by Political Editors:  Representatives John Lewis (D-GA) and Bennie Thompson (D-MS) made it clear that they would not attend the grand opening ceremony for the Mississippi Civil Rights Museum over the weekend. Why? Well, because Donald Trump will also be attending the opening — just as the president should, given the historic significance of the event. Lewis explained, “I think his presence would make a mockery of everything that people tried to do to redeem the soul of America and to make this country better.” Ironic that an icon of the civil rights movement would willingly disassociate himself from such a historic moment due to his personal animus toward Trump. Then again, this is the same John Lewis who staged an anti-Second Amendment congressional sit-in to deny civil rights.

          White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders responded to Lewis’ and Thompson’s decision, stating that it was “unfortunate that these members of Congress wouldn’t join the President in honoring the incredible sacrifice civil rights leaders made to right the injustices in our history.” Highlighting the need to strive for commonality rather than promote discord, Sanders further wrote, “The President hopes others will join him in recognizing that the movement was about removing barriers and unifying Americans of all backgrounds.”
          To put it bluntly, this stunt is designed as a no-win situation for Trump. He’s damned if he does or damned if he doesn’t. Trump’s visit is being used as an opportunity by Lewis and Thompson to grandstand and label Trump a racist, because he’s a Republican. However, if Trump were to decide not to attend, then they would be excoriating him for failing to recognize and show the proper respect for the sacrifices made by those Civil Rights-era individuals in their fight for equal rights. Once again, Democrats make the mistake of viewing the man as bigger than the office. 
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52834

by Michael Swartz:  In the weeks since the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was introduced, Democrats (as well as a handful of conservatives) have tried to demo-gogue it for supposedly adding $1.5 trillion to our $20 trillion national debt over the next decade — a charge that would be laughable if it hadn’t come from a party whose most recent president nearly doubled that debt in just eight years. Fortunately, both the House and Senate have passed a version of tax cuts, and there’s a decent chance America may yet get its tax cut for Christmas, just as President Donald Trump promised.

          But there remains the pesky question about adding to the debt, and the Left crows each time a new estimate comes out to reinforce their contention that tax cuts won’t pay for themselves. So it wasn’t exactly a secret that Republicans like House Speaker Paul Ryan are looking at the spending side, too — as they should. Needless to say, however, as soon as they come out with any such proposal, Republicans are met with condemnation from across the aisle.
          “What’s coming next is all too predictable: The deficit hawks will come flying back after this bill becomes law,” said Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, adding, “Republicans are already saying ‘entitlement reform’ and ‘welfare reform’ are next up on the docket. But nobody should be fooled — that’s just code for attacks on Medicaid, on Medicare, on Social Security, on anti-hunger programs.”
          Wyden’s statements, in turn, are just code for the media to start hunting down “victims” of these “draconian cuts” sure to come — because when Republicans bring up the prospect, someone like Bernie Sanders will helpfully translate it: “They just told you they’re going to cut Social Security!”
          Being misrepresented by the opposition is no reason to avoid a necessary process, though, and Paul Ryan is no stranger to it. In 2014, even with nearly non-existent chances of adoption, Ryan put forward a “Path to Prosperity” that took a thoughtful look at a number of budgetary areas, chief among them repealing liar-nObamaCare and reforming Medicare and Medicaid. To him, it was a way to get government to give a hand up and not a handout.
          Fast forward to the present day, and the speaker’s message is the same. “We’re going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform,” said Ryan, “which is how you tackle the debt and the deficit.” So we know Ryan understands the situation, but what about the rest of his party?
          Certainly there are those in the GOP who figured reducing spending wasn’t the hill they wanted to die on, especially when it’s so easy to spend other peoples’ money to buy their votes. However, those who voted for Republicans over the last 40 years were putting their trust in a series of promises made about addressing deficit spending. (Ironically, it was a Democrat, liar-Bill Clinton, who got most of the credit in the ‘90s when spending was last curtailed to the point of budget surpluses. Yet it would never have happened without Newt Gingrich and the GOP-led House and Senate.)
          Jonah Goldberg astutely observes, “As a matter of economic policy, conservatives believe that the people themselves are better at spending their money than the government is. Cutting taxes and regulations drives economic growth. Liberals, meanwhile, believe that the government is the prime, or at least an indispensable, driver of economic growth. This is why liberals tend to talk about spending on everything from infrastructure to education as an 'investment.’”
          Goldberg’s point would be reflected in the Democrats’ argument that this latest round of tax cuts will drive up the deficit, but Republicans are willing to address this concern by spending less money. (In reality, what they would do in many cases is simply repackage the money as a block grant for states to spend as they see fit.) On the other hand, Democrats would rather spend the money and pay for some of it via a more steeply progressive tax system. But elections have consequences, and regardless of whether they had more popular votes last time around or believe the Virginia results are a precursor to the 2018 midterms, the Democrats are currently the minority party (and for very good reason, we might add).
          Republicans desperately need the win on tax reform so they can start on entitlements, an issue crying out for bold solutions. Perhaps the most telling aspect of this situation is the wailing of the Democrats — who for eight years with their president refused to reach across the aisle and do something about it. It’s nice to have the adults in charge again.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52827

by Thomas Gallatin:  Adding yet another classic episode to that long-running dog-and-donkey show known as the Democrat Party, yesterday Sen. Al Franken announced his resignation in a Senate floor speech. Franken both hinted at accepting blame and yet absolved himself of any guilt. He was railroaded, you see, a victim of the current cultural and political climate. Franken said, “I know in my heart that nothing I have done as a senator — nothing — has brought dishonor on this institution.” He intended the key words to be “as a senator,” but really, nothing dishonorable? Please. There was no mention of the fact that it was his own party calling for his head.

          Franken also opined about the need to “believe women” while insisting that the accusations made against him by several women were “not true,” or that he remembered the encounters “very differently.” Ironically, he sought to paint himself as a champion of women, stating, “I am proud that, during my time in the Senate, I have used my power to be a champion for women — and that I have earned a reputation as someone who respects the women I work alongside every day. I know there’s been a very different picture of me painted over the last few weeks. But I know who I really am.”
          So if this was true, then why resign? Franken finally revealed the reason, saying, “I, of all people, am aware that there is some irony in the fact that I am leaving while a man who bragged on tape of his history of sexual assault sits in the Oval Office.” Yep, as we wrote yesterday, this is all a calculated strategy by the Democrats to claim the political high ground so as to attack Donald Trump, Roy Moore and all Republicans as immoral hypocrites.
          Finally, the biggest and most ironic detail to note. Franken has delayed his resignation by several weeks. Why? We’re betting that if Moore wins in Alabama next week, Franken will suddenly have a change of heart. His message will then be something along the lines of needing to stay in order to fight against those corrupt misogynist Republicans and their “war on women.”  
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52826

by Nate Jackson:  If you thought it was bad that an FBI agent involved in the liar-Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and Michael Flynn investigations was sending pro-liar-Hillary texts to his mistress, an FBI lawyer, while editing legally vital language regarding liar-Clinton’s email scandal, the latest revelation may be even worse.

          Fox News’ James Rosen reports that the FBI’s Bruce Ohr “was demoted this week amid an ongoing investigation into his contacts with the opposition research firm responsible for the anti-Trump ‘dossier.’” That would be the fake liar-Clinton-funded dossier that got the ball rolling with the whole Trump/Russia collusion nonsense, which in turn led to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. The same dossier the FBI considered underwriting.
          Rosen adds, “Ohr met during the 2016 campaign with Christopher Steele, the former British spy who authored the ‘dossier.’ … Additionally, House investigators have determined that Ohr met shortly after the election with Glenn Simpson, the founder of Fusion GPS — the opposition research firm that hired Steele to compile the dossier with funds supplied by the liar-Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.”
          Who is Ohr? Byron York notes, “The department’s Bruce Ohr, a career official, served as associate deputy attorney general at the time of the campaign. That placed him just below the deputy attorney general, Sally Yates, who ran the day-to-day operations of the department. In 2016, Ohr’s office was just steps away from Yates, who was later fired for defying President Trump’s initial travel ban executive order and still later became a prominent anti-Trump voice upon leaving the Justice Department.”
          So, along with Peter Strzok, Ohr becomes the second FBI official demoted or reassigned for actions during the investigation of Trump. Ohr’s case could be even more significant, however, because these were not interviews that were part of the investigation; they seem to be another kind of meeting. And he was even higher up in the liar-nObama “Justice” Department than Strzok. And, like Strzok’s actions, it was information not disclosed by the FBI to House investigators, despite subpoenas covering such contacts. The House Intelligence Committee now plans to compel Ohr’s testimony.
          Barack liar-nObama politicized and weaponized all sorts of executive agencies, from the IRS to the EPA. Now, with such bias and corruption ensnaring even some within the FBI, is it any wonder Americans don’t trust the government?  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52825

by Arnold Ahlert:  It is legislation whose time has come. On Monday, Rep. Todd Rokita (R-IN) introduced a bill that aims to hold politicians accountable when they allow the progressive agenda to trump the Rule of Law.

          The Stopping Lawless Actions of Politicians Act, a.k.a. the SLAP Act, would impose criminal penalties on state and local lawmakers who refuse to comply with the efforts of federal immigration officers to enforce federal immigration law. Anyone convicted under the statute would be subjected to a $1 million fine, and up to five years in prison.
           “The American people are rightfully infuriated watching politicians put their open-borders ideology before the rule of law, and the safety of the people they represent,” Rokita stated in an email press release. “Politicians don’t get to pick and choose what laws to comply with. Americans are dying because politicians sworn to uphold the law refuse to do so. It’s time the federal government gets serious about enforcing immigration laws and holding politicians accountable who conspire to break them.”
          The last two sentences of that release will undoubtedly resonate with millions of Americans:
          “This elitist mentality that everyone is not equal under the law must come to an end,” it stated. “These politicians want one set of rules for hard working Americans, but a different set of rules for illegal immigrants, and themselves.”
          That would be globalist elites and their legions of activist supporters, all of whom remain firmly convinced that national sovereignty is anachronistic, and that anything resembling the traditional customs and culture that illuminate our nation’s exceptionalism constitute xenophobia or “white privilege.”
          As the adage goes, in politics, timing is everything. Thus it is likely that last week’s acquittal of illegal alien Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, who had been charged with the 2015 murder of 32-year-old Steinle on a San Francisco pier, provided much of the impetus behind the bill.
          Zarate, previously known as Juan Francsico Lopez-Sanchez, is a seven-time convicted felon who had been deported five times. He was released to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by the Federal Bureau of Prisons following the completion of a prison sentence for illegal re-entry on March 26, 2015. He was transferred to the San Francisco County Sheriff’s Department where he faced a 1995 charge for selling marijuana. When that charge was dismissed, he was released — because the Department decided to ignore ICE’s request to detain him for deportation. That decision was engendered by San Francisco’s deplorable “sanctuary city” policy. A policy that codifies defiance of federal immigration law.
          That defiance cost Kate Steinle her life. And while Zarate’s acquittal was a combination of prosecutorial over-reach and possible jury nullification, the lack of remorse remains breathtaking. “From day one, this case was used as a means to foment hate, to foment division and to foment a program of mass deportation,” asserted public defender Francisco Ugarte. “San Francisco is and always will be a sanctuary city,” declared Ellen Canale, a spokeswoman for Mayor Ed Lee.
          No doubt, if city officials can get away with it. During the liar-nObama years, that was a given, courtesy of an administration that sued states like Arizona, South Carolina, Utah and Alabama for attempting to enforce federal immigration law it conspicuously ignored, while never filing a single lawsuit against any sanctuary city that defied the same statutes.
          Moreover, a GOP-controlled Senate, demonstrating its typical lack of backbone, has already avoided the issue. Last June, the House passed both the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act and Kate’s Law. The former authorizes the Justice Department to withhold grants from cities and states that defy federal immigration law and ICE detention requests, while the latter would impose a mandatory minimum jail sentence on illegal aliens convicted of re-entering the United States, along with increased penalties for repeat offenders. Yet when both bills moved to the Senate they failed to overcome Democrat filibusters.
          Moreover, when President Donald Trump issued an executive order to cut funding from cities that refuse to cooperate with the feds, liar-nObama-appointee U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick issued a permanent  injunction against it in November, based on the assertion that an executive order cannot override the Tenth Amendment.
          In other words, it becomes even more imperative for Congress to enact the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act and Kate’s Law, even if it requires GOP Senate Majority Leader RINO-Mitch McConnell to invoke the nuclear option allowing a strict majority vote.
          The reason why is clear. Since 2015, the number of sanctuary cities has increased from 340 in Oct. 2015 to nearly 500 by March 2017. Those cities have released more than 2,000 illegal aliens back onto the streets, defying ICE efforts to deport them.
          Rokita wants to put a stop to that odious dynamic, one that rests on a foundation of pathetic excuses designed to obscure the American Left’s intent to “fundamentally transform” the United States. One excuse is that sanctuary cities are necessary because people here illegally might not report crimes if they think they might get deported as a result. An even worse excuse is that illegal commit less crimes than native Americans and are incarcerated at lower rates.
          Not exactly. In 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Sentencing Commission revealed that more than 13% of those convicted and sentenced for crime in the United States were illegal aliens. Statistics compiled by the FBI and the Government Accountability Office between the years 2003 and 2009 revealed that illegals, who represent 3.5% of America’s total population, committed between 22% and 37% of all murders in the U.S.
          More to the point, every crime committed by an illegal is one that would be wholly avoidable if immigration law was followed. Thus, what sanctuary city advocates are really saying is that a certain level of murder and mayhem is a “reasonable” trade off to maintain what amounts to open rebellion against the federal government.
          Does a GOP-controlled Congress have the stomach for quashing what amounts to de facto anarchy? In a better nation, passing the three aforementioned statutes would be a no-brainer. In this one, a Democrat Party with short-term visions of amnesty that enable long-term visions of turning red states blue will likely stand with illegals — against their fellow Americans.
          Republicans? Whether or not these bills see the light of day in the Senate and garner enough votes for passage will be a defining moment for a party that has allowed itself to be cowed by accusations of bigotry — or has been willing to do the bidding of their pro-amnesty campaign contributors in lieu of standing firm with their base.
          “The death of Steinle and subsequent acquittal of the illegal immigrant charged with her death has reignited a debate over sanctuary cities,” insists  columnist Conor Beck.
          Debate? Going forward, America will either be a nation of laws or a nation of men. In short, America’s ruling class can either pass the SLAP Act — or slap a banana republic onto the backs of the American public.  
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52796

by Political Editors:  Is this where bureaucracy is in the age of the Trump “Resistance”? The New York Times reveals that several employees within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) have formed what they call “Dumbledore’s Army,” a reference to a secretive resistance group in the “Harry Potter” children’s books. According to the Times, these CFPB employees decided to quietly resist Donald Trump’s appointment of Mick Mulvaney as director. The Times reports, “In some cases, conversations between staff that used to take place by phone or text now happen almost exclusively in person or through encrypted messaging apps.” 

https://patriotpost.us/articles/52808

by Jordan Candler:  Back when Republicans were knee-deep in investigating liar-Hillary Clinton’s server misdeeds while she was secretary of state, Democrats were criticizing the GOP’s efforts partly by invoking taxpayer frugality. In January 2016, Rep. Elijah Cummings lamented, “Republicans continue to drag out this political charade closer to the 2016 presidential election, and the American taxpayers continue to pay the price.” And in June 2016, Nancy Pulosi complained, “House Republicans’ Select Committee has now wasted more than two years and $7 million in taxpayer dollars retreading the same facts and conclusions exhaustively detailed in previous congressional reviews.”

          Notice that the Democrat concern over taxpayer waste only ever comes up when Armageddon is approaching or the roles are reversed. For example, The Washington Free Beacon reports, “The special counsel investigation run by Robert Mueller has cost taxpayers more in four months than what the investigation into the Benghazi terrorist attack cost in over two years. Mueller and his team spent $6.7 million between May and September, according to a new report released by the Department of Justice. … The House Select Committee on Benghazi cost $6.7 million over the course of more than two years, according to the Washington Post.”
          Democrats justify their spendthrift ways by arguing the stakes are bigger. Which is of course ludicrous. As secretary of state, liar-Hillary Clinton was intentionally and covertly operating with a private email server to promote her own liar-Clinton Foundation interests. She also oversaw the infamous Uranium One deal with (ahem) the Russians and botched the Benghazi attack response. All of this is just the tip of the iceberg. And Democrats want to complain about the cost? Any rational person would say it’s worth the amount of money it takes to try getting to the bottom of lisar-Clinton’s undeniable pay-to-play schemes. By the way, despite matching the cost of the Benghazi probe in significantly less time, Robert Mueller’s team still lacks proof of Russia-Trump collusion. Talk about an *actual * fishing expedition.
          More proof of leftists’ faux indignation against taxpayer waste is seen in the deficit debate. Barack liar-nObama once derided George W. Bush as “unpatriotic” for his trillions in deficit contributions, but liar-nObama, Harry dinky-Reid and Nancy Pulosi easily surpassed Bush with a trillion-dollar-plus “stimulus,” welfare expansion and the nationalization of health care, to name a few. But today, amid the Republican tax reform effort, they act like they’re balanced-budget saints. In early November, Pulosi scorned Republicans for “still adding trillions to the deficit.” And on Monday, she bemoaned that the GOP tax bills “increases the deficit by so much more.” She added, “It is very hard to come back from this. They take us further, more deeply into debt.” The debt is bloated, for sure. But so is the Democrats’ political posturing.        ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52781 

http://cache2.artprintimages.com/p/LRG/58/5870/QCPSG00Z/art-print/bb-sams-democrats-vs-republicans-july-aug-1980.jpg" border="0" />

by Caroline Camden Lewis:  Open the Books, an organization dedicated to transparency of government spending, tracks and publishes government spending online and serves as one of the largest private databases of government spending in the world. Their motto, “Every dime. Online. In Real Time,” reflects their mission of making government spending transparent and accessible to the public. Open the Books publishes a report every quarter, focusing on an aspect of government spending. Earlier this year, they published an oversight report entitled, “Ivy League, Inc.,” which reveals the government money and tax privileges granted to the eight colleges of the Ivy League: Brown University, Columbia University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, Princeton University and Yale University.

          The endowments for these universities range from $3.2 billion (Brown) to $35.7 billion (Harvard). As Open the Books Founder and CEO Adam Andrzejewski wryly remarks in Forbes, “Many pundits describe the Ivy League as ‘a hedge fund with classes.’” Open the Books notes that the combined endowments of the universities ($119.4 billion) could fund a full-ride scholarship for all Ivy undergraduate students for the next 51 years. As non-profits, the government does not tax the Ivy League schools on their endowment earnings. So, they not only operate like a hedge fund, but a hedge fund with tax privileges.
          While the Ivy League certainly commits no error in freely raising money from alumni and private donors, the Open the Books report reveals how the Ivy League profits off of taxpayers who pay the Ivy League whether they want to or not. Tracking government payments and entitlements for six years (FY2010-FY2015), Open the Books discovered the total Ivy League cost to taxpayers as $41.9 billion, or about $6.93 billion per year. This number includes payments, subsidies and special tax treatment. In terms of total government money received, 16 states (including South Dakota, North Dakota, Hawaii, Utah, Alaska and Montana) receive less government money per year than the Ivy League does. In other words, entire states take less government money per year than a group of eight universities, each of which have multi-billion-dollar endowments. They don’t need the money, so why are they receiving it?
          Lobbying for their interests seems to be part of the answer. Open the Books reveals that between 2010-2014, the Ivy League spent $17.8 million on lobbying Congress to advocate for their interests. This explains the preference given to the Ivies, and the billions of dollars granted to these institutions in federal contracts, subsidies and tax privileges.
          While government grants and contracts make sense in terms of groundbreaking medical research, they don’t make sense in terms of the unnecessary research funded by the American taxpayer. Consider the following grants:
          $137,530 from the National Science Foundation to Dartmouth College to fund the making of a video game entitled “Layoff.” In this game, the player must fire employees until he or she receives a bank bailout. In the game, bankers are invincible and cannot be fired.
          $53,419 from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to Brown University to study whether homosexual men and male sex workers in Mexico City would decrease the number of sex partners and/or use condoms if the government paid them.
          $5.7 million from the National Science Foundation to Columbia University to develop a website entitled Future Coast. The website allows visitors to leave voicemails describing how they think the world will be changed by destructive climate change in the future (2020-2065). Examples include a dwindling Alaska and a California without water.
          Most people do not object to private research to fund such projects. If a person wants to develop a video game or study sexual habits and incentives of men in Mexico City or listen to fictional voicemails, why not? But these people should do what the rest of the country does: raise capital, fundraise and involve their friends. The American taxpayer should not have to shoulder the cost.
          In fact, the Ivy League receives more money from their government contract “side gig” ($25.27 billion) than they do from student tuition payments ($22 billion). This prompts the question, Is their government contract “business” a higher priority than their students?
          Further, the Ivy League schools receive an enormous $3.7 billion tax break in local government property taxes. Open the Books estimates that with regard to local property taxes, the Ivy Leagues should be paying approximately $617 million per year. However, due to the lost revenue, residential property taxes in the surrounding areas are 20-30% higher. In the case of Princeton University, residents sued the school, and won a settlement of $18 million.
          Ultimately, the Open the Books report on the Ivy League shows taxpayers what has really been happening to their money. While the Ivy League should be able to maintain their status as top universities, the time has come to re-examine how much, if any, government money they should receive.
          When we place all the issues facing our country on the table, government money should be prioritized toward keeping our communities safe and encouraging human flourishing, not toward contributing to the billion-dollar corporatism of the Ivy League. They can do that on their own.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52795

by Lewis Morris:  Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller’s investigation into wrongdoing by Donald Trump and any campaign or administration officials he deems fit to scrutinize appears to morphing into one of obstruction of justice. Recent developments in the case suggest that Mueller has turned his sights to whether Trump obstructed justice by allegedly pressuring former FBI Director James Comey to drop the Bureau’s investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

          Originally, you may recall, Mueller was tasked with finding collusion between Trump and the Russians into their hacking of the 2016 election. Despite the best efforts of the Left and their friends in the media, that charge has gone nowhere. No evidence has surfaced that Trump colluded with Russia to swing the election in his favor. The indictment of Paul Manafort is based on charges totally unrelated to Trump or the 2016 election, and charges against Flynn are about lying during the investigation, not about illegal deeds.
          Mueller is under pressure to produce something — anything — against Trump. His mandate is open-ended, meaning that if the collusion investigation goes nowhere, then he is free to go in any other direction with his investigation until he finds something. Trump haters are hoping Mueller will find an impeachable offense. Or at the very least, that Mueller’s investigation tarnishes Trump enough to make his re-election impossible.
          This is not how justice is supposed to work. Either a crime was committed or it was not. But in Washington, politics infuses the search for justice, and Mueller is a man on a mission. A mission that is shifting for reasons that seem to have more to do with politics than with the realities of the investigation.
          The Mueller investigation started out not as a normal criminal investigation where a crime has been committed and there is a search for the culprit. In this case, there is an investigation in search of a crime. The Democrats wanted revenge over the 2016 election. Their arrogant worldview was that it was only natural that liar-Hillary Clinton follow Barack liar-nObama into the White House so that the transformation of America into a worker’s paradise could be completed. In their minds, it was not possible that Trump could beat liar-Clinton without breaking the law.
          Yet Mueller’s crack team of Democrat hounds has had a hard time finding a crime related to Trump. With the collusion narrative all but dead, the current pivot to an obstruction of justice charge fills Trump haters with hope. The question now becomes whether Trump obstructed an FBI investigation. If it can be proven that Trump meddled in the FBI investigation of Flynn, then we may be looking at an impeachable offense.
          Sen. Dianne Fein-stein (D-CA) noted earlier this week that the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which she is ranking member, has its own obstruction of justice investigation going against Trump. It’s not known if the Senate is privy to information that the special prosecutor does not have. Of course, any impeachment charge against Trump would have to come from the House (and the first attempt failed miserably Wednesday), but that’s a minor detail considering to what lengths the Left has gone to sabotage Trump.
          The case for obstruction is not off to a very good start though. Comey himself has stated that he did not believe Trump obstructed justice in their discussions over the Flynn investigation. If anything, Trump may be guilty of poor judgment and bad politics in poking his head into the FBI investigation and later firing Comey, but that’s not even close to high crimes and misdemeanors.
          The investigation will continue, however. Whether Trump skates without being charged, or whether the Democrats have their revenge remains to be seen. But make no mistake about this. What is taking place now is not the pursuit of justice, it is Swamp politics, pure and simple.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52800

http://cache2.artprintimages.com/p/LRG/58/5870/QCPSG00Z/art-print/bb-sams-democrats-vs-republicans-july-aug-1980.jpg" border="0" />

by Thomas Gallatin:  The Left loves to reference “power to the people,” but they never mean what they say they mean. Rather it’s a call for greater power and control being given over to government elites; a call to authoritarianism. This leftist sentiment has been on full display since President Donald Trump’s announcement Monday authorizing the scaling back of two “national monuments” in Utah, reversing federal land grabs by Barack liar-nObama and liar-Bill Clinton.

          Bowing to the environmentalist lobby and Native American groups, liar-Clinton and liar-nObama used the Antiquities Act of 1906 to massively expand the Bear Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments, located in southeastern Utah. These federal land grabs, totaling over two million acres, have long riled Utah residents, who see this as an example of rule by Washington elites who have little understanding or consideration of local issues. And, by the way, The Daily Signal notes, “Trump’s decision to relabel 2 million acres sounds like a lot until you realize that the liar-nObama administration set aside 554 million acres .”
          In announcing his decision, Trump expressed the feelings of the locals, stating, “Some people think that the natural resources of Utah should be controlled by a small handful of very distant bureaucrats located in Washington. And guess what? They’re wrong. The families and communities of Utah know and love this land the best and you know the best how to take care of your land.”
          Ironically, environmentalist groups and companies sought to paint Trump’s action as exactly the opposite. The Patagonia company asserted on its website, “The President Stole Your Land,” while REI bemoaned the “loss of acres of protected lands.” Talk about your reverse spin.
          What Trump did do was to restore states’ rights, recreational opportunities of outdoor enthusiasts and land usage rights for ranchers and land owners. The land will now revert back to public land regulated by the state of Utah, not a bunch of Washington bureaucrats beholden to the wishes of special interest lobbyists and their dollars.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52753

by Political Editors:  Donald Trump continues to be the antithesis of a do-nothing political leader. Yesterday, some 22 years after the Jerusalem Embassy Act became law, Trump finally declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel. Trump rightly understands that peace through Jerusalem can be achieved only by exercising Ronald Reagan’s approach to foreign policy: “Peace through strength.” Yesterday’s move definitely puts both Israel and the U.S. in a more fortified position. The following are some important remarks from his speech:
          We cannot solve our problems by making the same failed assumptions and repeating the same failed strategies of the past. All challenges demand new approaches. My announcement today marks the beginning of a new approach to conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. In 1995, Congress adopted the Jerusalem Embassy Act urging the federal government to relocate the American Embassy to Jerusalem and to recognize that city … is Israel’s capital. This act passed Congress by an overwhelming bipartisan majority and was reaffirmed by unanimous vote of the Senate only six months ago.
          Yet, for over 20 years, every previous American president has exercised the law’s waiver, refusing to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem or to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city. Presidents issued these waivers under the belief that delaying the recognition of Jerusalem would advance the cause of peace. Some say they lacked courage but they made their best judgments based on facts as they understood them at the time. Nevertheless, the record is in. After more than two decades of waivers, we are no closer to a lasting peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. It would be folly to assume that repeating the exact same formula would now produce a different or better result.
          Therefore, I have determined that it is time to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. While previous presidents have made this a major campaign promise, they failed to deliver. Today, I am delivering. I’ve judged this course of action to be in the best interests of the United States of America and the pursuit of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. … This is nothing more or less than a recognition of reality. It is also the right thing to do. It’s something that has to be done. That is why, consistent with the Jerusalem Embassy Act, I am also directing the State Department to begin preparation to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This will immediately begin the process of hiring architects, engineers and planners so that a new embassy, when completed, will be a magnificent tribute to peace.

Notably, what Trump actually did was sign another waiver while making a very strong commitment to begin the process of moving the embassy. Nevertheless, it’s a good strategic move to make real headway on peace in the region. We will have more to say in a detailed analysis tomorrow. Stay tuned.
          In other news, Barack liar-nObama compared the Trump era to Hitler’s. No kidding.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52799

by Louis DeBroux:  On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Masterpiece Cake shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a case with serious implications for religious liberty in the United States.

          At issue is balancing the Constitution’s guarantees of freedom of religion, speech and association with public accommodation laws that prohibit denial of service based on “disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.”
          The facts of the case are straightforward, though often misrepresented. Jack Phillips is the owner of Masterpiece Cake shop in Colorado. A few years ago, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, two homosexual men, were traveling to Massachusetts to get married (this was prior to the Obergefell ruling in 2015), with a reception to be held in Denver. The two approached Phillips about providing a wedding cake, but Phillips politely declined, explaining that his religious convictions prevent him from providing services for same-sex weddings. The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Commission on Human Rights, which sued Phillips, eventually winning a ruling that required him not only to provide services for same-sex weddings, but mandating he and his employees undergo “compliance training” (in North Korea this is referred to as “re-education camp”).
          Lest one think Phillips is anti-homosexual, it should be noted he offered to provide a wedding cake to the couple — just not with any customization. In fact, he has served many homosexual clients in the past, and continues to do so. It should also be noted that his religious convictions prohibit him from providing cakes for Halloween (a pagan holiday) or second marriages, or anything with anti-Christian, anti-American or vulgar messages.
          In a pluralistic society like America, this should not be an issue. The plaintiffs admit there were plenty of other bakers who would provide the cake, but this was never about getting a cake. No, it’s about forcing endorsement of the homosexual agenda and punishing a Christian for living by his faith.
          Phillips is so committed to living by his faith that, rather than violating it, he stopped offering customized wedding cakes altogether while the litigation process continues, costing him a staggering 40% of his revenue.
          The Supreme Court has issued prior rulings coming down on both sides of religious liberty. In West Virginia State BoE v. Barnette (1943), the Court upheld a Jehovah’s Witness’s right not to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance. In Wooley v. Maynard (1977), the Court said New Hampshire could not compel a Jehovah’s Witness to display the state motto “Live Free or Die” on his license plate, as it would violate a citizen’s right “to hold a point of view different from the majority and to refuse to foster … an idea they find morally objectionable.”
          On the other hand, in Employment Division v. Smith (1990), a Native American failed to win a religious exemption allowing him to smoke peyote, and of course, in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Court swept aside the duly enacted legislation of the people of three dozen states in codifying marriage as between a man and a woman, compelling acceptance of a redefinition of marriage that two-thirds of states found objectionable.
          There is also an undercurrent that reveals an unequal application of the law by government which is hostile to Christians.
          For example, the same Colorado Commission on Human Rights that compelled Phillips to bake the cake allowed three bakers to refuse service to customers seeking to buy cakes with messages criticizing same-sex “marriage,” an obvious refutation of the claim that this is about enforcing viewpoint neutrality. The state is punishing speech it finds objectionable.
          In fact, a study by the First Liberty Institute, which tracks violations of religious liberty, found a 15% increase in legal cases that affect religious liberty in America. From unequal access to federal funds for churches, to lawsuits demanding removal of Christian symbols and memorials from public spaces, to denying freedom of religion to military service members, to compelling Christian bakers, florists, photographers and other artists to participate in same-sex weddings, a clear trend is evident in the oppression of the religious liberties of Christians.
          This is mostly due to the larger debate about rights. For the Right, rights are about individual liberty, and these rights are enumerated in the Bill of Rights. For the Left, “rights” are made up out of whole cloth to serve the desired outcome of some constituency, and, in order for these rights to be exercised, it usually means someone else must be compelled to provide something for the recipient.
          The outcome of this case will be far-reaching. In fact, some wonder whether, for example, Christian medical professionals soon will be forced to participate in abortions or assisted suicide, or Catholic Adoption Services forced to place children in homes with same-sex parents. The possibilities are as endless as they are frightening.
          The reality is that the plaintiffs suing Christian business owners are not interested in equality, or accommodation, but in government-compelled acceptance of something tens of millions of Americans find religiously and morally objectionable.
          Craig and Mullins, the plaintiffs in the Masterpiece case, are just the latest iteration of Eric McKinley, the homosexual man who used the New Jersey Civil Rights Division to bludgeon eHarmony, a Christian dating site, into offering services to homosexuals.
          After several years of litigation, and facing the daunting power of the state to cripple its business, eHarmony submitted to the state and began offering dating services to homosexuals. No sooner had McKinley vanquished his Christian foe than he announced that he had no intention of using the site. This was about punishment, not equality.
          Marriage is found nowhere in the Constitution, much less a “right” to same-sex marriage. However, the freedoms of religion, speech and association are found in the Constitution, right there in the First Amendment.
          If the black-robed oligarchs of the Court (here’s looking at you, Anthony Kennedy) have any respect for the language and intent of the Constitution, Jack Phillips’ freedoms will be protected. There are reasons to be hopeful, but time will tell.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52757

by Patriot Post Staff:  In October 1940, President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared, “I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.” This was a reiteration of his earlier assertion, “We are keeping out of the wars that are going on in Europe and in Asia. … Our opponents are seeking to frighten the country by telling people that the present administration is deliberately … drifting into war. You know better than that.”

          Roosevelt campaigned on neutrality in 1940. Roosevelt assured his constituents, “I give … to the people of this country this most solemn assurance: There is no secret treaty, no secret obligation, no secret commitment, no secret understanding in any shape or form, direct or indirect, with any other government, or any other nation in any part of the world, to involve this nation in any war.”
          Unfortunately, Germany’s Führer Adolf Hitler and Japan’s Prime Minister Hideki Tojo didn’t cooperate.
          On December 7, 1941, more than 350 Japanese planes attacked Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, killing 2,390 American servicemen and civilians and wounding 1,282. The attack sank or damaged eight battleships, three cruisers, three destroyers and one minelayer and destroyed 188 aircraft. It took four years and the full military-industrial capability of the United States to defeat Japan. There was no more devastating surprise attack on the United States until 9/11.
          After the attack, Roosevelt stated: “December 7, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan. … Always will we remember the character of the onslaught against us. No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory. … With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounded determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph — so help us God.”
          Historian Victor Davis Hanson writes, “After Pearl Harbor, the United States went into a rearmament frenzy the likes of which had never been seen in history. America produced more airplanes and ships than all World War II powers combined. The U.S. military grew to 12 million soldiers. American military leadership in the Pacific — led by Admirals William Halsey Jr., Chester Nimitz and Raymond Spruance, along with Generals Curtis LeMay and Douglas MacArthur — proved far more skilled than their Japanese counterparts. And the American soldier, sailor, airman and Marine, after a bruising learning experience in early 1942, proved every bit as ferocious as veteran Japanese fighters.”
          It is with honor and respect for those who died or suffered terrible injuries that Sunday morning that we should never again fall into the slumber that allowed such a tragedy as Pearl Harbor — or the attack on Sept. 11, 2001 — again.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52784

"The agent, Peter Strzok, is considered one of the most experienced and trusted F.B.I. counterintelligence investigators. He helped lead the investigation into whether liar-Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information on her private email account, and then played a major role in the investigation into links between President Trump’s campaign and Russia.

 

But Mr. Strzok was reassigned this summer from Mr. Mueller’s investigation to the F.B.I.’s human resources department, where he has been stationed since. The people briefed on the case said the transfer followed the discovery of text messages in which Mr. Strzok and a colleague reacted to news events, like presidential debates, in ways that could appear critical of Mr. Trump.

 

A lawyer for Mr. Strzok declined to comment. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department said that “we are aware of the allegation and are taking any and all appropriate steps.”

 

Mr. Strzok’s reassignment shows that Mr. Mueller moved swiftly in the face of what could be perceived as bias by one of his agents amid a politically charged inquiry into Mr. Trump’s campaign and administration. But the existence of the text messages is likely to fuel claims by Mr. Trump that the F.B.I. has a bias against him and that he is a target of the “deep state” — a term used to describe the notion that government intelligence agencies secretly conspire together."

"Peter Strzok, as deputy head of counterintelligence at the FBI, was a key player in the investigation into liar-Clinton’s use of a private email server to do government work as secretary of state, as well as the probe into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia in the 2016 election.

 

During the liar-Clinton investigation, Strzok was involved in a romantic relationship with FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who worked for Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, according to the people familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

 

The extramarital affair was problematic, these people said, but of greater concern among senior law enforcement officials were text messages the two exchanged during the liar-Clinton investigation and campaign season, in which they expressed anti-Trump sentiments and other comments that appeared to favor liar-Clinton."

by Thomas Gallatin:  News is out on illegal immigration statistics this year and it’s good. The number of illegal aliens caught crossing the border this year has dropped to a 45-year low, indicating a significant drop in the number of individuals attempting to cross illegally. At the same time, the number of illegal aliens arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in the nation’s interior rose by 40%.

          Acting Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke credited President Donald Trump’s policies, declaring, “We have clearly seen the successful results of the president’s commitment to supporting the front-line officers and agents of DHS as they enforce the law and secure our borders. We have an obligation to uphold the integrity of our immigration system, but we must do more to step up and close loopholes to protect the American worker, our economy and our communities.”
          Critics of Trump’s border wall responded to the news by suggesting that the decrease in illegal crossing indicated there is no need for a wall, calling it a waste of money. However, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders noted that Trump remains committed to his campaign promise. “The need for the border wall and border security, as well as responsible immigration reform, still stands,” she asserted. “And we still need to look at all the ways that we can protect our national security. And we still feel strongly that [the wall] is one of them.”
          Tom Price, the acting director of ICE, pressed for more action against illegal immigration, highlighting the ongoing problem of “sanctuary” cities. “We need to confront and address misguided policies and loopholes that only serve as a pull factor for illegal immigration,” he said. “We must continue to target violent gangs like MS-13, and prevent them from rebuilding what we have begun to dismantle. Finally, we need to find a solution to the dangerous sanctuary city policies and the politicians who needlessly risk innocent lives to protect criminals who are illegally present in the United States.” Kate Steinle’s family knows about that.
          Overall, the news on the problem of illegal immigration is good, but there is clearly a long way to go for the government to get this decades-long issue under control.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52774

by Nate Jackson:  The FBI’s investigations into liar-Hillary Clinton’s private email server and Donald Trump’s alleged “collusion” with Russia were far from impartial. But we already knew that. What is new is the revelation that Peter Strzok, who was removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s staff earlier this year, was basically a shill for the liar-Clinton campaign. For starters, he sent anti-Trump texts to his colleague/mistress during the investigations. His removal was reported in August; the texts were hidden until now, despite a House subpoena that should have unearthed them.

          Who is Strzok? The Wall Street Journal explains: This is all the more notable because Mr. Strzok was a chief lieutenant to former FBI Director James Comey and played a lead role investigating alleged coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election. Mr. Mueller then gave him a top role in his special-counsel probe. And before all this Mr. Strzok led the investigation into liar-Hillary Clinton’s emails and sat in on the interview she gave to the FBI shortly before Mr. Comey publicly exonerated her in violation of Justice Department practice.
          Oh, and the woman with whom he supposedly exchanged anti-Trump texts, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, worked for both Mr. Mueller and deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, who was accused of a conflict of interest in the liar-Clinton probe when it came out that liar-Clinton allies had donated to the political campaign of Mr. McCabe’s wife.
          But wait; there’s more. Strzok was one of two FBI agents who interviewed Michael Flynn on Jan. 24. That would be the same Flynn who’s now guilty of lying to the FBI. Strzok also interviewed liar-Clinton aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills. They too lied to the FBI and … nothing happened.
          As if that weren’t enough, we’ve learned that Strzok was the one responsible for editing key language in a memo by James Comey. What Comey originally called liar-Clinton’s “grossly negligent” behavior — language specific to the statute liar-Clinton violated — Strzok revised to read “extremely careless.” That’s a clear pander to liar-Clinton, who admitted she was “careless” but denied anything worse. The watered-down language gave Comey the needed rationale for exonerating her — you know, shortly after liar-Bill Clinton met Loretta Lynch on that Phoenix tarmac.
          The investigation into Trump’s supposed collusion is turning into a probe about obstruction of justice. But, between the role of the fake liar-Clinton-funded dossier in getting the FBI’s investigative ball rolling in the first place and the increasingly obvious conflicts of interest and political preferences of lead investigators, it may be that the real obstruction occurred at the Bureau.
          In other news, Mueller has subpoenaed some of Trump’s bank records, perhaps crossing a line that Trump once painted red. This could get even more interesting quickly.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52747

by Todd Johnson:  With last week’s historic passage of new tax legislation in the Senate and yesterday’s motion in the House to go to tax conference, the Republican Party is well on its way to having a tax bill for President Donald Trump to sign before the end of this year.

          While the legislation will represent the first overhaul of the tax code in over 30 years, questions abound, from both the Right and the Left, as to whether it will actually work once implemented. More than a few tax experts are still trying to wrap their heads around the particulars, especially since chunks of the 479 page document were crossed out and replaced with hand-written amendments at the last minute.
          Perceptions aside, one of the major questions that hasn’t been answered by Republican lawmakers is how the lost revenue will be accounted for in future budgeting plans. While some, like Senate Majority Leader RINO-Mitch McConnell, think the cuts will spur the economy, conservative organizations like the Tax Foundation believe the bill will add $500 billion to the nation’s deficit. More concerning is that many of the tax cuts will expire in a few years, which means that Congress will have to vote on extending them. Needless to say that isn’t a guarantee.
          Which leads to our main concern. Throughout this whole process, in which the Senate vote came less than a month after the proposal was made and no hearings or testimony occurred, not one member of Congress even brought up defense spending reform.
          It’s easy to see why. Earlier this year, in separate bills, the Senate and the House voted to increase defense spending to around $700 billion, way over the “sequestration” spending caps set in the 2011 Budget Control Act. Not many politicians want to be viewed as not supporting the troops so it’s not a surprise that proposed defense budgets continue to grow and grow and grow.
          Defense expenditures are one of the areas that the Constitution specifically addresses when it comes to spending. Any veteran and more than a few others should understand the importance of having a force ready to take on enemies around the world. However, the question is how much is enough?
          A cursory examination of the most recent National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) shows numerous opportunities where money can be saved. Out of the base budget, money could be saved by closing unneeded bases to cutting the officer corps in the Army and Navy to radically altering the procurement process for military weaponry. Changes in just these three areas alone would save the American taxpayer billions of dollars.
          It’s important to note that defense allocations are but one symptom of a disease that permeates all federal spending. The nation’s budget problems aren’t because of defense waste (which absolutely does exist) but our budget problems infect defense spending — i.e., cronyism, pet projects, etc.
          Most politicians love to push federal dollars to their states but that type of behavior is only exacerbating the national debt, which currently stands at $20.5 trillion dollars, or $170,000 per taxpayer. Only time will tell if our nation’s leaders decide to do the responsible thing or continue to spend the nation into oblivion — because the problem isn’t revenue; it’s spending.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52748

by Jordan Candler:  Republicans in the House and Senate are in the process of reconciling their respective tax reform bills, which means agitated Democrats are fomenting fear and trepidation. Nancy Pulosi introduced an outlandish rant against tax reform in October, when she hysterically asserted, “This tax bill is Armageddon.” With tax reform nearing completion, she is regurgitating this garbage-filled talking point, claiming again, “It is the end of the world. … This is Armageddon. This is a very big deal.”

          In a sense, this isn’t hyperbole for Democrats. Their power and political influence depends on the redistribution of wealth, so in a way this is the end of their world.
          In the real world, however, tens of millions of middle class Americans aren’t complaining about the extra money they’ll pocket if Republicans prevail. Democrats, however, are of the opinion that any boon to “the wealthy” — even if it’s disproportionately less — is more than enough reason to quash tax reform and therefore justifies their efforts to derail it. But the Democrats’ broader strategic angle is to protect their statist endeavors. To accomplish this, they routinely inflict discord by way of hyperbole.
          Columnist David Harsanyi hits on this in a new piece: “How did so many liberals convince themselves that tax reform (a rare cut that is, according to sometime-reliable Washington Post factcheckers, only the eighth largest in history) signals the implosion of American life? Everyone tends to dramatize the consequences of policy for effect, of course, but a Democratic Party drifting towards Bernie-ism is far more likely to perceive cuts in taxation as limiting state control and thus an attack on all decency and morality. Taxation is the finest tool of redistribution, so it’s understandable.”
          But it’s also not excusable. Hysteria, hyperbole and falsehoods are a proven way for malcontents to breed resentment. At which point those who feel resentment are vulnerable to exploitation, which Democrats pursue without even thinking twice. Pulosi’s vexation is no excuse for absurdly hyperbolic remarks chock full of lies. Until subjectivity and relativism are tossed aside, vitriol and the speedy trend toward tribal politics will worsen. A little homework on the part of every American would defuse the situation and render these tirades ineffective.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhTz0Erfwbg  
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52774

by Robin Smith:  Have you been hearing the breathless media complaints and the DC political apparatus gasp out the latest narrative that the “new normal” of Washington is chaos, dysfunction and distrust, all while blaming Donald Trump and his supporters?

          Just last weekend, Mike Murphy, GOP strategist and former Jeb Bush employee, trumpeted on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “We’re living through the first screwball presidency in American History!” As he argued on that the “careening” in DC of an out-of-control presidency has instilled fear, he tipped his hand.
          If you listened on, you heard from whence the concerns and pleadings he’s heard originate: the “professionals” who lost the November 2016 election. “The Republicans I’ve talked to privately, the professional pols, are terrified,” Murphy said. “They think there’s a chaos factor, to quote Jeb Bush who predicted all this.”
          So, it’s not just liar-Hillary Clinton and the angry Left who cannot accept failure and loss of the presidential election. Well, there’s a reason the average American abandoned the decorum and stale predictability of the quadrennial campaign to say, “You’re all fired!”
          Is there a new normal? If so, is it really bad or unwanted by the average American? Let’s follow a few pieces of evidence that prove, yes, there’s a new normal. However, it’s only bad to the elitist keepers of the status quo, who have been and are being repeatedly rejected despite their polished résumés.
          Is Donald Trump always right? No. Is President Trump at times a jerk? Yes. But is Trump right on policy that reflects the reasons he won — securing the southern border and reducing illegal immigration, cutting and reforming taxes, destroying the chokehold of red-tape around the necks of businesses large and small, appointing originalist judges up and down the federal court system, and halting the foreign policy and national security approach of leading from behind? Why, yes, he sure is.
          So, Trump’s big offense is that he has unsettled a great number of people by brutalizing the symbolic niceties of the Swamp creatures.
          His infamous Twitter account, with 44 million followers of @RealDonaldTrump and another 21.3 million followers of @POTUS, places President Donald Trump in direct contact with voters, protesters, the media, America’s allies and enemies, alike, and the public at large. So, last week, for example, when Trump “retweeted” videos showing Muslims in the United Kingdom engaged in violence and anti-social behavior that another Twitter user had shared and linked with comment, it became a global incident with the UK’s Prime Minister Theresa May. She responded defensively, condemning Trump for stoking “hatred and mistrust.”
          The average American, however, saw what Trump shared: Three videos capturing Muslims assaulting people, specifically a young man on crutches in one video, and smashing a statue of the Virgin Mary in another. Elitists within the professional political world lit the prairie fire declaring racism, bigotry and division, with no comment on the actual deeds shown in the videos.
          Meanwhile, following Thursday night’s shocking verdict in the Kate Steinle murder trial in San Francisco — a sanctuary city that released the offending illegal immigrant who’d been charged previously with seven felonies and deported from the U.S. five different times before he caused the death of an innocent American — Trump spoke directly to America and said what most Americans were thinking.
          @RealDonaldTrump first posted, “A disgraceful verdict in the Kate Steinle case! No wonder the people of our Country are so angry with Illegal Immigration” the evening of the verdict. The next morning, Trump added, “His exoneration is a complete travesty of justice. BUILD THE WALL!”
          The average American read and understood the exact sentiments of logic coming from the president. The only statements dripping of racism or prejudice were coming from the mouthpieces of the Left.
          There are at least two other recent evidences that Trump’s untraditional access to the public may create “chaos” for those protecting the Swamp homeostasis, but the average American hears what they’re already thinking. First is the case of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s aggressive moves to prosecute retired Lt. General Michael Flynn, who very briefly served as Trump’s national security advisor post-election and admittedly lied to the FBI for reasons still unknown to the public. As the investigation strains to unearth a single shred of evidence that candidate Donald Trump colluded with the Russians, Americans understand that those who lie to the FBI should be prosecuted. But what about the legal gymnastics performed by the FBI, Justice Department and Barack liar-nObama to minimize the mishandling of classified documents and documented lies of liar-Hillary Clinton for months?
          Again, the average American sees the injustice of one being protected for egregious criminal behavior while the other is publicly crucified for a process crime. As Trump put it, “liar-Hillary Clinton lied many times to the FBI and nothing happened to her. Flynn lied and they destroyed his life. I think it’s a shame.”
          Finally, the Alabama special election for U.S. Senate provides a clear demonstration that the average American, once again, sees through the bias and hit-jobs at the hands of the press.
          The March 2008 edition of the Digital Journal chronicles the timeline of Roy Moore’s alleged relationships with under-aged girls to be during the same time he was twice running as a Democrat for public office in Gadsden, Alabama. Yet after 38 years and multiple election cycles, these charges are just now surfacing with The Washington Post and radical leftist/feminist attorney Gloria Allred being the voices telling the folks of Alabama to vote for a pro-abortion, pro-illegal immigration, tax-and-spender because “suddenly,” their now-GOP candidate is an alleged pervert. Time will tell, but Alabamans appear ready to tell the coastal elites to stick it where the sun don’t shine.
          So, there is a new normal. While President Donald Trump talks directly to the American public and governs with a pretty conservative agenda, the professional politicians and media will continue to talk to each other in breathless indignation. The Swamp Creatures and the Deep State will ferociously fight for their existence and power believing themselves to be the normal. Yet the real new normal might be “power to the people.”  
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52742

by Political Editors:  Barack liar-nObama was recently in India, where he gave a speech promoting his foundation. With his typical passive-aggressive style, liar-nObama jabbed at Donald Trump over the decision to withdraw from the Paris climate change accords, saying that there is a “pause in American leadership.” How clever. liar-nObama, dripping with self-righteous hubris, added, “I have trouble with a conversation with somebody that says the climate is not changing. You know, that becomes almost like a theological argument. It just has to do with somebody has decided [sic], ‘This is what I believe,’ as opposed to looking at evidence and facts and the process of reasoning that signifies things like the scientific revolution.”
          What is ironic about liar-nObama’s statement is how much of a self-indictment it is. One of liar-nObama’s favorite phrases is “the science is settled,” by which he means that he is unwilling to allow for any reasonable objections or opposing opinions because he has settled all the questions and has all the right answers, so no more debate. Which of course is the antithesis of the scientific method for doing, well, science. There’s also his “wrong side of history” trope, one of his most-used rhetorical tools designed to both belittle and quell any who would dare raise objection to his leftist agenda.
          liar-nObama has never been interested in any “facts” or a “process of reasoning” or even real science for that matter. Instead, his ways have always been those of the playground bully. In liar-nObama’s bigoted worldview there is no room for discourse or reasoned debate or even a genuine admission of misjudgment or mistake. No, for liar-nObama the dogma that man caused climate change is to be preached and imposed upon the masses; it is never, ever to be questioned.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/52730