general cares to provide."

The Obama administrations idea of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill is based on a bizarre and discriminatory definition of who might be mentally unstable. Back in 2013 it was reported that the Veterans Administration was sending letters to vets warning them that they might be declared mentally incompetent and have their Second Amendment rights stripped unless they could prove otherwise:

The contempt by the Obama administration for our Constitution and our rights has reached a new low with news the Veterans Administration has begun sending letters to veterans telling them they will be declared mentally incompetent and stripped of the Second Amendment rights unless they can prove to unnamed bureaucrats to the contrary….

"A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2)," the letter reads….

While mental health is a factor in the current gun control debate and recent mass shootings in Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo., and elsewhere have in common the questionable mental state of the shooters, to single out returning vets from Iraq and Afghanistan this way is unconscionable and unconstitutional.

As the Los Angeles Times has reported, the Obama administration woulf like to make our Social Security records part of the background check system. The move would strip some four million Americans who receive payments though a “representative payee” of their gun rights. It would be the largest gun grab in U.S. history.

A potentially large group within Social Security are people who, in the language of federal gun laws, are unable to manage their own affairs due to "marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease."

There is no simple way to identify that group, but a strategy used by the Department of Veterans Affairs since the creation of the background check system is reporting anyone who has been declared incompetent to manage pension or disability payments and assigned a fiduciary.

Keeping guns out of the hands of the truly mentally unstable is a worthy goal, but it should not be used as a cause for disarming veterans who carried a weapon in defense of their country or senior systems who might need some assistance in paying their bills.

They deserve the presumption of innocence, and sanity, every bit as much as Vester Flanagan. Stripping away their Second Amendment rights in the name of mental health would be a gross injustice that would not make us safer, butwould merely create millions of unarmed victims for the next shooter with an agenda.

          Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.               

                             NEW HILLARY EMAILS WARRANT SPECIAL PROSECUTOR

                                                                                     By

                                                                       Daniel John Sobieski

New emails unearthed by Judicial Watch confirm that the Clinton Foundation was in fact a pay-to-play influence peddling operation more worthy of a special prosecutor  than imaginary Russians colluding under Trump Administration beds. It is time for President Trump to keep the promise he made in a presidential debate to indict Hillary Clinton for her crimes:

About 20 minutes into the debate, Donald Trump delivered a menacing threat to Hillary Clinton. “If I win,” he warned, “I’m going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation, because there’s never been so many lies, so much deception.” …

 “It’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country,” Mrs. Clinton observed.

“Because,” Mr. Trump replied “you’d be in jail.”

The emails fully incriminating Hillary are part of of documents obtained by Judicial Watch under a court order forcing the State Department to find the documents it said it couldn’t find, didn’t have or was too understaffed to look for:

Judicial Watch today released 1,617 new pages of documents from the U.S. Department of State revealing numerous additional examples of classified information being transmitted through the unsecure, non-state.gov account of Huma Abedin, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, as well as many instances of Hillary Clinton donors receiving special favors from the State Department.

The documents included 97 email exchanges with Clinton not previously turned over to the State Department, bringing the known total to date to at least 627 emails that were not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over, and further contradicting a statement by Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails had been turned over to department.

The emails show intentional mishandling of classified material and coordination between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation which involved the State Department granting favors and access to Clinton Foundation donors. Some of the emails were undoubtedly among the 33,000 Hillary Clinton and her operatives destroyed even though they were under Congressional subpoena.

Former FBI Director James Comey, who exonerated Hillary first and conducted a sham investigation later, concluded, usurping the authority of the Attorney General, that Hillary Clinton could not be indicted for her crimes because she lacked “intent”, even though the law imposes no such requirement  These new documents and emails indicate clear intent and purpose and the failure to produce them was part of the cover-up for her crimes. Among the examples cited by Judicial Watch in the documents:

The new documents show that Clinton donors frequently requested and received special favors from the State Department that were connected to the Clinton Foundation.

On July 14, 2009, Gordon Griffin, a XL Keystone lobbyist, sent an email to Clinton Foundation executive Doug Band, asking if Band could get him into a Council on Foreign Relations dinner at which Clinton was speaking. Band forwarded the email to Abedin, saying, “Can u get him in?” Abedin replied: “Yes will get him in.” Band was a top aide to President Bill Clinton and co-founder of Teneo. Griffin was a major donor to

Hi llary Clinton’s Senate and presidential campaigns….

 On September 11, 2009, Terrence Duffy, chairman of futures brokerage firm CME Group, a donor to the Clinton Foundation, asked Clinton to arrange “government appointments” for him in Singapore and Hong Kong. Clinton, using her HDR22@clintonmail.com address, forwarded the request to Abedin, “fyi.” Abedin responded to Duffy’s email, saying she would “follow up” with Duffy’s secretary, Joyce. Duffy gave $4,600 to Hillary’s 2008 presidential campaign; CME Group paid Hillary $225,000 for a speaking fee and has donated between $5,001 and 10,000 to the Clinton Foundation. …

On May 5, 2010, major Clinton Global Initiative member, Clinton Foundation donor and real estate developer Eddie Trump forwarded to “Dougie” Band a request for assistance from Russian American Foundation Vice President Rina Kirshner to get the Russian American Foundation involved in a State Department program. Band forwarded the request to Abedin, saying, “Can we get this done/mtg set.” As Judicial Watch previously reported, the State Department doled out more than $260,000 to the Russian American Foundation for “public diplomacy.”

Major Clinton donor Bal Das, a New York financier who reportedly raised $300,000 for Hillary’s 2008 presidential campaign, asked Abedin on November 11, 2009 if Hillary Clinton could address the Japan Society at its annual conference in 2010. Clinton did speak to the Japan Society’s annual conference in 2011.

Collusion with the Russians anyone?  How about Hillary Clinton’s collusion with the Russians in the Uranium One deal which gave Russia control of 20 percent of our uranium supply in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation?

Clinton played a pivotal role in the Uranium One deal which ended up giving Russian interests control of 20 percent of our uranium supply in exchange for donations of $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a federal crime. As “Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweitzer has noted:

Tuesday on Fox Business Network, “Lou Dobbs Tonight,” Breitbart editor at large and the author of “Clinton Cash,” Peter Schweizer said there needs to be a federal investigation into the Russian uranium deal then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved after the Clinton Foundation receiving $145 million from the shareholders of Uranium One….

 Discussing the Clinton Foundation receiving $145 million from the shareholders of Uranium One, he continued, “Look there are couple of things that are extremely troubling about the deal we touched on. number one is the amount of money $145 million. We are not talking about a super PAC giving a million dollars to support a candidate. We are not talking about campaign donations. We are talking about $145 million which by the way is 75 percent or more of the annual budget of the Clinton Foundation itself so it’s a huge sum of money. Second of all we are talking about a fundamental issue of national security which is uranium — it’s not like oil and gas that you can find all sorts of places. They are precious few places you can mine for uranium, in the United States is one of those areas. And number three we are talking about the Russian government. A lot of people don’t realize it now, in parts of the Midwest American soil is owned by Vladimir Putin’s government because this deal went through. And in addition to the $145 million Bill Clinton got half a billion dollars, $500,000 for a 20-minute speech from a Russian investment bank tied to the Kremlin, two months before the State Department signed off on this deal. It just stinks to high heaven and I think it requires a major investigation by the federal government.”

As Investor’s Business Daily editorialized, donations to the Clinton Foundation even played a factor in the refusal of Hillary Clinton’s State Department to designate Nigeria’s Boko Haram as a terrorist organization for two years:

Hillary's emails may be only the tip of an iceberg that could include Clinton Foundation donations to shield Boko Haram from being designated a terrorist group and her brother's involvement in a Haitian gold mine….

Last month, the Washington Post reported on another deal involving Rodham that could prove politically embarrassing and damaging for his sister. It seems that he sits on the board of a company that got a coveted gold-mining contract from the government of Haiti after the Clinton Foundation sponsored relief work in Haiti.

In interviews with the Post, both Rodham and the chief executive of Delaware-based VCS Mining said they were introduced at a meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative, which seems more and more to be an unseemly mix of charitable work with the political and business interests of Clinton Foundation donors.

And then there's Hillary's strange dealings regarding the Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram, which just recently pledged its allegiance to the ever-expanding Islamic State — dubbed the "JV team" by President Obama, who has yet to make good on his pledge to degrade and destroy them.

Last May, we wondered why for two years on Hillary Clinton's watch the State Department refused to designate a Nigerian Islamist group as a terrorist organization. This group has murdered thousands as it wages a real war on women. As Josh Rogin at the Daily Beast reports, the Clinton State Department "refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011" after the group bombed the United Nations headquarters in Abuja, Nigeria.

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry last week asking for all of Hillary's records relating to Boko Haram and her reluctance to designate it a foreign terrorist organization.

Vitter also requested all of Hillary's communications with Gilbert Chagoury, a Nigerian construction tycoon who has donated millions to the Clinton Foundation. Vitter noted that Chagoury had a financial interest in the potential impact of designating Boko Haram a terrorist group

How many of the more than 30,000 "personal" emails that Hillary deleted from her private account relate to these matters? Is that why she needed a private email server? We need to see that server. It might provide, er, a veritable gold mine of information.

The documents obtained by Judicial Watch constitute an equally valuable gold mine of information. President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions have a chance to right a great wrong here. Director Comey tried to put the fix in for Hillary by not convening a grand jury, moving to have a special prosecutor appointed, and by not showing up for a cursory interview of Hillary which was not done under oath. The infamous tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch was merely the frosting on this cake.

Comey deserved to be fired for letting Hillary Clinton skate and he isn’t out of the legal woods himself yet. But  Hillary’s crimes in fact cry out for a special prosecutor. As Judicial Watch concludes:

“The emails show ‘what happened’ was that Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin obviously violated laws about the handling of classified information and turned the State Department into a pay for play tool for the corrupt Clinton Foundation,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The clear and mounting evidence of pay for play and mishandling of classified information warrant a serious criminal investigation by an independent Trump Justice Department.”

Lock her up, and while we’re at, how about Huma Abedin and James Comey as well.

          Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.               

                                      SWAMP THING LUIS GUTIERREZ DOUBLES DOWN

                                                                                     By

                                                                       Daniel John Sobieski

Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez, who represents the 4th Congressional district a gerrymandered snake-shaped district designed to protect his vitriolic incumbency, has doubled down on his criticism o  DHS head Gen. John Kelly as being unfit to wear his uniform for opposing the illegal and unconstitutional DACA program rejected by a Congress in which Gutierrez sat:

Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D) responded to Gen. John Kelly [Ret.], after the White House chief of staff dismissed the Chicagoan's first round of criticisms.

Gutierrez said Kelly, a retired four-star Marine general, is "a politician, OK, not a general."

"What could be more mean and more vicious than to say 'you've got six months to pack up...and leave the United States'?" Gutierrez asked of Kelly.

"I don't see [him wearing] a uniform," Gutierrez told the Washington Post.

Ann we don’t see Rep. Gutierrez ever wearing a uniform, unlike Gen’ Kelly’s son Robert who gave his life for his country in Afghanistan fighting to protect America and the freedom of Muslims seeking liberation from the depraved tyranny of the Taliban:

Robert Kelly, 29, was killed in a roadside bomb blast in 2010 during a foot patrol in Afghanistan's Helmand province.

Like his son, who gave his life for others who did not look like him or shared many of his beliefs, Gen. Kelly served with and commanded and witnessed the sacrifice of soldiers of all races, ethnicities and genders. He is nor a bigot, but a patriot who deserved better for seeking enforcement of the nation’s laws and Constitution than what Rep. Gutierrez gave him:

The Washington Examiner reported that U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, a Democrat, took personal aim at Kelly because Kelly once reportedly spoke favorably about the program. House members reported in July that Kelly told Latino lawmakers in a closed-door meeting that he was supportive of the program, but pointed out that it was probably illegal….

“General Kelly is a hypocrite who is a disgrace to the uniform he used to wear,” the congressman said in a statement.

"General Kelly, when he was the head of Homeland Security, lied straight to the faces of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus about preventing the mass deportation of DREAMers," Gutierrez also said. "He has no honor and should be drummed out of the White House along with the white supremacists and those enabling the president's actions by ‘just following orders.'"

It is Rep. Gutierrez who has no honor as well as no respect fo American citizenship,  the nation’s laws and the Constitution he was sworn to uphold. Gutierrez has long supported open borders and even supported expanding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program to illegal parents:

For Democrats such as Grijalva and Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., amnesty and the political benefits stemming from it are inevitable. They are quite willing to use children to exploit the inherent compassion of the American people if it means ensuring the political future of the Democratic Party through the gratitude of millions of illegal aliens allowed to come here and stay.

Gutierrez recently told a La Raza conference that it was only a "down payment" that President Obama gave the Latino community with his Deferred Action for Children Arrivals (DACA) program that halted the deportation of 600,000 of "our people":

"Now it is time for the president in the United States ... (to) free the mom and dads of the DREAMers and to go further — be broad and expansive and generous."

Unlike Rep. Luis Gutierrez, Gen. John Kelly has long  his country honorably: Gutierrez is a career politician living on the taxpayer’s dime while, like Bill and Hillary Clinton, using his office to personally enrich himself:

In Chicago, where a decade long building boom has reshaped neighborhoods, politicians have come to rely on real estate interests to donate to their campaigns. But the Democratic congressman's financial relationship with some contributors goes beyond campaign cash, according to records and interviews.

In half a dozen deals with campaign supporters since 2002, Gutierrez has made about $421,000 by investing his money in real estate deals and exiting a short time later. The congressman says he made a profit in five of those deals but lost a small amount of money on the sixth. …

Gutierrez has bought and sold properties with five campaign donors, including convicted political fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko….

The demise of DACA wouldl be a deserved end to a magnet for illegal immigration based on an unconstitutional executive order by President Barack Hussein Obama who was frustrated that Congress failed to pass it as legislation named the DREAM Act. As syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer observed on Fox News’ Special Report at the time:

 You can have executive orders that implement already existing laws. What Obama has done in the DREAM Act, which is exactly what you've talked about. Essentially he passed a law by executive order that the Congress had rejected, wouldn't pass, that is unbelievably unconstitutional. It's as if a Republican ran and said I don't like the capital gains tax, Congress rejects an abolition of that tax and then he orders the IRS not to collect it. People would be up in arms and would be impeaching. He's doing that over and over again on immigration

Even President Obama said he didn’t have the authority to do what he eventually did – enact the Congressionally rejected DREAM Act through executive order:

With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed — and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.

There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.

Was President Obama also a dishonorable hypocrite for saying the executive order on DACA had no legitimacy in the law or Constitution? Thankfully, unlike Gutierrez, we still have Americans like John Kelly and his son Robert willing to serve their country honorably even to the point of making the ultimate sacrifice.

          Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications

                                 TRUMP DOJ LETS SWAMP THING LOIS LERNER SKATE

                                                                                     By

                                                                       Daniel John Sobieski

Critics may be forgiven for doubting the seriousness of President Trump’s promise to “drain the swamp” in light of his Department of Justice’s decision to give one of D.C.’s swamp things a get out of jail free and not charge former IRS official Lois Lerner in the Tea Party targeting scandal:

The Trump administration has no plans to charge former IRS official Lois Lerner over her role in the Tea Party targeting scandal, the Justice Department said Friday in response to calls by Republican lawmakers to revisit the case.

In a letter to the lawmakers, the Justice Department said that "reopening the criminal investigation would not be appropriate based on the available evidence."

This past April, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Texas, and Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., had asked Attorney General Jeff Sessions to take a "fresh look" at the case. 

Despite numerous hearings and inquiries into the tough treatment of conservative groups by the tax agency during the 2010 and 2012 elections, the Obama Justice Department had announced in 2015 that no one at the IRS would be prosecuted. They said at the time that investigators had "found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt or other inappropriate motives that would support a criminal prosecution.".

The Republicans who requested a fresh look at the case were disappointed in the Trump DOJ's response.

"This is a terrible decision," Brady said. "It sends the message that the same legal, ethical, and constitutional standards we all live by do not apply to Washington political appointees."…

Brady said appointees "will now have the green light to target Americans for their political beliefs and mislead investigators without ever being held accountable for their lawlessness."

Based on the available evidence Lois Lerner should have been measured for an orange jump suit a long time ago.  Lerner was a key participant in the scheme to turn the most feared and powerful agency of the federal government, the IRS, into a political weapon and campaign arm of the Obama administration. If nothing else, Lois Lerner should be prosecuted for contempt of Congress for her semi-testimony regarding her own missing emails and smashed hard drives. As Investors Business Daily editorialized in April of 2015:

After pleading her innocence at that 2013 hearing, Lerner went on to invoke her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. This raised the question of whether the Constitution let her remain silent after she was not silent and pleaded her case.

The House decided that no, it doesn't. In May of last year it voted to hold her in contempt of Congress. The Ways and Means Committee went so far as to send the Justice Department a criminal referral with potential charges that could have meant 11 years in jail.

Lerner waived her rights not only when she pleaded her innocence before Congress, but also when she shared with DOJ information she was withholding from Congress.

Hans Von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, says government officials can't pick and choose when and where they invoke their Fifth Amendment rights. They can't legally give information to the DOJ that they withhold from Congress.

When Lerner gave a lengthy interview to the government, she waived the Fifth. There's no doubt about it," says Von Spakovsky. "The law is crystal clear here in the District of Columbia."

Certainly the actions Lerner was covering up with the help of others like the current head of the IRS, John Koskinen, warrant prosecution. Her deliberate and orchestrated targeting of political opponents like the Tea Party for daring to oppose the Obama administration’s implementation of ObamaCare is more worthy of dictatorships like Venezuela than democracies like the United States. In defending her curious 2013 non-testimony in Politico, Lerner asked us to feel sorry for her and not her intended political victims:

As when she cooperated with the Justice Department but not Congress, Lerner's record-setting assault on the truth continued in Politico with her tale of woe. Still insisting she did nothing wrong, she feels she has to tell her side of the story. She just won't tell it to Congress and the American people under oath.

Lerner fails to appreciate the irony of invoking her right against self-incrimination while trampling on the rights of others. It was her IRS that demanded to know from Tea Party members what books they read and the text of their prayers.

Frankly, we are more inclined to feel sorry for the likes of Becky Gerritson of the Wetumpka, Ala., Tea Party. Along with other IRS targets, she gave Lerner and the rest of the Obama administration a well-needed civics lesson in her congressional testimony.

"In Wetumpka," she said, "we are patriotic Americans; we peacefully assemble; we petition our government; we exercise our right to free speech. We don't understand why the government tried to stop us."

Though she sought and received the protection of the Fifth Amendment, Lerner tried to strip from the Tea Party and other conservative groups the protection of the First Amendment. If she needs a shoulder to cry on, we might advise her to call Catherine Engelbrecht of True the Vote, an organization dedicated to clean elections without vote fraud. Engelbrecht couldn't invoke the Fifth or refuse to answer questions when Washington came down on her….

Before July 2010, when Engelbrecht filed with Lerner's IRS seeking tax-exempt status for her group, she and her family had no contact with any government agency of any kind. But after her filing, she was buried by an alphabet soup of government harassers, from the IRS to the ATF and OSHA.

"This is what the beginning of tyranny looks like," she told Breitbart.com.

Indeed it is. Along with mystery of why Lois Lerner is not already in prison is the mystery of why IRS Chief John  Koskinen isn’t as well for participating in the cover-up involving destruction or records and emails, conveniently destroyed hard drives and withholding evidence from Congress. An impeachment resolution, introduced by .House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Rep. James Jordan (R-OH) and 18 other committee members, accuses Koskinen of making false statements under oath, failing to comply with a subpoena, and failing to notify Congress that key evidence was missing or destroyed. As they explained it to Fox News’ Sean Hannity:

"The heart of this concern is that they had in their possession documents that were under subpoena and they destroyed those," Chaffetz said. "Imagine, Sean, if the IRS had asked you for those documents and you said, 'Well, I had them, but I went ahead and destroyed them.' What would happen to you?"

Likely we would be incarcerated and not just impeached.  As the Washington Times notes, Koskinen is knee-deep in the IRS corruption and itse cover-up:

Among the specific charges leveled by Mr. Chaffetz and 18 of his fellow Republicans on the committee were that Mr. Koskinen, appointed by President Obama in December 2013 after the targeting scandal broke, misled Congress when he said he had turned over all of former IRS senior executive Lois G. Lerner’s emails and that he oversaw destruction of evidence when his agency got rid of backup tapes that contained the emails.

Lying to Congress and destruction of evidence under subpoena are federal crimes, and that includes the arrogeant Mr. Koskinen, who is just one example of being an Obama donor can get you a good job with the administration. As

Investor’s Business Daily noted:

Certainly it might be argued that Koskinen's current position is owed to four decades of being a prodigious Democratic donor.

Koskinen has contributed to every Democratic presidential candidate since 1980, including $2,300 to Obama in 2008, and $5,000 to Obama in 2012.

Of course, being an Obama donor with a government job in and of itself is not a crime, but how Koskinen has used that job is positively criminal. Koskinen once confessed before Congress that obeying the law was a difficult task for him and Lerner:

Whenever we can, we follow the law," IRS chief John Koskinen recently told the House Ways and Committee in a Freudian slip of the truth that says it all.

It is worth noting that one of the charges in the impeachment of Richard Nixon in the Watergate scandal was just considering the use of the IRS for political purposes. People went to jail in Watergate for participating in and covering up a crime. So to should John Koskinen, along with Lois Lerner.

How can you drain the swamp and let the lizards slither away>.

          Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.               

ELIAN GONZALEZ WAS A DREAMER TOO, LIBERALS

                                                                                     By

                                                                       Daniel John Sobieski

The fake news that the Trump administration was “considering” using 100,000 National Guardsmen to round up illegal aliens has been thoroughly debunked by now, except in the minds of those who screech, “But, but, there was a memo!”

Well, the memo, as the Independent Journal Review reported, was a DHS draft memo that was never put forward for serious consideration. Nor did it mention the figure 100,000, The hyperventilating Associated Press put the fake news out that it was an actual plan one smidgeon short of an imminent executive order. President Trump said the report was false. The Pentagon said the report was false. So just who were “considering” it? The janitorial staff after emptying the waste basket it was tossed in?

ICE arrested over 700 illegals in recent operations and reported that they are doing exactly what they did under President  Obama. ICE reports that some 75 percent of these illegals had criminal records. They should be deported to protect American citizens such as Kate Steinle, murdered in the sanctuary city of San Francisco.. President Obama used to tout his record number of deportations. ICE reports that one 2012 operation netted 350 percent more illegals than recent raids In April, 2012, ICE arrested more than 3,100 illegals with criminal records  Problem was Obama’s deportees kept coming back over an unsecured border. An illegal that was deported four or more times was counted as four or more deportations.

Undaunted by the facts, fake news outlets like CNN weave tales of children living in fear that ICE will shatter their dreams with that proverbial midnight knock on the door:

Donald Trump's win shattered the dreams and ignited the fears of hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants known as "dreamers."

They are the young people who were brought to the United States by their parents as children.

This population, which the American Immigration Council says is roughly 1.8 million, feels exceptionally vulnerable under a Trump presidency because many came out of the shadows when President Barack Obama offered them temporary legal presence through executive action in 2012. Now, with a president-elect who promised to deport the undocumented, the fear of deportation is more real than ever.

Time was when liberal Democrats like Hillary Clinton shared Donald Trump’s dream of family reunification for illegal alien families on the other side of the border. Hillary should know about deportations, since she was First Lady when presidential hubby William Jefferson Clinton returned a young Elian Gonzalez to his father in Cuba, literally at gunpoint.

As recently as June, 2014, when unaccompanied minor children were being ferried by “coyotes” under contract north on the tops of boxcars in what GOP presidential contender Jeb Bush said was an “act of love”,  Hillary Clinton told CNN  such children should be quickly returned to their foreign parents, to send a message:

 “They should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who the responsible adults in their family are because there are concerns about whether all of them can be sent back, but I think all of them that can be should be reunited with their families,” she said, adding that the United States must do more to confront the violence in the region and strengthen border security. “But we have to send a clear message that ‘Just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean your child gets to stay. We don’t want to send a message that is contrary to our laws or encourage more children to make that dangerous journey.”

They should be sent back as soon as possible, she said, which is what Donald Trump is saying. We don’t want to encourage more children to come, which is what Donald Trump is saying. Trump would go farther, building the same type of fence Israel has built and Saudi Arabia is building as well as interpreting the 14th Amendment as it was written, an amendment to guarantee freed slaves, not illegal aliens, their U.S. citizenship.

President Bill Clinton was also for family reunification of minor children with their parents south of U.S. territory as shown by the case of Eliang Gonzalez, the young Cuban boy who as he was nearing his sixth birthday on Thanksgiving 199 when a fisherman off the Florida coast found him hanging on tp an inner tube after his mother, among others fleeing Castro’s Cuba drowned in the attempt.

Elian’s mother was hoping to bring Elian and join the extended family in the U.S. as they fled the poverty and oppression (sound familiar?) of Cuba. Elian’s father, who was separated from his wife at the time, chose to stay behind. As Investor’s Business Daily editorialized:

 As Fox News Latino reported, Gonzalez's Miami relatives had refused to surrender him to authorities, leading to the infamous raid on April 22, 2000, on President Bill Clinton's watch, by armed federal agents who seized Elian at gunpoint from a closet where he was hiding at his uncle's home in Little Havana.

 He was forcibly returned to Cuba two months later….

It was then-Deputy Attorney General Holder who invented the "legal" cover for federal agents to forcibly enter the home of Elian Gonzalez's legal custodians, American citizens all, so he could be returned to the warm embrace of Castro in communist Cuba.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that once the INS chose a guardian, the guardianship could not be changed. On Dec, 1, 1999, the INS asserted that Miami-based uncle Lazaro Gonzalez was now Elian's legal custodian. Holder then decided on his own that the court ruling and the INS determination were both invalid and that Elian would be returned to his father in Cuba…

Today, if Elian Gonzalez were Honduran and his reunited family likely to vote Democratic down the road, he might get to stay with Holder's blessings under the same rule of lawlessness that once forcibly returned a young Cuban boy to Castro's tyranny.

Aye, there’s the rub, Hispanics were more in political play in 1999 and the Cubans of south Florida were staunchly Republican. Just ask Florida Senator and presidential contender Marco Rubio, himself the son of Cuban immigrants seeking freedom from oppression. Today, “illegal alien” is a term many find synonymous with “undocumented Democrat”.

So it is no surprise that Democrats, who under Bill Clinton, stood silently by as Elian Gonzalez was seized at gunpoint and forcibly removed to the oppression of Castro’s Communist Cuba, now hyperventilate as Donald Trump proposes building a high wall, albeit with a big gate, to protect American sovereignty and the declining value of U.S. citizenship.

We should at least copy what has been called the “Great Wall of Saudi Arabia”. Built to block a potential influx of Islamic State terrorists, it accomplishes what a sovereign state is obligated to do – protect its borders. We too often ignore the fact that among the flood of “oppressed” illegal aliens, gang members like those of MS-13 and terrorists could be hiding, as Marine Corps. Gen. and now DHS Secretary John Kelly once testified before Congress:

"Clearly, criminal networks can move just about anything on these smuggling pipelines," he testified in February to the House Armed Services Committee. "Terrorist organizations could seek to leverage those same smuggling routes to move operatives with intent to cause grave harm to our citizens or even quite easily bring weapons of mass destruction into the United States."

Build Trump’s fence first, and then talk about immigration reform. And while we are having this conversation, liberals, let us remember it was Bill Clinton who pointed a gun at Elian Gonzalez, not Donald Trump.

          Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.               

                                             TRUMP NOT ONE OF HILLARY’S BIG CREEPS

                                                                                     By

                                                                       Daniel John Sobieski

The latest evidence of Hillary Clinton’s total detachment from reality is found in the excerpt from the audio version of her book “What Happened” in which she complains of candidate Donald Trump invading her space in the second presidential debate. Not since Captain Queeg in “The Caine Mutiny” have we seen such paranoia and one sincerely hopes she finds her missing strawberries. Maybe the Russians ate them. As NBC News reported:

In the first excerpts from Hillary Clinton's highly anticipated upcoming memoir, the former Democratic presidential candidate said her "skin crawled" during a debate with Donald Trump.

In audio clips of Clinton reading from the book, "What Happened," which were first obtained by MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Wednesday, Clinton recounted her thoughts as she toyed with the idea of telling her Republican rival to "back up, you creep" as he stood behind her during the second presidential debate.

"My skin crawled," Clinton said. "It was one of those moments where you wish you could hit pause and ask everyone watching 'well, what would you do?'"

Just two days prior, Clinton said, "the world heard [Trump] brag about groping women."

Clinton said during the debate she decided against telling Trump, "back up, you creep, get away from me," and in order to keep her composure, she gripped the microphone "extra hard."

Her grasp on the truth is less firm. Consider this comes from the serial liar who dodged sniper fire in Bosnia, was named for Sir Edmund Hillary, the man who climbed Mt. Everest years after she was born, and who claimed the Benghazi terrorist attack was caused by a video.

If you actually watch replays of that debate you see no such intimidation and the only time candidate Trump was standing behind Hillary was when she crossed to his side of the stage to make a point, ending up in front of Trump who was standing by and walking around his podium.

Hillary apparently found nothing creep about disgraced Congressman Anthony Weiner, husband of aide and confidante Huma Abedin, texting pictures of himself to young women when he wasn’t looking at classified emails from Hillary that Huma forwarded to Weiner’s laptop. Anthony Weiner is a pretty big creep in most people’s book but perhaps the biggest creep is her own husband. Weiner’s creepiness is close, but no cigar.

The fact is that Hillary Clinton rose to political prominence, captured the 2016 Democratic nomination for President, and got to be on that debate stage with Donald Trump only because she looked the other way when Bill wandered off and rode his stained coattails to the halls of power.

Hillary’s remarks allude to the kerfuffle over the “Access Hollywood” tape where Trump is heard engaging in locker room talk about groping women. That her husband Bill actually did grope women, and possibly worse is a memory she must have lost when she fell and hit her head before her Benghazi testimony.

Intimidate women? Bill Clinton used his offices of governor and president as a power tool to obtain women. At least the Secret Service, as far as we know, never actually delivered them, unlike Arkansas state troopers reportedly did. Now that is creepy, almost as creepy as the fact Hillary wanted to sit in the same chair in the same Oval Office where Monica Lewinsky serviced her husnand.

Hillary  was the enabler of a philandering husband. She stood by her man so she could ride his coattails to political prominence. She is women, hear her ignore her husband’s real war on woman.

Some have even suggested that when a righteously indignant President Clinton wagged his finger and said he did not have sexual relations with THAT woman, he added “Ms. Lewinsky” as an afterthought, just so listeners would know exactly who THAT woman was.     The irony here is that Hillary Clinton first gained national prominence, as columnist Debra J. Saunders writes at SFGATE doing just that:

When Hillary Clinton first became a national figure in 1992, it was on “60 Minutes.” CBS correspondent Steve Kroft was asking the Clintons about Gennifer Flowers‘ claim that the Bubba and she had an affair. Bill denied the allegation. Hillary Clinton said, “I’m not sitting here, some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette.” Actually, that’s exactly what she was doing.

On “60 Minutes,” Bill Clinton denied having an affair with Flowers. Well, if you listen carefully, you notice that he denied a 12-year affair with Flowers. Kroft asked: Would he categorically deny the affair? Ever the parser, Clinton answered, “I’ve said that before.”

In 1998, under oath during a deposition for the Paula Jones lawsuit, Clinton testified he had sex with Flowers in 1977. Once. Just like he didn’t inhale….

For every bad choice Bill Clinton made, he tried to evade any consequences, not by owning up, but lying. It is unthinkable to expect the former president to regulate himself. Hillary Clinton was his ever-ready enabler. Later, during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the first lady famously blamed a “vast right-wing conspiracy.”

Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey as well as, some would suggest, a cast of thousands, have been groped, fondled, and used as sexual objects by one William Jefferson Clinton. If in Hillary’s view, Donald Trump’s “sexism” is a campaign issue, the surely the wandering eye, hand and schlong of her husband while she averted her eyes to gain power is also an issue.

And then there’s Juanita Broaddrick, who has accused President Clinton of rape. Juanita Broaddrick’s story is a credible one, and one of the many “bimbo eruptions” that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton handled during her husband Bill’s presidential campaign As Linda Tripp, confidante of former Clinton intern Monica Lewinsky, told the Daily Mail of how Hillary both enabled and covered up Bill’s many dalliances:

Tripp said: 'His political success was largely dependent upon Hillary. He owed her a great deal. As is widely acknowledged, Hillary took care of all the 'bimbo eruptions' of which there were thousands in order to present to the world an electable candidate.

'In this endeavor she was ruthless. She destroyed women so that their stories never saw the light of day.'

Juanita Broaddrick’s story was one that saw the light of day when in January 1999,  a month after Bill Clinton’s impeachment in the House, she agreed to be interviewed by NBC’s Lisa Myers. As Breitbart reports of the interview:

Her account begins in 1978, when then-Juanita Hickey was a 35 year-old Clinton campaign worker, and Attorney General Bill Clinton, who was running for governor of Arkansas, visited a nursing home where she worked as a nurse….

According to the transcript of an NBC Dateline report on Broaddrick, during that campaign stop, Clinton reportedly invited her to visit his campaign headquarters in Little Rock. Broaddrick, who was planning to go to Little Rock the following week for a seminar, called Clinton’s headquarters when she arrived and said she was surprised to be greeted on the phone by a staff member who seemed to be expecting her call. The aide directed her to telephone Clinton at his apartment.

“I did call and ask him if he was gonna be at the headquarters that day and he said no he didn’t plan to be there,” Broaddrick said. “He says, Clinton said, ‘Why don’t I just meet you for coffee in the Camelot coffee shop?'”

Broaddrick said the seminar was being held at the Camelot Hotel in Little Rock.

Clinton, however, reportedly called back later and asked if they could meet in her hotel room because there were reporters in the coffee shop.

Clinton arrived at her room and after some small talk Broaddrick, not having yet any reason to distrust the man she supported for governor, the top law enforcement officer in her state, said he forced himself on her in a particularly brutal way.

At a Trump press conference in 2016, Broaddrick, tired of being accused of being part of a vast right wing conspiracy, and afraid that her attacker would once again occupy the White House with the woman who orchestrated the attacks on Bill Clinton’s “bimbo eruptions”, repeated her accusation:

“Actions speak louder than words,” Broaddrick said. “Mr. Trump may have said some bad words but Bill Clinton raped me and Hillary Clinton threatened me. I don’t think there’s any comparison.”

Broaddrick, who has said Hillary threatened her, appeared with fellow Clinton sexual assault victims Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey appeared in an interview at presidential suite of the historic Watergate and related the tale of Bill’s assaults and their fear of Hillary’s retaliation:

In an exclusive video interview at the presidential suite of the historic Watergate Hotel, the victims of Bill Clinton’s alleged sexual assault  — Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and Paula Jones — got together for the first time in person to express their personal fear of Hillary Clinton and to warn voters that Clinton does not stand for women’s issues..

The three women, who say their lives were forever changed by their experiences with the Clintons, used words like “terrified” and “frightened” to describe their feelings about the prospects of a Hillary Clinton presidency…

 “We were not willing participants,” Broaddrick said. “These were crimes.” In a separate interview, Broaddrick shared her own story of brutal sexual assault which she says Bill Clinton perpetrated against her.

Willey called out NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell and CNN’s Jake Tapper by name, challenging them: “These are not infidelities. A rape is not an infidelity. These are crimes. Any other people would be in jail…

“This is no longer about infidelities, indiscretions, girlfriends, sex, interns — none of those. This is about a serial rapist, a predator, and his wife who has enabled his behavior all of these years.”

Later in this interview, Jones, Willey, and Broaddrick expressed fear at how a potential President Hillary Clinton would use the power of her office.

“It terrifies me and it should terrify all women,” Jones stated about Hillary’s presidential ambitions.

“It should terrify all men and women,” Willey added. “She will annihilate any enemy. All of her enemies. Anybody who has spoken against her. Across the board for I don’t know how many years. She will get rid of them.”

“No woman who advocates for women attacks the victims of sexual assault be it by her husband or anybody else,” said Willey.

The women argued that the term “enabler” best describes Hillary Clinton’s role in her husband’s alleged sexual crimes.

“There is not a better word for any of this,” stated Broaddrick. “Especially when she threatened me personally.”

Willey added, “She is complicit in everything that he has done.”

“She had helped him do it,” asserted Jones.

“She has turned a blind eye for decades against what he has done” stated Broaddrick. “And she has been the main one to help cover this up. And go after us.”

If Hillary Clinton is worried about someone breathing down her neck, perhaps it should be a Trump Department of Justice that has reopened the investigation into her multiples felonies regarding mishandling classified emails and deleting emails that were under subpoena, to name a few. 

Hillary Clinton has met a few creeps in her life, but President Trump is not one of them.

          Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.               

                            THANK CARTER ANC CLINTON FOR NORTH KOREA’S NUKES

                                                                                     By

                                                                       Daniel John Sobieski

If there is anything positive about the crisis about North Korea, it is that we don’t have a President Hillary Clinton dealing with it.  The wannabe first female president, if you don’t count Obama aide Valerie Jarrett, who orchestrated the disaster in the Middle East, would no doubt have the advice of William Jefferson Clinton, the commander-in-chief who is the godfather of North Korea’s nuclear program and the winner of the Neville Chamberlain Lifetime Appeasement Award.

Between the two of them they have royally mucked up the word. Hillary was there when President Obama precipitously withdrew from Iraq, creating the vacuum ISIS filled,  and drew the red line in Syria with vanishing ink. She is the architect of the Libyan venture that turned Libya into a failed state and Benghazi a graveyard for four heroic Americans.

As for her husband,  Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter must be very proud. Their policy of appeasement of North Korea’s brutal dictatorship has now borne rotten fruit with the little fat boy, Kim Jong Un, now able to threaten the

world with horrors similar to those imposed on his own people.

When Clinton first learned of the North Korean nuclear program in 1994, a surgical strike against its Yoingbyomg reactor might have sufficed to send Pyongyang a message that a nuclear North Korea was unacceptable.

Instead Clinton allowed Jimmy Carter to engage in some private foreign policy and jet off to the last Stalinist regime on earth to broker a deal whereby North Korea would promise to forego a nuclear weapons program in exchange for a basket of goodies that included oil, fool, and, amazingly, nuclear technology.

Along the way, Carter praised North Korea’s mass-murdering dictator as a “vigorous and intelligent man.” And of North Korea itself, Carter said of this habitat for inhumanity,“I don’t see they are an outlaw nation.” Of course, the man who gave us the ayatollahs in Iran didn’t. That wouldn’t stop him from getting the Nobel Peace Prize. As Jonah Goldberg wrote in October, 2002:

Let's start with the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. On Oct. 11, the Nobel committee announced it would award its Peace Prize to Jimmy Carter. It was really an un-Peace Prize for George W. Bush, whom the Nobel crowd believes is a foolish warmongering meanie.

"In a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power," intoned the Nobel press release, "Carter has stood by the principles that conflicts must as far as possible be resolved through mediation and international cooperation based on international law, respect for human rights and economic development." Translation: Bush should be more like Carter….

… it was brother Jimmy who had the bright idea of lavishing the North Koreans with aid in exchange for their "cross-our-hearts-and-hope-to-die" promise that they would stop pursuing nuclear weapons technology. Of course, many argue it was Carter's mollycoddling of the North Koreans during his presidency that encouraged them to start their nuclear program to begin with. But hey, that's heavy water under the bridge….

The final agreement, which Clinton dubbed "a very good deal indeed," called for the United States to provide the North Koreans with $4 billion worth of light-water reactors and $100 million in oil in exchange for a promise to be good and an assurance that inspectors would be allowed to poke around at some indeterminate point down the road.

The rest, as they say, is history. Clinton, relieved perhaps that he would not have to use the military he once loathed, leapt on this deal as if it were a White House intern. In exchange for a promise to be good, Clinton accepted Carter’s deal and agreed to provide the nation that spends a quarter of its GNP on its military while its people starve in a gulag some $4 billion in economic assistance, including oil and light-water nuclear reactors.

Upon completing what became known as the “Agreed Framework” in 1994, Clinton praised it the same way Chamberlain praised the Munich deal with Nazi Germany:

At the time, Mr Clinton said: “This US-North Korean agreement will help to achieve a long-standing and vital American objective: an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean peninsula.

“This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world.

“It’s a crucial step toward drawing North Korea into the global community.”

Gee, where did we hear this before? Ah, yes, Neville Chamberlain, 1938, proclaiming peace in our time.

In 1998, a week after Clinton’s military chief of staff assured Congress that North Korea had no active ballistic missile program, Pyongyang launched a Taepodong ICBM over the Japanese home islands. Instead of blasting the launch sites, within two months Clinton sent North Korea another multi-million dollar aid package and reopened bilateral negotiations.

Robert Kaufmann, professor of public policy at Pepperdine University, said of the agreement Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton engineered:

"The North Korean deal of 1994 is the prototype for why open societies should not negotiate arms control agreements with rogue regimes. The North Koreans duped Jimmy Carter — an emissary of Clinton — and the Clinton administration to subsidize the North Korean nuclear program in exchange for the counterfeit promise that North Korea would limit itself to civilian nuclear power."

President Obama’ eight years of “strategic patience” sealed the deal. Unfortunately, his nuclear deal with Iran is the 1994 Framework deal with North Korea on steroids. Ironically, North Korea and Iran have worked hand-in-glove to develop the missile technology to deliver nukes. Now it has $150 billion and Obama’s blessing to test the missiles to deliver the nukes we may only have delayed the development of.

Once again we have negotiated an arms agreement with a rogue regime. Whatever transpires with North Lorea, Iran is coming up fast as a threat. And we all have Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton to thank for setting the precedent.

          Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.               

FAR LEFT SERAIL ACCUSER TARGETS ERIC BOLLING

                                                                                     By

                                                                       Daniel John Sobieski

Fox news icon Bill O’Reilly, arguably the man who propelled Fox News into media dominance, was the first at Fox News to fold his tent under duress and slip away under the cloud of multiple charges of sexual harassment.  Hewis the first Fox News conservative target of a liberal left that also targeted the likes of Herman Cain and even Donald Trump himself.

One of his accusers was Caroline Heldman, a far left professor at Occidental College who some have dubbed a “feminazi” who in a tweet said after O’Reilly’s fall, “We can slay dragons”. As Yahoo News reported on her charges:

Caroline Heldman, an Associate Professor of Politics at Occidental College, has known the former O’Reilly Factor host for nearly 10 years, often appearing on his show as a political commentator from 2008 to 2011.

“The first time I met him, one of the first things, if not the first thing, out of his mouth was to the effect of, When I was in college, professors didn’t look like you,’ ” Heldman, 44, exclusively tells PEOPLE. “That kind of set the tone of his, I would call it, sexist humiliation and bullying which was pretty typical for him,” Heldman claims….

My upward trajectory slowed considerably,” she says. “I continued to do other shows but being blacklisted from Bill O’Reilly’s show is a big deal.”

Having filed a sexual harassment complaint just hours before Fox News announced O’Reilly’s departure, Heldman says she had thought about coming forward multiple times before, but the fear of ruining her career held her back.

Apparently she was so traumatized by O’Reilly’s alleged sexual harassment hurting her “upward trajectory” she forgot at the time of her alleged harassment by Eric Bolling.  Or was she just waiting a decent interval before she chose her next dragon to slay, hoping nobody would connect the two very suspicious dots .  Since everybody is busy looking for Russians under their beds, why not take a shot at another 15 minutes of fame: According to Philly.com’s report:

Hours after Fox News announced it was suspending Bolling, Caroline Heldman, a politics professor at Occidental College and frequent guest on the network from 2008 to 2011, claimed the Fox News host made an unspecified number of unsolicited sexual advances to her.

“[Bolling] said he wanted to fly me out to New York for in-studio hits and to have ‘fun.’ He asked me to have meals with him on several occasions, but I found excuses not to go,” Heldman wrote in a lengthy Facebook post. “Once, he took me up to his office in New York, showed me his baseball jerseys, and in the brief time I was there, let me know that his office was his favorite place to have sex.”

Caroline Heldman is rapidly becoming the woman who cried “harassment”  She is a far-left ideologue who showed up at President Trump’s inauguration with a sign that read  “good people don’t vote for rapists”. She was a plaintiff  in a sexual assault case filed with others against Occidental, Heldman’s school. She and  the others were represented by Gloria Alred, the same far left feminist lawyer who led the campaign against former GOP candidate Herman Cain:

 Occidental College failed to address some sexual misconduct complaints promptly but did not otherwise violate federal civil rights laws and voluntarily agreed to reforms, U.S. education officials announced Thursday.

The long-awaited resolution of an investigation by the U.S. Department of Education’s civil rights office came three years after about 50 students and faculty members filed federal complaints that administrators at the Eagle Rock liberal arts school had fostered a hostile environment for victims of sexual assault….

The complaints filed in 2013 drew national attention when they were announced at a high-profile news conference with several of the victims and prominent attorney Gloria Allred.

Stop when you detect a pattern. This is the left’s new weapon against conservatives and is a tactic straight out of Saul Alinsky’s playbook. We have see this all before. It was Gloria Allred who showed up with a group of Herman Cain accusers in 2012 to similarly attempt to derail the presidential run of a powerful and successful Republican businessman:

The accusations against Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump from women claiming sexual assault aren't going away anytime soon and now, one of Hollywood's biggest legal names is getting involved. 

Attorney Gloria Allred, who represented women who accused Herman Cain of sexual infidelity in 2012, ending his presidential run, along with mistresses of professional golfer Tiger Woods, will hold a press conference with a new accuser today.

It doesn’t matter if the charges are false. Accusations make page one while the truth later winds up at the bottom of the classifieds. In the case of Cain, it derailed his campaign. In the case of Trump, his campaign wobbles while the mainstream media gladly changes the subject from Hillary Clinton’s record of failures and lies and her history of using her offices for self-enrichment while riding her husband’s stained coattails to political power.

In many ways the Trump “tale of the tape” and the bevy of women, some  allegedly groped three decades earlier, is reminiscent of the campaign of smear and innuendo leveled at former GOP presidential candidate and successful African-American conservative businessman Herman Cain. Cain’s candidacy derailed after repeated and unproven 

sexual harassment allegations by former employees. But like Harry Reid’s tax lies about Mitt Romney, it worked.

It seems tha powerful Republican outsiders, successful businessmen, threaten the Democrats hold on power, the liberal smear machine goes to work

The likes of Gloria Allred, Caroline Helbman, and the rest didn’t care about their more credible and documented claims. As Investor’s Business Daily editorialized in 2011, righteous indignation and claims of victimhood are a one way street for the liberal grievance industry:

The age of civility, like the era of post-racial politics, is a mirage created by liberals to mute criticism of their policies by committed conservatives. Otherwise, we wouldn't see the continued abuse heaped by liberals on women and minorities who dare to be conservative, members of the Tea Party or the GOP, or all of the above.

The latest example of leftist vitriol has Herman Cain, former CEO of Godfather's Pizza, current radio talk-show host and possible 2012 GOP presidential contender, as its — dare we say? — target….

Where are the Jesse Jacksons and the Al Sharptons and the rest of the racial, gender and ethnic grievance industry amid the chirping crickets? Maybe it's the self-made successful entrepreneur part that bothers them.

Cain challenges the liberal orthodoxy by saying people should find inspiration in "God, yourself and the greatest country in the world," not from the government. On that score, he says "stupid people are running this country."

Eric Bolling shared Cain’s passion. So did Bill O’Reilly and Charles Payne over at Fox Business. They all succumbed to the “feminazi” assault . They were all conservative dragons that had to be slayed.

          Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.               

                                           ROBERT NUELLER ADOPTS STALIN TACTICS

                                                                                     By

                                                                       Daniel John Sobieski

We may be thankful to Alan Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School, for reminding us of the delicious irony of an investigation which began with “reports” of collusion with the Russians by Team Trump and charges of Russian hacking of our elections, noe reverting to the tactics of Russia’s most murderous tyrant, Josef Stalin. As Dershowitz writes in the Washington Examiner:

Special counsel Robert Mueller was commissioned to investigate not only crime but the entire Russian "matter." That is an ominous development that endangers the civil liberties of all Americans.

Federal prosecutors generally begin by identifying specific crimes that may have been committed — in this case, violation of federal statutes. But no one has yet identified the specific statute or statutes that constrain Mueller's investigation of the Russian matter. It is not a violation of any federal law for a campaign to have collaborated with a foreign government to help elect their candidate….

One does not have to go back to the Soviet Union and Lavrentiy Beria's infamous boast to Stalin, "Show me the man and I will show you the crime," in order to be concerned about the expansion of elastic criminal statutes. There are enough examples of abuse in our own history.

From McCarthyism to the failed prosecutions of Sen. Ted Stevens, Rep. Thomas DeLay, Gov. Rick Perry and others, we have seen vague criminal statutes stretched in an effort to criminalize political differences.

Indeed, now we here reports that Mueller’s investigation will range anywhere from Jared Kutchner’s finances to perhaps any unpaid parking tickets Sean Spicer may have. To paraphrase the boast of head of Stalin’s secret police ,  show Mueller the man, and he will find a crime, just as Mueller’s best friend, James Comey, found with Martha Stewart.

There too we see a vindicative prosecutor in search of a crime and it doesn’t have to be the original charge, if there is an original charge. As the Daily Caller reported:

FBI Director James Comey declined to recommend criminal charges against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified material Tuesday. But back in 2004, he led what legal observers call a “petty and vindictive” prosecution against interior design icon Martha Stewart for a lesser offense.

Stewart served a five-month prison sentence in 2004 at the Federal Prison Camp in Alderson, West Virginia, also known as “Camp Cupcake,” for lying to federal investigators about possible insider trading. In the years since the case, there is a consensus in the legal community that Comey’s prosecution was overzealous and vindictive.

The Cato Institute’s Gene Healy condemned Comey’s actions as temperamental and political in a 2004 column. Healy argued that Stewart’s indictment was largely possible because the sheer volume of federal laws makes it possible to indict almost any individual on some basis — reasonable or unreasonable. Quoting former Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, Healy wrote prosecutors “will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted.”His Cato colleague Alan Reynolds argued Comey prosecuted Stewart for “having misled people by denying having committed a crime with which she was not charged.”

We saw this Stalinesque persecution in the case of Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff. Libby was convicted, again of lying to the FBI, because he misremembered events under relentless questioning. He was charge long after prosecutors knoew it was Richard Armitage who leaked the name of CIA desk jockey Valerie Plame to the press. Instead of dropping the investigation at hat point, prosecutors persisted, knowing they had to find a crime committed by someone somewhere to justify their existence.

Libby was Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff when he was charged with obstruction of an investigation into the “outing” of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative. Plame was in fact a desk jockey at CIA Headquarters in Langley, Virginia, not a secret agent in harm’s way. As Investor’s Business Daily noted:

Remember the alleged outing of the already known CIA officer and desk jockey Valerie Plame? We were told then that the Vanity Fair cover girl's 15 minutes of fame jeopardized our national security even if everybody already knew who she was.

"Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, went to jail because his memory of events and who said what to whom regarding Plame differed from the recollections of others, particularly news reporters.

Yes, Virginia, this is a witch hunt. Robert Mueller III was appointed special cunsel after his friend, the vindictive James Comey, committed a federal crime by leaking a memo which was a government record to the press. Mueller has picked staff and prosecutors as if he were stocking Hillary Clinton’s Department of Justice. He has picked a bevy of Clinton donors, an attorney who worked for the Clinton Foundation, a former Watergate assistant prosecutor, and evn a senior advise to Eric Hiolder. Objective professionals all (snarkiness intended ).

Mueller is in fact colluding with Comey to enact revenge on President Trump for Comey’s firing, something which even Comey said Trump was constitutionally entitled to do. There is no evidence of collusion with Russia or obstruction of justice. It is not obstruction of justice for a President to exercise his legal and constitutional authority.

The facts and the lack of an actual crime will not stop Robert Mueller. Just show him the man, or woman, and he will show you the crime.

          Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.               

MEGYN KELLY RETURNS - UNDRESSED TO IMPRESS

                                                                                     By

                                                                       Daniel John Sobieski

Former Fox News star and now NBC darling Megyn Kelly has a new show starting June 4 on the peacock network, appropriately nicknamed considering the prima donna status of its new centerfold, er, centerpiece of  NBC. Fpr her first show, she interviewed Russian President Vladimir Putin at an international economic forum in St. Petersburg. NBC released a publicity photo of her sitting with Putin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.  Her attire seemed somewhat inappropriate for a past victim of sexual harassment and a self-proclaimed opponent of sexism in politics and the workplace. As Kristinn Taylor noted at Gateway Pundit:

NBC News starlet Megyn Kelly dressed like a hooker for her interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin that is scheduled to air on Sunday. A publicity photo shows Kelly interviewing Putin while wearing a low-cut, off the shoulder blue velvet dress that is slit to mid-thigh, accented by black open-toe shoes with stiletto heels.

Kelly has posed, no pun intended, as a champion of empowered women an opponent of a culture which objectifies women in and out of the workplace.  Yet, like Hillary Clinton, who rode her husband’s coattails to political prominence, Kelly has shown no reluctance to put her feminist mindset aside for the sake of her career. Some may know of her claims of harassment from former Fox News chief Roger Ailes, but maybe not that she kept it hidden from public view until shescould use it to sell her book, “Settle For More”. As Kate Scanlon wrote last November on The Blaze:

Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly said Tuesday that she did not come forward sooner with allegations that former Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes sexually harassed her because it would have been a “suicide mission” for her career.

During an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America” about her new book, “Settle for More,” Kelly said that in the beginning of her career at Fox News Ailes tried to kiss her three times in his office and that when she rejected his advances “he asked me when my contract was up”…

Kelly called Ailes’ actions “disturbing” but said she didn’t immediately come forward because “realistically, that would have been a suicide mission for me and my career.”

“I wasn’t Megyn Kelly of today. I had no power, and he was on the cover of industry magazines as the most powerful man in news,” she said. “There was no one to go to.”

 Well, the Megyn Kelly of today remains the same opportunist she was then. Certainly the first GOP presidential debate on August 6, 2016 was an opportunity she wouldn’t let pass her by. Her question, directed at Donald Trump was incendiary and provocative and, in retrospect, a bit hypocritical:  

KELLY: Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don't use a politician's filter. However, that is not without its downsides, in particular, when it comes to women.

You've called women you don't like "fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals."

(LAUGHTER)

Your Twitter account...

TRUMP: Only Rosie O'Donnell.

(LAUGHTER)

KELLY: No, it wasn't.

(APPLAUSE)

Your Twitter account...

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: Thank you.

KELLY: For the record, it was well beyond Rosie O'Donnell.

TRUMP: Yes, I'm sure it was.

KELLY: Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women's looks. You once told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees. Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president, and how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who was likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on women?

Kelly’s concern about demeaning women and insisting they be treated with respect doesn’t jive with an interview with Howard Stern, famous for asking women guests “are those real”, in 2010, when she was also not the Megyn Kelly she is today.  Then, one supposes, it was okay to talk about breast and penis size with the world’s most famous pervert.

Then there is the famous GQ photo shoot for that magazine’s December, 2010 issue in which the rising Fox News star poses provocatively in lingerie, an odd occurrence for someone who would later pompously condemn the objectification of women, except when used to advance her career. Trump would bring this up after the deabate. As Politico reported:

Donald Trump continued his onslaught on Fox News host Megyn Kelly on Thursday, retweeting a follower who criticized a photo shoot she did for GQ Magazine.

“And this is the bimbo that’s asking presidential questions?”, the tweet said. It included two photos of Kelly posing provocatively and the following text: “Criticizes Trump for objectifying women ... Poses like this in GQ Magazine.”

A fare question one would think. After that debate viewers noticed the change in Kelly’s persona from the wholesome girl-next-door look to one more appropriate for a more sophisticated image. As journalist Peter Barry Chowka observed:

Throughout 2016, Kelly had been increasingly criticized but not only for her apparent hostility to Trump. She appeared to be focusing and reporting increasingly and obsessively on herself and changing her appearance and persona from a smart, girl-next-door type to a cold and calculating feminist icon-wannabe. In a July 19, 2016 article at Breitbart, Matthew Boyle quotes a “top Fox News host:”

“If Fox wants to become the ‘all about Megyn Network,’ that’s fine. We stand with Roger [Ailes]. And real anger has emerged that the so-called Megyn incident [alleged sexual harassment by Ailes] happened 10 years ago. The consensus among the hosts and contributors is: ‘Why didn’t she say anything then? Really, the same woman that posed half naked in GQ? The same woman on Howard Stern saying what?’”

While Kelly was attacking Trump, she ignored the resurrection of talk about Hillary Clinton being an enabler of her husband’s extra-marital activities at the same time the anti-Trump media was hyping the “Access Hollywood” tape in which Trump engaged in dirty talk about women. Newt Gingrich confronted Kelly about her double standard in a segment on “The Kelly File”: 

The exchange, as reported by the New York Times, went as follows, with Kelly arguing that Trump’s dirty talk in a trailer was worse than Bill Clinton’s turning of the Arkansas governor’s mansion and the Oval Office into a personal Playboy penthouse:

“You are fascinated with sex and you don’t care about public policy,” he told Ms. Kelly.

Ms. Kelly: “Me? Really?”

Mr. Gingrich: “That’s what I get out of watching you tonight.”

Ms. Kelly: “You know what Mr. Speaker, I’m not fascinated by sex, but I am fascinated by the protection of women and understanding what we’re getting in the Oval Office and I think the American voters would like to know …”

Mr. Gingrich then began to talk about how Mrs. Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, would return to the White House “because you, after all, are worried about sexual predators,” an apparent allusion to Mr. Clinton’s affair with a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky.

“Listen, it’s not about me. It’s about the women and men of America,” Ms. Kelly replied. She said polls showed that voters were concerned about the allegations against Mr. Trump and believed they were an issue.

As the interview progressed, Mr. Gingrich turned to baiting Ms. Kelly.

“Do you want to comment on whether the Clinton ticket has a relationship to a sexual predator?” Mr. Gingrich said, adding: “I just want to hear you use the words, ‘Bill Clinton, sexual predator.’ I dare you. Say, ‘Bill Clinton, sexual predator.’”

Kelly did not call and has not called Bill Clinton what he in fact was, a sexual predator, insisting instead that the Clinton assaults on women had been covered by her and others and wishing Gingrich well on attending to his “anger issues.”

Kelly, in a sparring contest with Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway essentially called Juanita Broaddrick, who along with other Bill Clinton victims, had resurfaced during the 2015 campaign, a liar: 

Megyn Kelly claimed that Clinton rape accuser Juanita Broaddrick denied any rape in a 1998 affidavit. Close, but no cigar, Megyn. The story is a little more complicated than that. It was not that her story was false as Megyn Kelly implied. Like many rape victims, Broaddrick felt no one would believe her and she simply wanted to put it behind her and not be forced to relive it, particularly in any legal setting: she resisted interviews, fearing no one would believe her charge against a popular President. …

Broaddrick feared the retaliation of Team Clinton as well as the glare of a disbelieving media. Thus she signed an affidavit denying the rape, again trying to avoid being forced to relive the horrible experience. But she told Starr and his office the affidavit was false. Starr didn’t pursue the rape story not because it was false, but because it was not part of his obstruction of justice investigation.

At the Trump press conference, Broaddrick, tired of being accused of being part of a vast right-wing conspiracy, and afraid that her attacker would once again occupy the White House with the woman who orchestrated the attacks on Bill Clinton’s “bimbo eruptions”, repeated her accusation:

“Actions speak louder than words,” Broaddrick said. “Mr. Trump may have said some bad words but Bill Clinton raped me and Hillary Clinton threatened me. I don’t think there’s any comparison.”

Megyn Kelly may or may not succeed in her new endeavor, but she is sure to be sufficiently provocative in her appearance as she was in her GQ shoot and Putin interview. As for the war on women and their objectification, she will say and do whatever is needed to advance her career.

          Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publicatin

                                   CLEXIT: DUMP PARIS CLIMATE FRAUD ACCORDS

                                                                                     By

                                                                       Daniel John Sobieski

If the Associated Press report is accurate, President Trump is going to pull the United States out of the Paris Climate Accords, an economic albatross based on junk science the rest of the world wants to hang around the neck of the United States. It could happen as soon as the day after tomorrow. As the AP reported:

President Donald Trump is expected to pull the United States from a landmark global climate agreement, a White House official said Wednesday, though there could be "caveats in the language" announcing a withdrawal, leaving open the possibility that his decision isn't final….

Trump tweeted on Wednesday morning: "I will be announcing my decision on the Paris Accord over the next few days. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"

Well, the only way to make America great again is to renounce the Paris Climate Accords as the scripture of a false climate change religion. The Accords would doom Trump’s plans to resurrect American energy production and liberate fossil fuels from the chains of regulation. It would make no sense to agree to the Accords after ending the war on coal and relieving industry, particularly the energy industry, from oppressive and job-killing regulations.

Yes, the earth has been warming. It has been warming ever since the Little Ice Age. That is a good thing, Crops love CO2 and longer growing seasons – good news for a hungry world. The fact is that global temperatures have essentially flat lined in the past two decades.

Recently published data from independent meteorologists Dr Ryan Maue of WeatherBELL Analytics and Dr Roy Spencer show that global temperatures have fallen back to about the levels of 20 years ago despite our alleged gushing of CO2….

The explanation of the temperature pause since 1998 – which contradicts the computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – has been the subject of widespread discussion in academic journals, including the American Geophysical Union journal, Geophysical Research Letters, as well as Climate Dynamics, and the Scientific Report of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. All agree that temperature rises have stalled, but there is no consensus on the cause.

Dr Roy Spencer publishes every month the average global temperature derived from satellite observations. Since 1979, satellites have been sending back to earth data on the temperature of the lower atmosphere, and this data is published by the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH) and on Dr Spencer’s website.

The satellite data indicates that average temperatures in April 2017 were 0.27 degrees above the 30-year average from 1981–2010. In the previous month, the data showed that the temperature was just 0.19 degrees above the 30-year average. The IPCC had forecast temperature variations five to 10 times as large.

 William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brocket Professor of Physics, Emeritus, at Princeton University, writes in the Washington Times that CO2, which every human being exhales, is a blessing and not a curse:

Climate has been changing since the Earth was formed — some 4.5 billion years ago — according to geological evidence. Climate changes on every time scale — decades, centuries, millennia and even longer periods.

The climate of Greenland really was warm enough for farming around the year 1100, and the Little Ice Age really did drive Norse settlers out of Greenland by the year 1500. Like these changes, the very minor warming we have had over the past few centuries is mostly from non-human causes.

Each human exhales about two pounds of CO2 a day from simply being alive. Living creatures, humans, animals and plants are largely made of carbon. Carbon dioxide is essential to the growth of plants. By the standards of geological history, plants have been coping with a CO2 famine for several tens of millions of years. Satellites already show dramatic greening of the Earth as CO2 levels begin recovery toward their historical norms. These were measured in thousands of parts per million (ppm), not today’s puny 400 ppm.

Ironically, the American energy industry through innovate technology has done more to reduce emissions of so-called “greenhouse gases” than any parchment agreement could ever have. It is fracking that has produced a boom in the production of natural gas, a fossil fuel, that has produced a significant reduction in the U.S. of those so-called “greenhouse gases”. As the Washington Times reported:

White House senior advisor Brian Deese cheered the falling carbon dioxide levels at a Monday press conference without mentioning the outsize role played by natural gas, as the cleaner-burning fuel increasingly overtakes coal in electricity generation.

“For those of you who are not breathlessly following the most recent data that has come out, I would note recent data that we’ve seen suggests or finds that for the first half of 2016, energy sector emissions in the United States are actually down 6 percent from last year, and 15 percent from 2005,” said Mr. Deese. “And they’re at their lowest level in nearly 20 years.”

He said nothing about the U.S. natural gas boom, an omission that critics say has become par for the course as the Obama administration highlights renewable energy and emissions restrictions without acknowledging the role of fracking in natural gas extraction.

“To add dishonesty to injury, his administration is bragging about the reduced CO2 emissions of [the] U.S. industry without crediting the fracking for natural gas, a fossil fuel, that largely caused it,” said Alex Epstein, author of the book “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.”

There us no moral case to mage for the recipe for global povery that the Paris Accords represent. As Sen. Ted Cruz notes at CNN Opinion, the Paris Accords is akin to trying to repeal the Industrial Revolution. It would be a lot of economic pain for little or no temperature gain:

Following a successful international tour and the G-7 Summit in Italy, President Trump has an opportunity to relieve our nation of the unfair and economically devastating requirements of the Paris Agreement, the United Nations climate treaty he pledged to rip up during the campaign….

According to a recent National Economic Research Associates Economic Consulting study, the Paris Agreement could obliterate $3 trillion of GDP, 6.5 million industrial sector jobs and $7,000 in per capita household income from the American economy by 2040. Meeting the 2025 emissions reduction target alone could subtract $250 billion from our GDP and eliminate 2.7 million jobs. The cement, iron and steel, and petroleum refining industries could see their production cut by 21% 19%, and 11% respectively….

In return for crippling our economy, the Paris Agreement would do next to nothing to impact global temperatures. Under the EPA's own models, if all carbon emissions in America were basically eliminated, global temperatures would only decrease by less than two-tenths of a degree Celsius.
While the agreement would have a negligible impact on temperatures, America would be putting itself at a competitive disadvantage. That's because while the Obama administration irresponsibly committed America to immediate, real cuts in emissions, our global economic competitors would have no such handicap. In fact, Russia is permitted to increase its emissions approximately 50% and China and India have no meaningful cap on emissions until 2030.
President Trump has made a crusade against unfair trade deals. This climate deal is an economic disaster which has more to do with the global elites gain control over the world’s economy. They want to control and regulate the means of production and dictate every minute aspect of our daily lives – just as President Obama sought to do. Hey, isn’t that the classic definition of Marxism?.

Global warming hype is nothing more an attempt by climate change scammers to impose what has become a religion. MIT Professor Richard Lindzen is quoted in the Daily Caller questioning  the tenets of this new religion:

Throughout history, governments have twisted science to suit a political agenda. Global warming is no different, according to Dr. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

“Global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be vastly more costly. It has also been damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions,” writes Lindzen in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons….

Lindzen compares global warming to past politicized scientific movements: the eugenics movement in the early 20th Century and Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union under Stalin. However, the MIT professor argues that global warming goes even beyond what these past movements in terms of twisting science.

“Global Warming has become a religion,” writes Lindzen. “A surprisingly large number of people seem to have concluded that all that gives meaning to their lives is the belief that they are saving the planet by paying attention to their carbon footprint.”

The goal is to use climate change as a means to increase government power over every aspect of our lives, what we make, how we make it, what energy we use, what cars we drive, even what food we eat. The scientific record, as Investor’s Business Daily notes, shows that climate change is a scam:

…a paper published recently in the journal Global Environmental Change found that carbon dioxide emissions are essentially self-regulating and that after countries reach a higher GDP level, CO2 emissions either stabilize or even decline, without the need for carbon taxes or carbon capture technology.

Here in the U.S., the fracking revolution has released from our vast shale formations vast natural-gas deposits that have done more to reduce carbon emissions than any IPCC report.

A study published late last year by the Energy Information Administration reported that the "carbon intensity" of the electricity produced in the U.S. actually fell by 13% from 2007 to 2012.

British climate-change skeptic Lord Christopher Monckton recently pointed out at Marc Morano's Climate Depot that the "Great Pause" in global temperatures — now at 18 years and counting — has occurred even as carbon dioxide concentrations have risen.

This 18-year period constitutes roughly half the satellite observation period that began in 1979.

Physicist Gordon Fulks of the Cascade Policy Institute notes that the warming pause since 1997 has occurred while atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased 25%.

"CO2 is responsible for global warming that is not occurring, for accelerated sea-level rise that is not occurring ... and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring," he states.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but the source of all plant and animal life. Even if emissions were a threat, and they are not, it's prosperity and the technology that comes with it, such as fracking, that reduce overall emissions in the atmosphere.

And now the high priests of the global warming religion are demanding what other false religions have demanded – human sacrifices upon their altar.

          Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.              

DID BRENNAN COLLUDE WITH FOREIGN SPIES TO HELP HILLARY?

                                                                                     By

                                                                       Daniel John Sobieski

John Brennan defended his thesis that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win before the Hoiuse Intelligence Committee. He did nothing to disabuse Congressional Democrats or the mainstream media of the notion that Team Trump colluded with Moscow to change the results of the 2016 election.

Brennan  didn’t explain why he thought that the Russians didn’t want Hillary Clinton to win. Perhaps Clapper could explain why they didn’t prefer Hillary who was Secretary of State when President Obama let Russia violate the INF Missile Treaty and colluded with the Russians to kill missile defense in Europe, telling Then Russian President Dimitri Medvedev to tell Putin he would have more “flexibility” after his reelection.

Clapper didn’t explain why he the Russians didn’t prefer Hillary, Secretary of State for an administration that did nothing when Russia annexed Crimea and invaded Ukraine. Why wouldn’t the Russians want the Secretary of State who called murderous Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad a reformer and was there when President Obama drew the first of his “red lines” than did nothing to prevent the slaughter of 500,000 Syrians while giving Russia freerein in that country?

Why would Russia prefer Trump over Hillary after she and husband Bill brokered deals giving Russia and Putin 20 percent of our uranium supply to benefit  Clinton Foundation donors, including Canadian billionaire Frank Giustra.

As the New York Times reported, this mutual back-scratching gave Clinton donor Giustra control of a significant portion of the world’s uranium supply:

Late on Sept. 6, 2005, a private plane carrying the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra touched down in Almaty, a ruggedly picturesque city in southeast Kazakhstan. Several hundred miles to the west a fortune awaited: highly coveted deposits of uranium that could fuel nuclear reactors around the world. And Mr. Giustra was in hot pursuit of an exclusive deal to tap them.

Unlike more established competitors, Mr. Giustra was a newcomer to uranium mining in Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic. But what his fledgling company lacked in experience, it made up for in connections. Accompanying Mr. Giustra on his luxuriously appointed MD-87 jet that day was a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton….

Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clinton’s charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3 million donation from Mr. Giustra that had remained a secret until he acknowledged it last month. The gift, combined with Mr. Giustra’s more recent and public pledge to give the William J. Clinton Foundation an additional $100 million, secured Mr. Giustra a place in Mr. Clinton’s inner circle, an exclusive club of wealthy entrepreneurs in which friendship with the former president has its privileges….

In February 2007, a company called Uranium One agreed to pay $3.1 billion to acquire UrAsia. Mr. Giustra, a director and major shareholder in UrAsia, would be paid $7.05 per share for a company that just two years earlier was trading at 10 cents per share.

Now isn’t that special. Both the Clintons and their donor made off handsomely. Uranium One, which was gradually taken over by the Russians, would later be involved in a curious deal involving Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State. As the New York Times reported:

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well….

Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah.

So Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, along with husband Bill, in exchange for donations, gave nuclear power Russia and Putin control of 20 percent of the world’s uranium supply. Is that what Hillary Clinton meant by a “Russian reset”? Yet neither Congressional Democrats, who accuse Trump  of being too cozy with Moscow, nor their wholly owned subsidiary, the mainstream media, are eager to talk about the Clinton uranium deals with Russia.

Based on this assessment, Brennan is wrong that the Russians wanted Hillary to win. They may have hacked into the DNC emails, but they didn’t write them. They didn’t keep Hilary from campaigning in Wisconsin, or make her motivate Trump supporters by calling half of them “deplorable”, or cause ObamaCare premiums to spike weeks before the November election.

There is another scenario as equally plausible as the one saying Team Trump, and perhaps President Trump himself, colluded with the Russians. It is that John Brennan himself colluded with the Russians to help Hillary win to guarantee his continued tenure as CIA Director. It involves the infamous anti-Trump dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, used by Brenan and others as a pretext for a Trump investigation bonanza.  As the American Spectator reported:

An article in the Guardian last week provides more confirmation that John Brennan was the American progenitor of political espionage aimed at defeating Donald Trump. One side did collude with foreign powers to tip the election — Hillary’s.

Seeking to retain his position as CIA director under Hillary, Brennan teamed up with British spies and Estonian spies to cripple Trump’s candidacy. He used their phony intelligence as a pretext for a multi-agency investigation into Trump, which led the FBI to probe a computer server connected to Trump Tower and gave cover to Susan Rice, among other Hillary supporters, to spy on Trump and his people….

The Guardian story is written in a style designed to flatter its sources (they are cast as high-minded whistleblowers), but the upshot of it is devastating for them, nonetheless, and explains why all the criminal leaks against Trump first originated in the British press. According to the story, Brennan got his anti-Trump tips primarily from British spies but also Estonian spies and others. The story confirms that the seed of the espionage into Trump was planted by Estonia. The BBC’s Paul Wood reported last year that the intelligence agency of an unnamed Baltic State had tipped Brennan off in April 2016 to a conversation purporting to show that the Kremlin was funneling cash into the Trump campaign.

Any other CIA director would have disregarded such a flaky tip, recognizing that Estonia was eager to see Trump lose (its officials had bought into Hillary’s propaganda that Trump was going to pull out of NATO and leave Baltic countries exposed to Putin). But Brennan opportunistically seized on it, as he later that summer seized on the half-baked intelligence of British spy agencies (also full of officials who wanted to see Trump lose).

The Guardian says that British spy head Robert Hannigan “passed material in summer 2016 to the CIA chief, John Brennan.” To ensure that these flaky tips leaked out, Brennan disseminated them on Capitol Hill. In August and September of 2016, he gave briefings to the “Gang of Eight” about them, which then turned up on the front page of the New York Times.

Could it be that Brennan himself is the leaker of classified information? There are reports suggesting he is and isn’t that what is going on in Washington these days – bogus investigations based on reports of collusion with the Russians and other shenanigans. Could that be any crazier than investigations triggered by the Steele dossier, a classic work of slanderous fiction? Two things we do know – that the only crime is the leaking of classified information to the newspapers to damage Donald Trump and that Brennan is wrong on ewho the Russians wanted to win.

          Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.               

                                                       BILL NYE THE EUGENICS GUY

                                                                                     By

                                                                       Daniel John Sobieski

To be fair, Bill Nye didn’t actually say people should be eliminated by their governments to save the environment and the planet. He did say that there are too many people and parents, at least in the developed world, should be punished for having “too many” children:

The season finale of pop scientist Bill Nye's new Netflix show "Bill Nye Saves the World" suggested that the government should punish people who have too many children, for the sake of the environment.

"The average Nigerian emits 0.1 metric tons of carbon annually," noted Nye's guest, Dr. Travis Rieder. "How many does the average American emit? Sixteen metric tons."

Rieder said Americans having an average of two children are "waaaay more problematic" than Nigerians having seven when it comes to preventing global warming.

"Should we have policies that penalize people for having extra kids in the developed world?" Nye asked.

“ /I do think we should at least consider it," Rieder said.

Nye pushed him even further.

"Well, ‘at least consider it' is like, ‘do it,'" he opined.

The other two guests pushed back, however, pointing out that what Nye and Rieder were proposing came dangerously close to the eugenics policies of America's past, which ending up disproportionately targeting poor women and minorities.

Yes, his remarks are perilously close to advocating eugenics. It is a short trip from deciding how many children people should be allowed to have to deciding who gets to have children at all. It bears a striking resemblance to China’a one-child policy, which included sterilization and forced abortion. China’s one-child policy, instituted by the Communist government in the late 1970s to stem rising population, compels couples in urban areas to have just one child and limits couples in rural areas to two children if the first child is a girl, as girls are seen as having lesser value than boys in some parts of the Asian nation. As Investor’s Business Daily editorialized, John Holdren, President Obama’s science adviser, agreed with Bill Nye that too many people were a problem that needed to be dealt with:

This administration supports draconian actions to fight climate change. In 2007, at climate change talks in Vienna, Su Wei, a senior Chinese Foreign Ministry official, boasted that China's one-child policy had reduced China's population at that point by some 300 million human beings, roughly equal to the U.S. population.

Avoiding those 300 million births "means we averted 1.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide in 2005," based on average world per capital emissions of 4.2 tons, he said.

John Holdren, the president's top science adviser, has no quarrel with this barbarism, seeing it as necessary to fight global warming and resource depletion. Even the U.S. Constitution can't stand in his way.

In a previous book, "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment," co-authored with Thomas Malthus fans Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Holdren writes that large families "contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children" and "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility."

On page 837, he writes, it has "been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

Hillary Clinton’s idol, and founder of Planned Parenthood, had her particular idea on which children should be allowed to be born. As J. Kenneth Blackwell, writing in the Washington Times, noted, those who chant “black lives matter” obviously exclude the abortion rate of black babies that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger and the KKK could only dream of:

138,539 black babies, nearly one baby in three, were killed in the womb in 2010. According to the CDC, between 2007 and 2010, innocent black babies were victimized in nearly 36 percent of the abortion deaths in the United States, though blacks represent only 12.8 percent of the population. Some say the abortion capital of America is New York City. According to LifeSiteNews, the city’s Department of Health reported that in 2012, more black babies were aborted (31,328) than born (24,758). That’s 55.9 percent of black babies killed before birth. Blacks represented 42.4 percent of all abortions.

This is a disturbing and tragic situation that continues unabated and is the fulfillment of the dream of Hillary Clinton’s heroine Margaret Sanger. As Blackwell also noted:

According to Sanger, “Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.” She opened her first abortion clinics in inner cities, and it’s no accident that even today, “79 percent of Planned Parenthood’s abortion facilities are located in black or minority neighborhoods.”  

Population control is the tool of tyrants. Whether it is to build a master race or lower carbon dioxide emissions, it is inherently evil in its methods and goals. Ironically, and contrary to Nye’s hypothesis, wealthier societies are healthier societies. Which is better for the environment – to reduce emissions thanx to natural gas obtained by fracking, or to let families in underdeveloped countries burn animal dung to cook their food and heat their homes? Wealthier societies can afford the technology to clean the air and water without sacrificing human lives.

It is fracking that has produced a boom in the production of natural gas, a fossil fuel, that has produced a significant reduction in the U.S. of so-called “greenhouse gases”. As the Washington Times reported:

White House senior advisor Brian Deese cheered the falling carbon dioxide levels at a Monday press conference without mentioning the outsize role played by natural gas, as the cleaner-burning fuel increasingly overtakes coal in electricity generation.

“For those of you who are not breathlessly following the most recent data that has come out, I would note recent data that we’ve seen suggests or finds that for the first half of 2016, energy sector emissions in the United States are actually down 6 percent from last year, and 15 percent from 2005,” said Mr. Deese. “And they’re at their lowest level in nearly 20 years.”

He said nothing about the U.S. natural gas boom, an omission that critics say has become par for the course as the Obama administration highlights renewable energy and emissions restrictions without acknowledging the role of fracking in natural gas extraction.

“To add dishonesty to injury, his administration is bragging about the reduced CO2 emissions of [the] U.S. industry without crediting the fracking for natural gas, a fossil fuel, that largely caused it,” said Alex Epstein, author of the book “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.”

Carbon dioxide is the basis for all plant and animal life on earth, whether it eminates from the nostrils of Bill Nye or from the children he wishes would not be born. He is lucky his parents didn’t come up with the idea first and eliminate a dangerous source of hot air.

Nightmare scenarios regarding overpopulation have made the rounds since ThomasMalthus predicted in 1798 that overpopulation would outstrip England’s food supply and theBritish Empire would literally starve to death. Similar nonsense was express in Paul Ehrlich’s“The Population Bomb” (1968) which warned: “In the 1970s, the world will undergo famine – hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked on now.” Today, a major problem America faces is not famine, but obesity.

Malthusian thinking fails to grasp that human beings are the ultimate resource, that with more bodies come more minds that create more ideas.  Neither Malthus or Ehrlich could envision the advances in medicine, science, technology, and biotechnology that would tame disease, increase the food supply at exponential rates, find new resources, or create new substitutes. 

The view that human beings are inexorably outstripping the globe´s capacity to sustain them is one of the most vivid, powerful and enduring economic myths of the modern era because the chicken littles who argue it forget one simple fact – with bodies come minds.

Bill Nye is wrong. We are not cattle that graze until there is no grass. Our species, unlike all others, can consciously apply problem-solving techniques to the project of expanding its resource base. Minds matter economically as much as hands and mouths. And minds arrive only in companywith bodies. Be fruitful and multiply.

        Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.               

                                   HOW NORTH KOREA COULD DESTROY U.S. WTH SINGLE NUKE 

                                                                                     By     

                                                                       Daniel John Sobieski

As both Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has stated, the Clinton-Obama era of “strategic patience” with North Korea is over. The usual suspects in the mainstream media have been warning that Trump is provoking Pyongyang into war on the Korean peninsula. The counter is that the administration isn’t willing to wait till North Korea ha the operational capability to nuke an American city like Seattle or Honolulu.

What is not being discussed is a much bigger and more imminent threat which makes action imperative, an existential one for the United States. 

The nightmare scenario of an America sent back centuries in time before electricity, refrigeration, and smart phones has grown unnervingly closer with the presence of two North Korean satellites with orbits over a blissfully unaware American populace and an Obama administration indifferent that was to the apocalyptic threat of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack.

On Feb. 7, 2016, North Korea launched a second satellite, the KMS-4, to join their KMS-3 satellite launched in December of 2012. In an article in the Washington Times on April 24, 2016, R. James Woolsey,  former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and Peter Vincent Fry, executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security as well as director of the Nuclear Strategy Forum, both congressional advisory boards, warned of the dangers of an apocalyptic EMP attack that these and similar satellites pose:

Both satellites now are in south polar orbits, evading many U.S. missile defense radars and flying over the United States from the south, where our defenses are limited. Both satellites — if nuclear armed — could make an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack that could blackout the U.S. electric grid for months or years, thereby killing millions.

Technologically, such an EMP attack is easy — since the weapon detonates at high-altitude, in space, no shock absorbers, heat shield, or vehicle for atmospheric re-entry is necessary. Since the radius of the EMP is enormous, thousands of kilometers, accuracy matters little. Almost any nuclear weapon will do.

Moreover, North Korea probably has nuclear weapons specially designed, not to make a big explosion, but to emit lots of gamma rays to generate high-frequency EMP. Senior Russian generals warned EMP Commissioners in 2004 that their EMP nuclear warhead design leaked “accidentally” to North Korea, and unemployed Russian scientists found work in North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.

Woolsey and Pry, along with former Reagan science adviser William R. Graham, chairman of the Congressional EMP Commission, Ambassador Henry Cooper, director of the Strategic Defense Initiative and chief negotiator at the Defense and Space Talks with the USSR; and Fritz Ermarth, chairman of the National Intelligence Council; warned of the North Korean EMP threat an article in the February 12, 2016, issue of National Review:

Naïve reliance on their transparent disavowals could end up costing millions of American lives.

North Korea launched its second satellite on Saturday, yet the national press continues to ignore this existential threat. The White House has not recognized that a nuclear-armed North Korea has demonstrated an ability to kill most Americans with an electromagnetic-pulse (EMP) attack. And White House spokesmen and the media have misled the public with unjustified assurances that North Korea has not yet miniaturized nuclear warheads for missile or satellite delivery.

We, who have spent our professional lifetimes analyzing and defending against nuclear-missile threats, warned years ago that North Korea’s Unha-3 space launch vehicle could carry a small nuclear warhead and detonate it a hundred or so miles over the United States to create an EMP, leading to a protracted nationwide blackout. The resulting societal chaos could kill millions.

The image of an America gone dark, an America suddenly transported from an era of IPads to an era of horse and buggy travel, recently depicted in the NBC series “Revolution” is not science fiction but a very real possibility.  As Investor’s Business Daily described the threat in an aptly titled April, 2013 editorial, “How North Korea Could Destroy The United States”:

The three-stage missile North Korea launched last December that also orbited a “package,” which experts say could be a test to orbit a nuclear weapon that then would be de-orbited on command anywhere over the U.S. and exploded at a high altitude, releasing an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). That would fry electronic circuitry and the nation’s power grid.

This concern recently has been reinforced by a little-publicized study released in May 2011, titled “In the Dark: Military Planning for a Catastrophic Critical Infrastructure Event,” by the U.S. Army War College that said a nuclear detonation at altitude above a U.S. city could wipe out the electrical grid for hundreds, possibly thousands, of miles around.

The satellite launched by Pyongyang coincided with a third round of nuclear tests described as a “nuclear test of a higher level,” most likely referring to a device made from highly enriched uranium, which is easier to miniaturize than the plutonium bombs North Korea tested in 2006 and 2009, said Cheong Seong-chang, an analyst at the private Sejong Institute in South Korea.

Such an EMP device would not have to be particularly high yield. It would not be designed to create a big explosion, but to convert its energy into gamma rays, that generate the EMP effect.

Any nuclear weapon detonated above an altitude of 30 kilometers will generate an electromagnetic pulse that will destroy electronics and could collapse the electric power grid and other critical infrastructures — communications, transportation, banking and finance, food and water — that sustain modern civilization and the lives of 300 million Americans.

As the Heritage Foundation reports, an EMP attack with a warhead detonated warhead 25 to 300 miles above the U.S. mainland “would fundamentally change the world. Airplanes would fall from the sky; most cars would be inoperable; electrical devices would fail. Water, sewer and electrical networks would fail simultaneously. Systems of banking, energy, transportation, food production and delivery, water, emergency services, and even cyberspace would collapse.”

Nobody is harmed or killed immediately by the blast. But life in the U.S., the world’s only superpower and the world’s largest economy, would come to a screeching halt as a country dependent on cutting-edge 21st century technology regresses in time almost a century instantaneously.

North Korean has also been working on a submarine launched ballistic missile,  which would put the continental U.S. with striking distance. While North Korean submarines are not yet that sophisticated as our ballistic missile submarine fleet, it would only take a sub modified to launch a single missile, or even one launched fromm a disguised container cargo ship off our West Coast to pose an apocalyptic threat.

As Woolsey and Pry note in the March 29 edition of The Hill, the threat of North Korean sending the U.S. back to the Stone Age is real and imminent:

The mainstream media, and some officials who should know better, continue to allege North Korea does not yet have capability to deliver on its repeated threats to strike the U.S. with nuclear weapons. False reassurance is given to the American people that North Korea has not “demonstrated” that it can miniaturize a nuclear warhead small enough for missile delivery, or build a reentry vehicle for an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of penetrating the atmosphere to blast a U.S. city.

Yet any nation that has built nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, as North Korea has done, can easily overcome the relatively much simpler technological challenge of warhead miniaturization and reentry vehicle design….

…on October 7, 2015, (Admiral William) Gortney again warned the Atlantic Council: "I agree with the intelligence community that we assess that they [North Koreans] have the ability, they have the weapons, and they have the ability to miniaturize those weapons, and they have the ability to put them on a rocket that can range the [U.S.] homeland."

 In February and March of 2015, former senior national security officials of the Reagan and Clinton administrations warned that North Korea should be regarded as capable of delivering by satellite a small nuclear warhead, specially designed to make a high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack against the United States. According to the Congressional EMP Commission, a single warhead delivered by North Korean satellite could blackout the national electric grid and other life-sustaining critical infrastructures for over a year—killing 9 of 10 Americans by starvation and societal collapse.

Deploying THJAAD missile defense systems in South Korea and Alaska, developed under Republican administrations, is a start, but more force or other moves might be necessary.  Fortunately, unlike President Obama,

President Trump is unwilling to keep  whistling past our own graveyard.

          Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.               

                               SUSAN RICE LIED ABOUT SYRIA CHEMICAL WEAPONS

                                                                                      By 

                                                                       Daniel John Sobieski

  The chemical weapon attack by the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad on the rebel-held town Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib Province on April 4 once again underscores what a foreign policy failure President Obama was and what a serial liar Susan Rice is.

On January 16, 2017, Rice, who served as U.N. Ambassador during Obama’s first term and was rewarded for her Benghazi lies with the post of National Security Advisor, where she could be compelled to testify before Congress, 

Gave what amounted to an exit interview with NPR. During the interview she crowed about the Obama administration’s success in eliminating the threat of Syrian chemical weapons:

We were able to find a solution that didn't necessitate the use of force that actually removed the chemical weapons that were known from Syria, in a way that the use of force would never have accomplished. Our aim in contemplating the use of force following the use of chemical weapons in August of 2013 was not to intervene in the civil war, not to become involved in the combat between Assad and the opposition, but to deal with the threat of chemical weapons by virtue of the diplomacy that we did with Russia and with the Security Council. We were able to get the Syrian government to voluntarily and verifiably give up its chemical weapons stockpile.

Tell that, Ms. Rice, to the children of Khan Sheikoun who succumbed to the horrible effects of the sarin gas dropped on them by Syrian forces with the support of their Russian allies. You and your boss colluded with the Russians to keep Assad in power and give Russia a free hand in Syria. Your claim of having removed the threat of Syrian chemical weapons was a lie, as phony as the statement President Onama made after the tragedy of Aleppo. As  CNBC reported the statement President Obama made as he washed his hands of all guilt and responsibility:

"With respect to Syria of what I have consistently done is taken the best course that I can to end the civil war and having also taken into account of the long-term national security interest of the United States," he said….

"Unless we were all in and willing to take over Syria, we were going to have problems," Obama said in the news conference, noting that it would have required "putting large numbers of U.S. troops on the ground, uninvited, without any international law mandate."…

"Responsibility for this brutality lies in one place alone: with the Assad regime and its allies Russia and Iran. And this blood and these atrocities are on their hands," Obama said.

No, sir the responsibility for this horror lies with you, and the blood of Aleppo and Khan Sheikoun is on your and Susan Rice’s hands. It is you who drew the red lines in Syria and there would be consequences if they were crossed. It is you who said Assad must go. There were no consequences and Assad, protected by Russia, is still there.

As Investor’s Business Daily editorialized on Obama’s disappearing red lines in Syria:

Syria's chemical weapons are on the move, their precursor chemicals having been mixed, a crossing of a line drawn by President Obama Aug. 20 when he said "a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized." So our resolute president decides to draw another line — that if Syria's Bashar al-Assad makes use of those weapons, presumably against his own people or neighbors, he will face "consequences." …Obama's appeasement has come home to roost. Assad remembers how Clinton, appearing on CBS' "Face The Nation," dismissed the idea of U.S. military action or regime change in Syria, claiming that unlike Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, Assad was considered to be a "reformer" by "many of the members of Congress."

Yep, your Secretary of State and defeated presidential candidate Hillary Clinton called Assad a reformer:

Apparently neither Mrs. Clinton nor Defense Secretary Robert Gates sees Syria as an outlaw nation. Both said Sunday that Syria was different from Libya and that we would not be lobbing cruise missiles into Damascus in another "humanitarian" effort.

"Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he's a reformer," Clinton said without disputing the assessment. She also drew a distinction between Libya's use of tanks and aircraft against its protesters and "police actions, which, frankly, have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see."

Obama and Clinton intervened in Libta to prevent the slaughter of civilians, turning Libya into a failed state and an incubator of terrorism. Yet both did nothing to prevent the slaughter in Syria when they could have easily. We sacrificed four brave Americans at Benghazi in pursuance of this failed policy.

Why did we do nothing in Syria? Perhaps for the same reason we did nothing to prevent Russia’s invasion of Ukraine  - the Iran deal. Obama, who once  promised Russian President Medvedev more “flexibility” after Obama’s reelection, didn’t want to offend Putin. He needed Russia’s help in securing the Iran deal. Taking out Assad would have offended Tehran. So Obama and Clinton sacrificed both Ukraine and Syria to get the Iran deal and put $150 billion in the hands of Iran, a state ponsor of terror and a mass murderer of U.S. troops in both Lebanon and Iraq.

This reformer moved his chemical weapons and you did nothing. He used his chemical weapons and you did nothing. Seeing no resistance Russia moved in to protect Assad and safeguard its access to the Syrian port of Tarus on th Mediterranean.

You could have done a lot, and it did not involve ground troops. You could have parked an aircraft carrier, 90,000 tons of American diplomacy, off the Syrian coast. You could have ordered aur strikes and destroyed the Syrian air force in 24 hours. Then you could have established a no-fly zone protecting a safe haven in Syria. You could have prevented the slaughter in Aleppo, as well as the flood of refugees into Europe. But you didn’t.

The rise of ISIS, which Obama calls ISIL so he can omit the “S” that stands for Syria, is a direct result of the vacuum he created In Iraq by his precipitous withdrawal after victory had been won.

President Bush left a stable Iraq, one where Shiite and Sunnis had learned to coexist and resist a common al-Qaida enemy. There were free and fair elections and we all remember the pictures of Iraqi women holding up their purple fingers indicating they had proudly voted in those elections. Now we have the mass graves of ISIS, beheadings and  what can only be called the ethnic cleansing of Christians.

It is a myth, as the White House now claims, that President Obama inherited an Iraqi mess from President Bush and had no choice but to withdraw U.S. troops in the absence of a status of forces agreement. The problem was not that Iraq and Prime Minister Maliki wanted the U.S. to leave, but that the force Obama wanted to leave was just too small. As Patrick Brennan has written in National Review:

These claims don’t jibe with what we know about how the negotiations with Iraq went. It’s the White House itself that decided just 2–3,000 troops made sense, when the Defense Department and others were proposing more. Maliki was willing to accept a deal with U.S. forces if it was worth it to him — the problem was that the Obama administration wanted a small force so that it could say it had ended the war. Having a very small American force wasn’t worth the domestic political price Maliki would have to pay for supporting their presence. In other words, it’s not correct that “the al-Maliki government wanted American troops to leave.

Obama destroyed Libya for no god reason, and sacrificed Syria so that he could pursue the dangerous and flawed Iran deal. He created the vacuum ISIS filled in Iraq and Syria. The blood of Aleppo is on nobody’s hands but his, Hillaty Clinton’s and yours, Susan Rice.

          Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.             

Let me be so indelicate as to suggest that the issue is common sense simple – where you pee ought to be determined by what you pee with. Period. This nonsense about self-identifying as a woman so a man can use the same restroom as someone else’s daughter is just that - nonsense. Just as it is nonsense about the Almighty putting you in the wrong body. You might be confused, but God is not. Male and female He created them and I’m quite sure He knew the difference.

So it was welcome news that President Trump has revoked the Obama administrations “guidance” to educational institutions that requiring bathroom use based on birth gender and genitalia constitutes sex discrimination:

The Trump administration revoked an Obama-era mandate compelling public schools nationwide to permit restroom and locker room access on the basis of gender identity — a move that could have significant ramifications for a case before the Supreme Court concerning transgender rights.

The Departments of Education and Justice issued a joint guidance Wednesday evening rolling back the order. The two-page “Dear Colleague Letter” said the Obama administration had failed to substantiate the claim that Title IX’s prohibition on “sex” discrimination in education also applies to gender identity.

“In these circumstances, the Department of Education and the Department of Justice have decided to withdraw and rescind the above-referenced guidance documents in order to further and more completely consider the legal issues involved,” the order reads. “The Departments thus will not rely on the views expressed within them.”

The guidance also said the federal government must recognize “the primary role of the States and local school districts in establishing education policy.”

This nod to states rights as well as common sense is hopefully a sign that the federal government under President Trump is over using federal power to social engineer society along progressive and liberal lines. It is good news and legal ammunition for states that have resisted this absurd form of political correctness like North Carolina   

North Carolina rightly resisted the politically correct federal bully challenging its common sense law, HB 2, which says restrooms should be limited to people with the appropriate plumbing, and that cross dressers sharing the facilities with your daughter, wife, and daughter is not a good, or safe idea.

North Carolina filed a lawsuit challenging the Department of Justice’s ultimatum demanding that the state cease and desist enforcement of that law  As NBC News reported:

It was the state's response to the US Justice Department, which last week gave Gov. Pat McCrory until the end of the day Monday to respond to a letter that said the law violates federal civil rights statutes.

Monday's lawsuit called the Justice Department's legal position "a baseless and blatant overreach" and a radical reinterpretation of federal laws, especially the Civil Rights Act's ban on sex discrimination.

"Transgender status is not a protected class," under the law, the suit said, and if the Justice Department believes it should be, it should ask Congress to change the law.

Of course, reinterpretation of the law and bypassing Congress was nothing new for the Obama administration, which seems to think that saying that only biological females may use the ladies room is equivalent to having “whites only” drinking fountains. This is. of course, nonsense Rosa Parks made history by sitting in front of the bus. She did not try to use the men’s room at the bus station.

Being black is something you cannot change. Discriminating on that basis is wrong and perniciously evil. But saying a man’s civil right’s are being violated because he self-identifies as a woman and needs to use the ladies facilities is nonsense based on politically correct psycho-babble.  Sorry, dude, if you feel you are trapped in the wrong body, deal with. But you already have a restroom designed just for you.

You are not being denied equal access to a public accommodation. Having the wrong body, if that is to be believed, does not entitle you to use the wrong restroom. It was never the intent of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to allow boys to use the little girls room. It is also dangerous, allowing any creep to put on make-op and a dress and follow your daughter, sister, or wife into the restroom.

This was the same sort of nonsense that led the Supreme Court to ignore both federalism and state laws to say gay marriage was a civil right as much as interracial marriage was. But being black is something one cannot change and allowing blacks and whites to marry did not change the state, culturally, and historically sanctioned institution of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Transgender restrooms change everything. Amazingly the right to privacy championed by liberals has been jettisoned by liberals who see nothing wrong or dangerous in the concept. Kimberly Ross, writing for RedState, notes the slippery slope this puts society on:

The attack on gender norms has increased exponentially over the past few years, and will continue as biologically-assigned gender becomes offensive. Even large, middle-class retailers like Target have gotten on board with the trend to erase the fine lines which define male and female. Last August, Target began to remove gender-based signs. Earlier this year, they introduced a gender neutral home goods line, so kids won’t feel like they’re being pushed a specific direction. On the contrary, it is quite alright to encourage the traditional idea that boys should be boys and girls should be girls. In fact, we must…

The slippery slope to accepting everything begins by refusing to acknowledge that DNA is stubborn, and that who you were created to be is a not a mistake. If we never question transgenderism, though it battles against inherent norms, then we’ll begin put a stamp of approval on everything. As recently reported by The Independent, a criminal psychologist  announced online that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, like being gay or straight. While I’m not asserting that trans individuals are in any way child molesters, I do believe that promoting a delusional view of gender, and making rationalizations along the way, has led us to this point to where we must accept and never question anything..

Over a million signatures were gathered on a petition opposing Target’s gender neutral bathroom. These are not bigots but husband’s worried  about wives, parents worried about their children literally being exposed tp something they should not be forced to deal with.

As Todd Starnes writes at Fox News Opinion:

The nation’s second-largest discount retailer announced on April 19 that they would “welcome transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender.”

In response, more than 1.1 million customers joined a boycott sponsored by the American Family Association.

“Nearly everyone has a mother, wife, daughter or friend who is put in jeopardy by this policy,” AFA President Tim Wildmon said. “Predators and voyeurs would take advantage of the policy to prey on those who are vulnerable.”

Breitbart.com compiled a short list from daily news accounts giving a preview of what will become the norm if PC restrooms are forced upon us. A few examples:

Palmdale man arrested for videotaping in women’s bathroom

PALMDALE – A 33-year-old Palmdale man who allegedly dressed as a woman while secretly videotaping females using a department store bathroom was charged with several misdemeanor counts Tuesday, authorities said. Jason Pomare was charged with six counts of unlawful use of a concealed camera for the purposes of sexual gratification, according to Sergeant Brian Hudson of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department’s Special Victims Bureau.

Sexual predator jailed after claiming to be ‘transgender’ to assault women in shelterA biological man claiming to be ‘transgender’ so as to gain access to and prey on women at two Toronto shelters was jailed “indefinitely” last week after being declared by a judge a “dangerous offender.” Pro-family leaders are pointing out that this is exactly the type of incident they warned of as the Ontario government passed its “gender identity” bill, dubbed the “bathroom bill,” in 2012.

There will be sexual assaults among these incidents to be sure. No responsible parent lets their child use a public restroom without accompanying them. Free-for-all restrooms only make the vulnerable more so. Okay, not all transgendered people are predators. But when did surgically altering your body bestow upon anyone an alleged constitutional right to use another gender’s restroom.

The whole concept of someone being “trapped” in the wrong body is nonsense. Evangelical Christians and others  believe the Almighty does not make such mistakes. If someone is confused about their sexual identity, they should just drop their drawers and take a wild guess. It is ironic that liberals who insisted we stay out of the bedrooms of homosexuals and lesbians now insist transgendered people should not stay out of the wrong bathroom.

We are all equal but we are also different. Deal with it, liberals.

          Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.