Meadows notes a couple text exchanges between Strzok and Page wherein a reference is made to “a media leak strategy.” The first text in question is dated April 10, 2017, and reads, “I [Strzok] literally just gone to find this phone to tell you I want to talk to you about media leak strategy with DOJ before you go.” The following day, The Washington Post published a story where it is learned that the FBI had obtained a FISA warrant to engage in surveillance on Trump adviser Carter Page back in 2016. Needless to say, this story served to further the media’s narrative of a Trump/Russia collusion conspiracy. On April 12, Strzok again texted Lisa Page congratulating her on a job well done regarding two negative news stories about Carter Page. He then alerted her to two more news stories that will be coming out that will be “worse” on Carter Page than the previous ones.
               “While those two text messages alone are troubling enough, events surrounding these interactions call the motives of the investigative team into question,” Meadow’s wrote. He continued, “Other documents indicate DOJ officials, specifically Andrew Wiessmann [who is currently on dirty cop-Robert Mueller’s team] participated in unauthorized conversations with the media during this same time period.” Strzok was finally fired last month, but it would seem the culture of corruption continues.
               Recall the reason for why former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was fired — he lied to the inspector general specifically regarding his involvement in releasing unauthorized information to the media. Now with this latest news, the details of this concerted effort by several individuals in leadership positions within the DOJ/FBI to damage Trump is becoming more clear. Slowly but surely, more pieces of the puzzle are falling into place, and this fiasco has “deep-state quasi coup” written all over it.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/58186?mailing_id=3731&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3731&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             At 22 while my family was living in Kenya, my father arranged my marriage to a member of our family clan, a man that I had never met. I ran away, made my way to Holland, studied there and eventually was elected a member of the Dutch parliament. Now I live in the United States.
               In short, I have seen Islam from the inside and the outside.  I believe that a reform of Islam is necessary and possible. And only Muslims can make that reform a reality. But we in the West cannot remain on the sidelines as though the outcome of this struggle has nothing to do with us. If the jihadists win and the hope for a reformed Islam dies, the rest of the world will pay a terrible price. The terror attacks in New York, London, Madrid, Paris and many other places are only a preview for what is to come.
               For this reason, I believe that it’s foolish to insist, as Western leaders habitually do, that the violent acts committed in the name of Islam can somehow be divorced from the religion itself. For more than a decade, my message has been simple: Islam is not a religion of peace.
               When I assert this, I do not mean that Islamic belief makes all Muslims violent. This is manifestly not the case: There are many millions of peaceful Muslims in the world. What I do say is that the call to violence and the justification for it are explicitly stated in the sacred texts of Islam. Moreover, this theologically sanctioned violence is there to be activated by any number of offenses, including but not limited to adultery, blasphemy, homosexuality and apostasy—that is, to leave Islam.
               Those who tolerate this intolerance do so at their peril. As someone who has known what it is to live without freedom, I watch in amazement as those who call themselves liberals and progressives—people who claim to believe so fervently in individual liberty and minority rights—make common cause with the forces in the world that manifestly pose the greatest threats to that very freedom and those very minorities.
               In 2014 I was invited to accept an honorary degree from Brandeis University for the work I have done on behalf of women’s rights in the Muslim world. That invitation was withdrawn after professors and students protested my criticism of Islam. My subsequent “disinvitation,” as it came to be called, was no favor to Muslims—just the opposite. By labeling critical examination of Islam as inherently “racist,” we make the chances of reformation far less likely. There are no limits on criticism of Christianity at American universities…or anywhere else for that matter. Why should there be of Islam?
               Instead of contorting Western intellectual traditions so as not to offend our Muslim fellow citizens, we need to defend both those traditions and the Muslim dissidents who take great risks to promote them. We should support these brave men and women in every way possible.
               Imagine a platform for Muslim dissidents that communicated their message through YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. These are the Muslims we should be supporting—for our sake as much for the sake of Islam.
               In the Cold War, the West celebrated dissidents such as Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Andrei Sakharov, and Václav Havel, who had the courage to challenge the Soviet system from within. Today, there are many dissidents who challenge Islam, but the West either ignores them or dismisses them as “not representative.” This is a grave mistake. Reformers such as Tawfiq Hamid, Asra Nomani & Zuhdi Jasser and many others must be supported and protected. They should be as well known as Solzhenitsyn, Sakharov, and Havel were in the 1980s.
               If we do in fact support political, social and religious freedom, then we cannot in good conscience give Islam a free pass on the grounds of multicultural sensitivity. We need to say to Muslims living in the West: If you want to live in our societies, to share in their material benefits, then you need to accept that our freedoms are not optional.
               Islam is at a cross roads of reformation or self-destruction.  But so is the West. I’m Ayaan Hirsi Ali of Harvard University for Prager University.

VIDEO:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AkAGc5nOXw

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/58155?mailing_id=3729&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3729&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             Bolton made his statement to preempt the ICC’s attempt to initiate an investigation into U.S. military and government officials over dubious allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity during the war in Afghanistan. He explained, “This administration will fight back to protect American constitutionalism, our sovereignty, and our citizens. No committee of foreign nations will tell us how to govern ourselves and defend our freedom.”
               The U.S. has never recognized the jurisdictional authority of the ICC and has repeatedly rejected it as an infringement upon national sovereignty. But Bolton has not only rejected the ICC’s jurisdiction, he has further threatened the court’s legitimacy for its attempt to go after Israel. “The United States will always stand with our friend and ally, Israel,” Bolton declared. “We will not allow the ICC, or any other organization, to constrain Israel’s right to self-defense.”
               Bolton’s actions are consistent with Trump’s overriding agenda — blowing up the Washington establishment class’s globalist enterprises. Whether it be pulling out of the Paris climate accord, ending Barack scumbag/liar-nObama’s terrible Iran deal, exiting the fraudulent UN Human Rights Council, or demanding that our NATO allies pay their fair share (just to name a few examples), Trump isn’t afraid to drop policy bombs. Trump has made it clear he doesn’t answer to the globalists; he unapologetically fights for America first.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/58178?mailing_id=3729&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3729&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             This latest report comes on the heels of last week’s seemingly positive development regarding North Korea’s annual military parade. It was learned that a certain element of the parade would be conspicuously absent — there were no ICBMs featured. This may have been a nod by Kim to Trump for the latter having canceled the U.S. and South Korea annual military exercises that have proven to be such a provocation to the North.
               So is Kim engaged in the same strategy his father took with the U.S., acting at playing nice in order to gain concessions without really changing anything? That’s almost undoubtedly what Kim has up his sleeve, but Trump’s not falling for it, despite his recent message of praise. Trump offered, “This is a big and very positive statement from North Korea. Thank you To Chairman Kim. We will both prove everyone wrong! There is nothing like good dialogue from two people that like each other! Much better than before I took office.” Meanwhile, the White House announced work has begun to set up a second summit between the two leaders.
               The fact is that behind the scenes, Trump isn’t conceding ground; he’s ratcheting up the pressure. The U.S. has been leading an international coalition to step up efforts in exposing and confronting international shipping that has sought to evade the sanctions against North Korea. In other words, Kim has not pulled the wool over Trump’s eyes. A better way to interpret Trump’s positive messaging on Kim is to understand that while Trump is giving Kim the slow squeeze, he is also giving him room to publicly save face. It may not succeed, but at least it’s not the same failed approach of the last 25 years.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/58157?mailing_id=3729&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3729&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             For the Leftmedia’s spin, we turn to Bloomberg: “The legislation — released as Republicans are at risk of losing their majority in the House — is seen as a last-ditch effort by GOP lawmakers to convince voters of the benefits of their new tax code. Polls consistently show less than half of Americans approve of the tax cut.”
               Yes, it’s true that the Republican strategy is a midterm play for votes, and it’s unlikely to become law just yet. And yes, it’s also true that polls indicate voters aren’t as keen as they should be on those tax cuts.
               Two observations: First, President Donald Trump has been remarkably effective in using the dummycrats-Democrats’ strategy against them, and the House GOP is taking a page from that same playbook. Good. Second, the   dummycrats-Democrats’ class-warfare messaging, amplified by the propagandists of their Leftmedia super PAC, has convinced a significant number of Americans that Republican tax cuts were really “only for the rich.” Midterms are historically tough for the president’s party anddummycrats-Democrats have owned a lead in the “generic ballot” for months, so this misconception is hardly surprising.
               Digging deeper, however, the main areas where the tax cuts are unpopular are blue states with high taxes, leaving voters unhappy with a reduced federal deduction for state and local taxes. In other words, dummycrats-Democrats are telling voters to blame Republicans for high taxes imposed by dummycrats- Democrats. Nice work if you can get it.
               Republicans are smart to run this packaged pitch to counter dummycrats-Demo lies, distortions, and cynical appeals to envy. The GOP bill not only sends the right message but forces dummycrats-Democrats into the uncomfortable position of voting to raise taxes on everyone. Oh, dummycrats-Democrats will trot out their talking points to win over their faithful welfare constituents, but the same blue-collar workers who ditched liar-Hillary Clinton for Trump know which party actually addressed their concerns.
               As much as Barack scumbag/liar-nObama might like to claim credit for a humming economy, it is the tax-cutting, regulation-reducing policies of Donald Trump and congressional Republicans that spurred it on. Frankly, every time Trump or a campaigning Republican opens his or her mouth, it should be to remind voters that they are indeed better off now than they were two years ago.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/58177?mailing_id=3729&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3729&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             Political legitimacy is a loaded term. Barack scumbag/liar-nObama’s administration had a penchantfor politically legitimizing certain industries and companies that aligned with its ideological agenda, even when it proved utterly disastrous for Americans. Taxpayers were left holding the bag for “clean” energy companies like Solyndra, and nothing drove up the costs of health care — and insurance company profits — more than scumbag/liar-nObamaCare.
               The Trump administration also plays the political legitimacy game, but in a different manner. His America First agenda may be equally intrusive, but it smacks of the moral legitimacy to which Chapman refers. While the 2016 election was about many things, what helped push Trump over the top were “flyover country” Americans disgusted with corporate multinationalism, a.k.a. globalism. These were the Americans whose jobs were outsourced and their futures marginalized, even as they endured bicoastal elitist lectures about the “net plus” of such a system.
               While this was occurring, members of the nation’s globalist-dominated Ruling Class also made it crystal clear that they are calculatingly indifferent to both the ravages of illegal immigration and unchecked legal immigration. As recently as last week, 146 suspected illegals were arrested at the Fresh Mark meatpacking plant in Ohio. The same plant was sued — in 2001 — for knowingly hiring illegals.
               E-Verify has existed since 1996. Last June, the latest effort to make it mandatory for every employer was rejected by the GOP-controlled House after members bowed to the “concerns” of the agricultural lobby that claimed it would produce a worker shortage.
               A combination of higher wages and conditional welfare for able-bodied Americans to address that shortage? Not part of the equation. Moreover, businesses willing to hire illegals seemingly have a government ally: According to the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), there were as many as 39 million cases where names on W-2 tax forms did not match corresponding Social Security records — meaning millions of Americans have had their identities stolen, potentially by illegal aliens.
               This gargantuan level of mismatches occurred during the last four years of the scumbag/liar-nObama administration, and one is left to wonder whether the Social Security Administration was grossly inept — or quietly complicit.
               The legal immigrant part of the equation? While commie-Bernie Sanders’s muddle-headed “Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies Act,” (Stop BEZOS Act) would force companies like Amazon to fully fund federal welfare programs used by their low-wage workers — ultimately incentivizing those companies not to hire anyone from low-income families — it cannot be ignored that the retail giant has been one of the foremost champions of H-1B visas, importing more foreign tech workers in 2017 than Facebook and Google combined. And while American STEM workers languish, research by the Seattle Times reveals that 71% of Silicon Valley tech workers are foreign born.
               In stark contrast to scumbag/liar-nObama, Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American” executive order has limited the use of H-1B visas. No doubt by sheer “coincidence,” America’s warehouse workers, including those who toil for Amazon, have won a 9.7% wage increase between February 2017 and April 2018.
               Regardless, the globalist agenda, and the seeming lack of patriotism that attends it, remains alive and well. Last May, shares of Boeing Airlines dropped when Trump announced America was withdrawing from the nuclear deal with Iran. The company had a $20 billion deal to sell jetliners to the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism. Boeing claimed the deal would support 100,000 American jobs.
               Providing America with jobs and cheap consumer goods, along with the idea that we can de-escalate tensions, is the rationale behind trading with communist China — while tolerating its tariffs, currency-manipulation, and intellectual property-stealing proclivities. That rationale is a globalist-minded status quo Trump is addressing, much to the globalists’ consternation.
               And well he should. In 2017, America’s trade deficit with China was $375 billion. In 2018, an increasingly belligerent China’s military budget is $175 billion. Money is certainly fungible, cheap consumer goods are attractive, and additional jobs are welcome. But is any of it a “reasonable” tradeoff for what amounts to facilitating a suicidal national security policy?
               The innumerable benefits of One World-ism in general, and free trade in particular, have been communicated to Americans with an almost religious fervor. Shouldn’t the potentially disastrous pitfalls get an equal hearing?
               Americans should also be more fully informed about behind-the-scenes corporatist machinations. Those wondering why a company like Nike would potentially alienate half of its American customers with its Colin Kaepernick branding campaign might be surprised to learn that Nike fits in with Apple, Starbucks, and Boeing as being among a number of multinational corporations that could have as much as $158 billion at risk in a trade war with China. That would be the same China “increasingly using North Korean factories to take advantage of cheaper labor across the border,” Reuters reports.
               Nike’s potential loss of American customers is nothing compared to the loss of a supply chain that includes slave labor. Moreover, Levi-Strauss has jumped on a customer-alienating, anti-gun bandwagon, just as the NFL has jumped on an equally antagonistic anti-police bandwagon. The common thread? To defeat the Trump trade reset by supporting anti-Trump domestic policies that obscure that horrible PR optics openly siding with China would engender.
               Who abets the multinational elitists’ efforts? “At the present rate, America will soon resemble the dystopias of novels such as 1984 and Brave New World in which all aspects of life are warped by an all-encompassing ideology of coerced sameness,”  writes columnist Victor Davis Hanson, who rightly holds the nation’s censorship-abetting tech titans, and their corporate media allies to account. Hanson further notes that “some $3 trillion in global capitalization is pledged to ensure that the nations’ computers, pads, and smartphones will not be polluted by traditionalist thinking.”
               Few things are more traditional than patriotism. “Despite origins steeped in sovereign favor and national interest, the modern corporation has increasingly seen its capacity for civic duty and engagement diminished,” columnist Yishai Schwartz explains. “Over time, concern for the national interest has been squeezed out by the twin forces of profit maximization and cosmopolitanism.”
               Cosmopolitanism? A lack of moral legitimacy that fuels increasing calls “fundamental transformation” is more like it. A lack of moral legitimacy that has produced repugnant reactions. “Fear of nuclear war, violent revolution and pandemics has seen San Francisco’s finest start commissioning multi million pound underground bunkers in New Zealand,” The Sun reports.
               Better post-apocalyptic isolation than rediscovering patriotism and morality? If that contemptuous worldview doesn’t change, it won’t be the communists or any other external enemy that hangs capitalists with the rope they’ve sold them.

More likely they’ll be hanging themselves.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/58137?mailing_id=3727&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3727&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             This charge of division was ironic given the fact that scumbag/liar-nObama himself was a highly polarizing figure whose popular moniker of “Divider-in-Chief” among conservatives was well deserved. Notably, whilescumbag/liar-nObama’s divisive rhetoric and policy actions benefited him, they came at the cost of decimating the dummycrats-Democrat Party.
               Few can spin a yarn like scumbag/liar-nObama; indeed, it’s one of his greatest talents. But as is so often the case, scumbag/liar-nObama’s version of events never quite matched up to the reality on the ground.
               Take the economy. For eight long years Americans suffered under a near-stagnant economy, much of it due to scumbag/liar-nObama’s leftist agenda that imposed greater government control over the economy via increased regulations. Now that the economy is booming because of Trump’s deregulation and the Republican tax cuts (which scumbag/liar-nObama ignored), the former president insisted, “By the time I left office, household income was near its all-time high and the uninsured rate had hit an all-time low and wages were rising and poverty rates were falling. I mention all of this just so when you hear how great the economy’s doing right now, let’s just remember when this recovery started.”
                scumbag/liar-nObama also suffers from selective memory on scumbag/liar-nObamaCare — specifically how his and the dummycrats-Democrats’ massive tax, laughably titled the “Affordable Care Act,” was foisted upon the American people without a single Republican vote. He chastised Republicans for passing tax cuts that benefit all Americans by labeling that reform a danger to our democracy. scumbag/liar-nObama asserted, “Republicans in control of Congress and the White House, without any checks or balances whatsoever … provided another trillion in tax cuts to people like me who, I promise, don’t need it, and don’t even pretend to pay for them.”
               Meanwhile, scumbag/liar-nObama promoted the dummycrats-Democrats’ newest hard-left policy proposal of Medicare for All, stating, “dummycrats-Democrats aren’t just running on good old ideas like a higher minimum wage, they’re running on good new ideas like Medicare for All, giving workers seats on corporate boards, [and] reversing the most egregious corporate tax cuts to make sure college students graduate debt-free.” No, it’s just socialism repackaged.
               Back to division. scumbag/liar-nObama called out Trump for “capitalizing on resentments that politicians have been fanning for years — a fear and anger that’s rooted in our past, but it’s also born out of the enormous upheavals that have taken place in your brief lifetimes.” scumbag/liar-nObama would more accurately have referenced himself here. Few politicians preyed upon and encouraged peoples’ fears as did scumbag/liar-nObama, as he ironically seems oblivious to having done in this very speech.
               As an example, consider this excerpt from his speech: “This Congress has championed the unwinding of campaign-finance laws to give billionaires outsized influence over our politics. Systemically attacked voting rights to make it harder for the young people, the minorities, and the poor to vote. Handed out tax cuts without regard to deficits. Slashed the safety net where it could. Cast dozens of votes to take away health insurance from ordinary Americans. Embraced wild conspiracy theories, like those surrounding Benghazi, or my birth certificate.” He concluded, “Because, in the end, the threat to our democracy doesn’t just come from Donald Trump or the current batch of Republicans in Congress or the Koch Brothers and their lobbyists” but from people failing to vote for dummycrats-Democrats.
               Actually, scumbag/liar-nObama’s speech served as a great reminder of why so many Americans voted for Trump. As Courtney Alexander, a spokeswoman for the Congressional Leadership Fund, observed, “Nothing would be better than the scumbag/liar-nObama-Pulosi team traveling the country nonstop until November, reminding voters of the failed scumbag/liar-nObama-Pulosi days of higher taxes and increased government spending.” Or as Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) noted, “The best explanation of President Trump’s victory are the ‘results’ of thescumbag/liar-nObama Presidency!”

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/58151?mailing_id=3727&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3727&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             Most Americans likely agree that workers deserve a fair wage, and that CEOs like Amazon’s billionaire socialist Jeff Bezos (owner of The Washington Post) are paid too much money, but in a free-market system the wages and salaries of workers are determined by the value of labor within the system, not by bureaucrats or polls. And this prompts the question: Should the federal government force companies to pay higher wages?
               commie-Bernie Sanders, the socialist senator from Vermont, thinks so. And he’s got an even bolder plan. Along with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), commie-Sanders has drafted a bill called the Stop BEZOS (Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies) Act, which would tax large corporations at a rate equal to the amount of federal benefits their employees receive from the government.
               (Did we mention that Sanders owns three homes, including a $600,000 lake house?)
               commie-Sanders relies on bogus research that, as Investor’s Business Daily notes, lumps in with regular workers “those putting in as little as 10 hours a week, 27 weeks of the year. It’s hardly surprising that some of these part-time, transient workers rely on government benefits, but that’s not Amazon’s fault.”
               Emily Stewart writes at Vox, “How the commie-Sanders/Khanna legislation would be implemented is not clear. Sanders’s office says that the IRS would have to consult with the United States Department of Agriculture, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to issue regulations to make it work. They haven’t offered more specifics.” No surprise there. The devil is always in the details.
               And don’t think for a second that if this bill ever becomes law it would be the last stage in the process. Imagine if dummycrats-Democrats had the power to nationalize health care again or guarantee other government services for every citizen. Corporations would then be forced to cover the social costs of all their workers, not just those at the lower end of the economic ladder.
               But this plan is pure political theater to motivate the dummycrats-Democrat base in the midterms. After all, a recent poll revealed that they now prefer socialism to capitalism. And if dummycrats-Democrats take back Congress in November, look for a bill like this to come up for a vote.
               commie-Sanders’s proposal to tax corporations is yet another “feel good” progressive solution that solves nothing.
               In fact, it causes other problems that we’re already seeing in certain industries. One of the side effects of the Stop BEZOS proposal includes companies replacing workers with automation or raising consumer prices in order to pay for the tax. They may also be more likely to find loopholes in order to avoid the taxes. And since there are plenty of middle-class Americans who receive  government assistance in one form or another, companies may be hesitant to hire low-income workers in the first place. This is the slippery slope of socialism trying to ride on the back of capitalism, and it ends up hurting workers and consumers every time.
               As for the notion raised by some on both the Left and the populist Right that we’re already subsidizing employees of these companies, the American Enterprise Institute’s Michael R. Strain writes, “Walmart, Amazon and McDonald’s are not being subsidized by taxpayers because some of their employees receive assistance from safety-net programs. Instead, employers of lower-wage workers are surely reducing safety-net rolls.”
               Nonetheless, dummycrats-Democrats are portraying this issue as the rich taking from the poor. And this, of course, is their go-to strategy for mobilizing working-class and poorer voters to support various progressive schemes. But the reality is far more complex, and the government is simply not capable of replicating the value of work in a free-market system.
               The Stop BEZOS Act is only the first step, but instead of penalizing corporations, we need to focus on the root causes of wage stagnation and poverty. We should be looking to expand the economy and raise wages through free-market solutions rather than oppressive taxation. Doing so can help us ensure that fewer of our fellow Americans will need a social safety net in the first place.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/58117?mailing_id=3723&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3723&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             We recall Kyle’s heroism and sacrifice because his widow, Taya, so thoroughly took down Nike over the company’s  disgraceful ad featuring unemployed former NFL quarterback and social justice warrior Colin Kaepernick. In a blistering public letter to Nike, Taya Kyle wrote:
               At best, that is all Colin sacrificed… some money and it’s debatable if he really lost his career over it. Maybe he sacrificed the respect of some people while he gained the respect of others. Or maybe he used one career to springboard himself into a different career when the first was waning. I don’t know. What I do know is, he gained popularity and magazine covers he likely wouldn’t have gotten without getting on his knees or as you say, “believing in something.” I’m also thinking the irony is that while I am not privy to the numbers, it’s likely he gained a lucrative Nike contract. So yeah… that whole “sacrificing everything” is insulting to those who really have sacrificed everything.
               You want to talk about someone in the NFL sacrificing everything? Pat Tillman. NFL STARTING, not benched, player who left to join the Army and died for it. THAT is sacrificing everything for something you believe in.
               How about other warriors? Warriors who will not be on magazine covers, who will not get lucrative contracts and millions of followers from their actions and who have truly sacrificed everything. They did it because they believed in something. Take it from me, when I say they sacrificed everything, they also sacrificed the lives of their loved ones who will never be the same. THAT is sacrificing everything for something they believe in.
               Indeed, the one who sacrificed everything isn’t the ingrate millionaire who hates his country despite his success and who turned a failing football career into social justice martyrdom and a lucrative ad campaign. It’s America’s Patriot Armed Forces and their families — particularly the ones who lost their lives serving the country they love. It’s men like Pat Tillman and Chris Kyle.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/58115?mailing_id=3723&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3723&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             The most outlandish bout of political theater on abortion this week occurred while Sen. Dianne Fein-stein (D-CA) was lecturing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh — an originalist whose jurisprudence doesn’t bode well for judicial despotism like Roe v. Wade. On Wednesday, Fein-stein ridiculously asserted, “In the 1950s and ‘60s, the two decades before Roe, deaths from illegal abortions in this country ran between 200,000 and 1.2 million. … So, a lot of women died.”
               These numbers were supposedly obtained from the Guttmacher Institute, but as the Washington Examiner’s Becket Adams reveals, Fein-stein was spewing fake news: “The Guttmacher Institute has reported no such thing. What Sen. Fein-stein claimed during Wednesday’s hearing is either her own ignorant misreading of the institute’s reporting or it’s an intentional, outright lie.”
               Instead, Guttmacher reports, “Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967.” Fein-stein is conflating two very distinct things — the estimated number of unlawful abortions every year before they became legal, and maternal deaths. So her assertion this week that up to 1.2 million mothers died because abortion wasn’t yet legal — and therefore hazardous to the mother — is a fabrication.
               Yet she does unintentionally make a very important point. A huge number of people diddie every year during that period. In fact, a life is taken every time an abortion occurs, regardless of whether or not abortion is legal. Legality makes no difference. Remember, 60 million babies have been terminated since abortion was legalized. Fein-stein told Kavanaugh, “How you make a judgment on these issues is really important to our vote as to whether to support you or not. Because I don’t want to go back to those death tolls in this country.” The truth is, even if abortion procedures went from hazardous to “safe,” those death tolls never actually went away.

             Before nominating him for an Academy Award, there’s just one problem: Soon after the performance was over, the claims of scumbag-Booker’s “rebellion” quickly began to fall apart.
               First, regarding the “confidentiality” of the emails, a representative from the George W. Bush library records, Bill Burck, stated, “We cleared the documents last night shortly after Senator scumbag-Booker’s staff asked us to.” He added, “We were surprised to learn about Senatorscumbag-Booker’s histrionics this morning because we had already told him he could use the documents publicly. In fact, we have said yes to every request made by the Senate dummycrats-Democrats to make documents public.” And the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmed that “restrictions were waived before 4 a.m. this morning and made ready for release. The senators were notified of this before speaking began this morning.” So, in short, the emails were not confidential and scumbag-Booker was fully aware of this fact before he introduced them as such.
               Second, scumbag-Booker’s claim that the emails seemingly revealed that Kavanaugh had expressed racial bias by having approved of the practice of “racial profiling” proved to be unfounded — in fact, they showed exactly the opposite. In commenting on racial profiling following the government’s response to national security issues after the 9/11 attacks, Kavanaugh wrote, “The people who favor some use of race/natl origin [sic] obviously do not need to grapple with the ‘interim’ question. But the people (such as you and I), who generally favor effective security measures that are race-neutral in fact DO need to grapple — and grapple now — with the interim question of what to do before a truly effective and comprehensive race-neutral system is developed and implemented.” Clearly, Kavanaugh was concerned about race in profiling.
               Finally, the real reason behind scumbag-Booker’s theatrics is his posturing for a 2020 presidential run. In an interview on Fox News, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) observed, “That’s not the Cory scumbag-Booker that I know that I watched on television. That is someone that is trying to position himself as the frontrunner so he can take on Donald Trump.” This explains why in a CNN interview,scumbag-Booker continued to stick to his demonstrably false narrative, repeatedly insisting, “I am breaking the rules. … I am breaking the sham rules.” You see, he needs to maintain his “street cred” as a resistance warrior or risk losing his leftist base.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/58119?mailing_id=3723&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3723&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body