Thursday night, all the evening news broadcasts led with the same story — Russia is meddling in the 2020 elections to reelect Donald Trump. Here we go again.

Evidently, the House Intelligence Committee, led by Rep. swcumbag/liar-Adam Schiff, got a classified briefing about Russian interference in the 2020 election. Sure enough, someone leaked details of the briefing to The New York Times. Any guesses as to who leaked?

Curiously, the briefing took place last week, but we didn’t hear about it until Thursday when polls showed Trump’s ratings were up. What an odd coincidence.

Predictably, Democrats are claiming that this news justifies their impeachment efforts. As you no doubt recall, liar-Pelosi and scumbag/liar-Schiff repeatedly said, “We can’t wait until the election. He’s already working with Russia to steal 2020.” This is nonsense.

Let’s go back to the 2016 election. It was not stolen. Period. President scumbag/liar-nObama assured us that the elections could not be rigged, and we were later told that no votes were altered.

Russia spent $1.25 million a month on social media. In contrast, the Trump and scumbag/liar-Clinton campaigns spent over a $1 billion. But we’re supposed to believe that Russia’s “drop in the bucket” made all the difference.

And what magical thing did Russia do with that money? It ran memes like this one: “scumbag/liar-Hillary is a Satan, and her crimes and lies had proved just how evil she is.”

If scumbag/liar-Hillary’s 30+ years in public life hadn’t already convinced anyone that she was bad news, surely no internet ad would. To believe the minuscule Russian ads cost scumbag/liar-Hillary the election is delusional.

Here’s more proof that Russia wasn’t helping Trump: After the election, Russia sponsored anti-Trump demonstrations all over the country with the theme “Not My President.” Michael Moore and thousands of other leftists poured into a New York rally that was “sponsored” by Vladimir Putin. They were what the Soviets used to call “useful idiots.”

Unfortunately, the real Russian interference is working. Russia is trying to sow chaos and discord. It is trying to create a pre-Civil War atmosphere in America by making half the country doubt our elections and the legitimacy of our president.

Sadly, the left and its media allies are playing right into Putin’s hands.

Look at His Policies

The idea that Russia prefers America First Trump over Comrade Sanders, who honeymooned in the Soviet Union, is laughable. Just compare the president’s policies to those any Democrat president would follow.

• Trump has massively increased defense spending. Every Democrat candidate wants to cut it.

• Trump’s major theme is that America was great, is great, and he wants to make it even greater.

• The Democrat Party base believes America was evil, is evil, and has done nothing but oppress people all over the world.

• Trump has successfully pressured NATO allies to boost their defense spending. Putin definitely does not want that.

• Iran is a major Russian ally. Trump got us out of scumbag/liar-nObama’s nuclear deal with Iran. Trump’s sanctions are crushing Iran’s economy, and he took out Qassem Soleimani, who regularly went to Russia to meet with Putin.

• Trump’s policies have made us the leading energy producer in the world, devastating Russia’s budget. Every Democrat wants to ban fracking and gut the American energy industry.

• Trump gave Ukraine lethal weapons that Barack Obama never would.

No One Is Infallible

God bless the men and women who work in our intelligence agencies. They have protected us from many horrors over the decades. They have also been horribly wrong on many occasions.

As we have also seen, the previous administration appears to have weaponized parts of the intelligence community against the president and those who voted for him.

CIA Director George Tenet, a scumbag/liar-Clinton holdover, told President George W. Bush that the intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was a “slam dunk.” We never found them.

Before that, the intelligence community largely missed the attack on 9/11. With all our best capabilities, we did not see the worst attack on our soil since Pearl Harbor coming our way.

The CIA consistently underestimated the Iranian nuclear program. If it wasn’t for Israeli intelligence, President Trump would not know the true extent of Iran’s cheating.

Just a few months ago, China celebrated the 70th anniversary of the communist takeover of the country. It had a huge military parade in Beijing. U.S. military experts were stunned by what they saw. One official said in response, “We’re no longer in a period of overwhelming American dominance.” How did our intelligence agencies miss that?

My point is simply this: Our intelligences agencies are vital, but they are not infallible.

I believe there are ideologues in those agencies who are being intentionally obtuse in their interpretations of the intelligence. Russia doesn’t care who is elected. Putin is simply trying to damage America with the false narrative that he is deciding our elections.

By the way, there’s not enough space here to remind you of how often over the decades Russia and other nations have managed to infiltrate our intelligence agencies, including at the highest levels.

The Left Is Helping Russia

If you were so filled with anti-American vitriol and wanted to undermine confidence in our constitutional republic, what would you do? Well, you would plant seeds of doubt about America’s basic goodness and institutions.

You would start a narrative that America was founded in 1619, when the first slaves arrived, and not 1776. You would say that America was evil from the start because of slavery.

You would tell the country that the Electoral College was created to suppress minority voters so that America could be ruled by white, rural counties.

You would spread the outrageous lie that our Constitution thought blacks were only partial human beings.

You would tell the country that the Supreme Court, which for decades has done the left’s bidding, is now an illegitimate organization controlled by the radical right, corporate interests, and two justices who harassed women.

You would get multiple states to refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement agencies trying to remove criminal illegal aliens.

You would constantly berate law enforcement and praise extremists like Colin Kaepernick.

You would tell America’s youth that free-market capitalism is inherently corrupt and Jesus was really a socialist.

In short, if you wanted to undermine the America experiment, you would do what the left is doing every day.

Speaking of 1619…

As we’ve told you, The New York Times has a special project that is being accepted into schools all over the country. It teaches that America was founded in 1619 with the introduction of slavery, and not that the end of slavery began with the beginning of America thanks to the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.

When The New York Times isn’t busy demonizing our founding, what else is it doing? Well, Friday’s front page of America’s “Paper of Record” was filled with the false narrative that Russia is stealing the 2020 election.

Further in you’ll discover that the “Gray Lady,” as the Times is often called, gave over the editorial page to the Taliban.

Sirajuddin Haqqani, a Taliban leader, who has a $10 million bounty on his head and is responsible for the murder of many Americans and countless Afghanis, is being allowed by the left’s flagship newspaper to tell us what his demands are.

That’s what New Yorkers read Friday morning in the city that was attacked on 9/11 because the Taliban allowed Al Qaeda to plot the attacks in Afghanistan.

But according to the left the real threat to America is Donald Trump and Mike Pence.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/68773?mailing_id=4883&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4883&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Health Secretary Matt Hancock, who believes “no act of violence or abuse is minor,” wrote to all NHS staffers, “Being assaulted or abused is not part of the job. Far too often I hear stories that the people you are trying to help lash out. I’ve seen it for myself in A&Es, on night shifts, and on ambulances.”

To implement his new program, Hancock has reached a joint agreement with police and the Crown Prosecution Service. It will grant the police greater powers to investigate and prosecute cases where NHS staffers are presumably victims of a crime. “All assault and hate crimes against NHS staff must be investigated with care, compassion, diligence and commitment,” he declared.

No sane person would argue that healthcare providers must endure people who threaten them with violence or are actually physically abusive. In fact, staff can currently refuse to treat such people. Yet the additional measures are pure pablum aimed at assuaging progressive sensibilities. As Sky News puts it, the new protections will “extend to any harassment, bullying or discrimination, including homophobic, sexist or racist remarks.”

Defined by whom? Some hypersensitive snowflake indoctrinated to believe “white privilege,” gender “fluidity,” “social justice,” or any other manifestation of the “woke agenda” should be part of the criteria for determining who gets treated and who doesn’t?

Apparently so. While a 2019 survey of 569,000 NHS employees revealed that 15% have experienced physical assault, rising to 34% among ambulance staffers, more than one in four stated they had experienced harassment, bullying, or abuse over the past year. “Racism was the most common form of discrimination, but 2019 also saw the highest levels of reported sexism and intolerance of religion and sexuality,” the Daily Mail reports.

“All colleagues in the NHS deserve to work in a safe, caring and compassionate environment,” Hancock insists. “You deserve a working environment that supports your physical and mental health, and helps you be the very best you can be.”

Again, with a large exception for safety, this is utter nonsense. There is no perfect world where patients, already injured, impaired, and/or stressed enough to seek care, will comport themselves solely in a manner that uplifts the entire consumer-provider relationship and helps the provider to be “the very best you can be.”

As for a compassionate and caring environment, who’s kidding whom? In 2008, British medical ethics expert Baroness Warnock asserted that people suffering from dementia are a burden on the NHS and should be allowed to opt for euthanasia, even if they are not in pain.

Four years later, Professor Patrick Pullicino, a consultant neurologist for East Kent Hospitals and professor of clinical neurosciences at the University of Kent, asserted  that the “Liverpool Care Pathway,” which provided palliative care for terminally ill patients, was killing off 130,00 people per year, because they were difficult to manage — or to free up beds for other patients.

In 2017, the NHS decided to single out obese people and smokers. Those with a body mass index over 40 were denied nonemergency surgery unless they lost weight. Smokers had to quit for at least eight weeks and then had to be tested to detect the levels of carbon monoxide in their blood to make sure. Also in 2017, the NHS took away the parental rights of Chris Gard and Connie Yates so their gravely ill son, Charlie, could “die with dignity” rather than receive experimental treatment in America.

Thus, while the latest agreement precipitated by Hancock refers to the possibility that NHS staffers may be abused by people in crisis or with neurological conditions who will ostensibly be handled appropriately, the track record of antipathy toward “certain” types of patients — as in those insufficiently attuned to progressive sensibilities — is impossible to ignore.

The group most likely to offend? “Elderly people make up most of the patients in any health care system,” explains  columnist Andrea Widburg. “They are also the people least likely to be ‘woke.’ Without malice, they may use old-fashioned phrases that are now considered offensive when referring to women, homosexuality, or race. They probably don’t even have a vocabulary for ‘non-binary’ people.”

Even more to the point, conditions like early onset dementia and Alzheimer’s engender serious changes in behavior, often manifested as hostility. How will those  patients be “appropriately handled”? Columnist Paul Joseph Watson illuminates the arc from the present to a highly dystopian future — one that isn’t solely about lack of treatment for the elderly. “First it was deplatforming people from social media websites, then it was deplatforming people from bank accounts and mortgages.” he writes. “Now it’s deplatforming people from hospital treatment. Literally eliminating people’s right to basic health care because of their political or social opinions.”

Right now, when Americans go to a hospital for nonemergency care, they are usually asked to present proof of insurance and/or another from of identification, such as a driver’s license. Will those politicians who champion a system similar or identical to the NHS ultimately require patients to submit access to their social-media accounts as well?

As columnist Laura Hollis explains, “The new NHS rule is intended to protect health care workers from insults and slurs. But it is easy to see how something similar in the United States could be twisted for political advantage, particularly given the widespread tendency in some quarters to treat every political, policy or cultural disagreement as an expression of hate: racism, sexism, homophobia or other bigotry.”

That would be progressive quarters where “microaggressions,” “triggering,” and “implicit bias” are seen as reasonable ways to determine “improper” behavior.

Yet even Hollis somewhat misses the point. In certain professions, putting up with annoying or tough customers is part of the job, and the notion that anyone could err to the side of hypersensitivity with regard to refusing someone healthcare is absurd. Moreover, unlike Britain, we have a First Amendment that allows for free speech, even if — or especially if — it is offensive.

In reality, the NHS is embracing an exclusionary political agenda sold as compassion. That’s not healthcare. It’s tribalism.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/68775?mailing_id=4883&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4883&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body 

The group’s argument is simply that the economy under President Donald Trump is being run by free-market fundamentalism and is leaving many behind.

Yet to accept the premise of the American Compass folks, one would have to believe that federal, state, and local governments are pretty much hands-off in their approach to markets. Clearly, that’s just not so. Governments at all three levels routinely pick winners and losers, which  always ends up yielding more regulation. That in turn creates imbalance and the redistribution of wealth, which permits bad behavior among individuals who, in completely free markets, would instead stand responsible for behavior and choices.

Sounding a great deal like social justice lite, American Compass Executive Director Oren Cass declares, “Conservative economics will take seriously the effects of social and market forces on each other. It will concern itself with the pernicious effects that the high level of economic inequality can have on the social fabric, the market’s functioning and people’s well-being.”

Instead of focusing on this new group that will get big money, write papers, and posit a new intellectual approach to markets, what if conservatives just addressed the perverted incentives and the constructs of a market that still picks winners and losers?

Let’s take a look.

A growing number of Americans are not embracing socialism because of the failure of capitalism or the mythically unfettered free market. Socialism is popularized in theory because much of America’s economy is influenced by corporatism and cronyism posing as capitalism.

Socialism is an economy of wealth redistribution void of merit or responsibility with concentrated power in the hands of the governing elite overseeing said redistribution. Cronyism is a framework of business where success results from government picking winners and losers with targeted tax breaks or protection laws that either prohibit competition or assist in erecting barriers to competition. Corporatism merges aspects of capitalism and socialism without the complete destruction of private-property rights, but it essentially protects big companies from free-market forces for some identified “public good” that typically serves the well-connected interests of the governing elite over the consumer or other competing interests.

It is not “free-market capitalism” to allow banking, health systems, big tech, and all things big to find protections from competition and distortions of market forces under the premise of a “public good” when the government selectivity protects certain interests and not the power of the individual consumer.

Critics of capitalism are angered with misbehaving capitalists. Bad actors give any effort, cause, or endeavor a bad name. The greedy, the immoral, and the corrupt who operate behind the guise of free markets but are predatory or exploitive give capitalism a bad name. Hence, laws and regulations are put in place to deal with the bad actors and, thus, change the market influence and forces. As William F. Buckley Jr. often quoted, “The trouble with socialism is socialism. The trouble with capitalism is capitalists.” The solution isn’t to fight the straw man of supposedly unfettered markets.   

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/68774?mailing_id=4883&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4883&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Case in point: Following last week’s intelligence briefing before the House Intelligence Committee, in which lawmakers were notified of Moscow’s continuing efforts to interfere in our nation’s electoral process, the mainstream media’s headlines declared that Russia favors President Donald Trump in 2020. “It’s 2016 all over again,” declared leftist political pundits and Democrats as they dusted off the false narrative that Trump’s victory was due to Russian interference.

Once again, there is no evidence that our nation’s actual election process was compromised, rigged, or manipulated by the Russians or anyone else. The interference being breathlessly reported is largely that of a disinformation campaign waged mostly online via social media. While serious, it only becomes problematic when Americans lose trust in those ostensibly tasked with objectively reporting the news.

On Friday, a new headline hit declaring that the Russians are working to boost Bernie Sanders’s campaign. The news was based on the leak of a classified briefing Sanders received a month ago in which he was notified by U.S. intelligence officials that Russians were actively engaged in an effort to support his campaign, evidently in a similar fashion to that of Trump’s. There is little doubt that the Russians are doing exactly that, especially given that, ideologically, they have much more in common with Bolshevik Bernie’s policy platform than Trump’s.

The problem, however, is the obviously timed leak to the media. Responding to the news, Sanders alluded to this, stating, “I’ll let you guess, about one day before the Nevada caucuses, why do you think it came out?” In any case, Sanders disavowed any Russian help, insisting, “I don’t care, frankly, who [Vladimir] Putin wants to be president. My message to Putin is clear: ‘Stay out of American elections, and as president I will make sure that you do.’”

Trump also blasted the media report, declaring, “MSDNC (Comcast Slime), CNN and others of the Fake Media, have now added Crazy commie-Bernie to the list of Russian Sympathizers, along with Tulsi Gabbard & Jill Stein (of the Green Party), both agents of Russia, they say. But now they report President Putin wants Bernie (or me) to win.” He then observed, “The reason for this is that the Do Nothing Democrats, using disinformation Hoax number 7, don’t want commie-Bernie Sanders to get the Democrat Nomination, and they figure this would be very bad for his chances. It’s all rigged, again, against Crazy commie-Bernie Sanders!”

The problem is not the MSM reporting on Russian efforts to interfere; it’s that the MSM plays along with Moscow’s false narrative suggesting that the Russians’ objective is seeing a certain individual win the election, i.e. Trump or commie-Sanders. The real objective of Russia’s disinformation campaign is to sow distrust in America’s electoral system, with the aim of further dividing our nation and weakening our government. Would Putin prefer a feckless Democrat such as Sanders to Trump? Most definitely, but his greater and longer-term goal is permanently disabling Americans’ trust in our electoral system.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/68790?mailing_id=4883&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4883&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Many have noted the dilemma the socialists — er, I mean the Democrats — are in over the prospect of Sen. commie-Bernie Sanders winning their nomination. If nominated, they’re running a socialist. If not, their base will be out of sorts.

It’s time for a reckoning. The Democratic Party is going to have to be honest with itself — and the American voters — sooner or later. It is already mostly socialist. But is it ready to embrace the label?

While a majority of Democrats now have a favorable view of socialism (just think about that for a second), a majority of Americans do not, though the gap is shrinking thanks to liberal academia, Hollywood and Democratic propaganda.

Democrats always go left during primaries and pretend to be moderate during the general election campaign. But radical leftism now controls their party, and they have little plausible deniability.

If Sen. Elizabeth dinky/liar-Warren is the nominee, which seems unlikely, we’ll see the media conspiring with her to deceive voters about her socialism. With policies sometimes to the left of commie-Sanders, she still hasn’t owned up to the label.

If commie-Sanders, a card-carrying socialist, is the nominee, there’ll be no point in the media denying it — and commie-Sanders probably won’t either, though crazier things have happened than a proud socialist temporarily shedding his Marxist cap to win the presidency and push the nation further toward socialism.

There’s an arguable parallel between the 2016 Republicans and the 2020 Democrats in that each had a broad range of candidates. And if Sanders is nominated, each will have chosen an unorthodox candidate, but one whom the base can enthusiastically endorse.

The similarities end there. While the left repeats with mind-numbing monotony that the Republicans just keep moving further to the right, that’s really not true. Under President Donald Trump’s leadership, our conservative policies have finally lined up with our rhetoric, but our rhetoric — our agenda — hasn’t become appreciably more conservative since former President Ronald Reagan.

Yes, I’m aware that our never-Trump friends on the right will descend into spasms over my remark that Trump is governing conservatively, but most (not all) of those self-described “principled conservatives” are too busy cavorting with Democrats to be taken seriously. I’ll concede that Trump appears to have strayed from conservative orthodoxy on trade, but even there he’s more of a horse trader than a protectionist. He’s willing to take risks to secure better deals, but this isn’t ideological for him; it’s business, which is who he is and what he’s about.

If Bernie loses, Democrats will have to convince their hopping-mad base that they were forced to settle on a racist-sounding gazillionaire whose tax returns and emoluments clause issues will bite them in the rear — or some other lackluster candidate who will still be light-years better than the evil Donald Trump. Anyone but Trump.

If commie-Bernie wins, Democrats will have bigger problems. It’s not just that commie-Bernie’s an avowed socialist. It’s the economy, stupid! It’s the improved standard of living and rising employment across the board, especially for minorities. It’s the astounding stock market. It’s Trump’s bullishness on America, and America is, in fact, stronger again. It’s that Trump has fulfilled his promises. It’s that Trump and his exceptionally united Republican Party have, by delivering solutions, robbed Democrats of their talking points.

All they’ll have left is identity politics, which means exaggerating race problems, manufacturing gender problems and engaging in all out thermonuclear class warfare. But every bit of that message is pessimistic. No hope and change on the horizon. All the Democrats have is negativity — complaining about Trump, and whining about unfairness and alleged inequalities.

But given that all income groups are improving and race relations are better than under former President Barack scumbag/liar-nObama, Democrats will have trouble winning the swing states with only negativity. It doesn’t really matter how much is owned by these evil liberal capitalist billionaires — Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, etc. If people’s lives are better — and they are — class envy won’t be nearly as seductive.

With Democrats always having a built-in electoral vote advantage, Republicans should never be smug about an upcoming election. But we should be optimistic, and we have objective reasons to be. By almost all measures, America is doing better under President Trump. Four more years!   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/68741?mailing_id=4879&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4879&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body 

The only thing that can be said about former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s first appearance with his fellow Democratic presidential candidates in Las Vegas Wednesday night was that Mike did not get it done, as his campaign ads promise he will if he becomes president.

He was boring, expressionless and could not defend himself against past racist, sexist and misogynistic comments, including one mentioned by Elizabeth dinky/liar-Warren, who said Bloomberg once referred to women as “fat broads” and “horse-faced lesbians.” He also refused to release women who worked for him from sexual harassment nondisclosure agreements, apparently because that would reveal even more of his outrageous behavior than is already known.

While President Trump was mentioned a few times, most of the “debate” was about the candidates carving up and interrupting each other. Watching it made it sound like there is nothing good about America, homelessness is a national plague (mostly in cities and states run by Democrats, which the moderators failed to mention), and according to some of the candidates, most people are unhappy with their health insurance and want the government to take over.

Democrats call it “Medicare for all,” but it is the single-payer option, a government-run insurance program, which likely means the federal government will in effect become your doctor, deciding who gets care and who doesn’t, who ultimately lives or dies, based on age and diagnosis, and whether you take more from the treasury than you contribute in taxes.

Much of the second hour of the debate focused on the cult of “climate change,” which most Democrats seem to believe in more than they believe in God. The overpopulated panel of moderators failed to ask Bloomberg about a Fox News report (perhaps because they hate all things Fox) that a program funded by Bloomberg pays the salaries of lawyers in the offices of some state attorneys general to “pursue climate-based litigation.”

According to the Daily Wire, a conservative news and opinion site, “The arrangement, which currently pays the salaries of Special Assistant Attorneys General in 10 Democratic AG offices,” the Fox report found, “is drawing new scrutiny now that Bloomberg is running for president. The New York University School of Law’s State Energy & Environmental Impact Center, which was started in 2017 with $5.6 million from Bloomberg’s nonprofit, hires mid-career lawyers as ‘research fellows’ before providing them to state AGs where they assist in pursuing ‘progressive’ policy goals through the courts.”

A number of Republican attorneys general, the Daily Wire reported, “have raised concerns about Bloomberg’s funding of government lawyers, especially since he began his 2020 campaign.” It quoted West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey: “This is a fundamental question of ethics and who’s running our government. When you actually get to place someone under a specific agenda and then pay them and they’re within the office, that starts to call into question whether there are multiple masters within an attorney general office and that starts to really stink.”

Bloomberg appears to be using his considerable wealth in ways other than paying for those ubiquitous TV ads. If his record as mayor of New York City is any indication of how he would behave as president, he should not even be allowed in the tourist line at the White House, unless you are comfortable with government telling you how large a soft drink you can consume, whether salt should be available at restaurants and you are fine with your guns being taken away, along with other constitutionally protected liberties.

While Bloomberg’s money might keep him on political life-support, his credibility as a presidential candidate took a major hit Wednesday night from which he is unlikely to recover.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/68739?mailing_id=4879&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4879&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Wednesday night’s Democrat debate was a bare-knuckles brawl right from the beginning. Barely three minutes into the debate, Elizabeth dinky/liar-Warren came out swinging and landed multiple punches on Michael Bloomberg. Here are some brief observations:

• I couldn’t help but think how humiliating it had to be for Mike Bloomberg to raise his hand to get the moderators to call on him. At one point, he asked in sheer frustration, “What am I, chicken liver?” Well, that’s the most expensive chicken liver in history.

• Bloomberg has already spent more than $300 million and is prepared to spend $1 billion or more. Some of his campaign staff are making more than $30,000 a month, and there are reports that he has guaranteed them that salary through November, whether he’s the nominee or not. My advice to the New York billionaire: Fire whomever prepped you for the debate. They clearly did not earn their $30,000 this month.

• Amy Klobuchar and socialist-Pete Buttigieg went at each other regularly and intensely. Are they both competing to be vice president?

• loose lips liar-Joe Biden did better than he has in previous debates, but that’s not saying much. He really struggled during his response on climate change, and even touted one of scumbag/liar-nObama's failed green-energy boondoggles as a model of success.

• commie-Bernie Sanders had to be thankful that Bloomberg was there. It kept everyone else from going after him. commie-Sanders is after all the frontrunner in the national polls, leading loose lips liar-Biden by double digits.

Speaking of commie-Sanders, he was endorsed yesterday by Emgage PAC, the nation’s largest Muslim political action committee. You don’t get the endorsement of a group like that unless they are certain you are anti-Israel and will, as Barack scumbag/liar-nObama did, reorient America’s foreign policy away from Israel and toward countries like Iran.

Not surprisingly, Sanders has also been endorsed by anti-Semites worthless-Ilhan Omar, worthless-Rashida Tlaib, and lowlife-Linda Sarsour.

Down but Not Out

In spite of being the clear target of every candidate on the stage Wednesday night, you cannot count out someone with Bloomberg’s resources. It’s worth noting that exponentially more Americans have seen and heard pro-Bloomberg ads than watched Wednesday night's disastrous performance.

But while Bloomberg is winning some praise for his defense of capitalism, don’t confuse him for a moderate.

He wants to rejoin scumbag/liar-nObama’s absurd Paris Climate Accord and the Iran nuclear deal.

He wants to take away your Second Amendment rights.

He’s all in on abortion on demand.

He’s an apologist for communist China.

And he’s got lots of other crazy ideas like taxing the poor.

Trump Honors Our Heroes

Wednesday night’s Democrat food fight was a striking contrast to the 15,000 cheering patriots at Donald Trump’s Arizona rally, which took place at the same time.

There was an incredibly moving moment during the rally when two men carried Ervin Julian, a 100-year-old World War II veteran, to a seat near the stage. This man fought real fascists, not imaginary fascists the antifa mob beats up.

I’m sure many Americans were very emotional watching that scene. They probably remembered a father or grandfather who served in World War II. I know it reminded me of my deceased father, Spike Bauer, who fought in the South Pacific, and my uncle, Ed Webber, who fought in Europe.

Sadly, there are many Americans who have no clue about that history. But when Trump says he wants to make America great again, he’s talking about Ervin Julian. He’s talking about restoring our country to the greatness of the Greatest Generation.

While the left obsesses over America’s flaws, it is imperative that we remind our children and grandchildren about our country’s tremendous accomplishments, including the importance of winning World War II. Just imagine if we had lost. The world would have sunk into complete darkness.

Having saved the world from Hitler’s fascism and Soviet communism, it should be easy to make the case that America is a great nation, full of good and decent people.

1776 Unites

I am pleased to report that a group of scholars has come together to defend our nation. They are specifically rebutting the absurd claims of the 1619 Project, launched by The New York Times, to recast America as a racist nation founded on the evil of slavery. (The first African slaves arrived in America in 1619.) Public schools across the country are embracing this fiction and teaching it as fact in their classrooms.

Many historians have spoken out against the 1619 Project. And now several of the nation’s preeminent black scholars, pastors, and activists are pushing back too and speaking up for America through what they are calling “1776.”

These black scholars are offering “alternative perspectives that celebrate the progress America has made.” They are also working to “highlight the resilience of its people.”

As Professor Glenn Loury noted, it is wrong to blame American for slavery because “Slavery was a fact of human civilization since antiquity. Abolition is the new idea … a Western idea not possible without the democratic institutions that were built in 1776.”

Robert Woodson, one of the principals behind 1776, blasted the negative message coming from The New York Times, saying that it “discourages blacks” and that “nothing is more lethal than a good excuse for failing.” He said the creators of the 1619 Project “don’t believe in America,” adding, “I get the impression that they don’t believe in black people.”

Another participant in 1776 is former Vanderbilt Professor Carol Swain, who has done outstanding research on the impact of illegal immigration on the black community. Swain slammed the 1619 Project for offering a “very crippling message to our children.”

Please, talk to your children about what they are being taught in their schools about America. If they are being exposed to the 1619 Project, contact their teachers, school administrators, and your local school-board members and insist that they incorporate material from 1776 for a more balanced and accurate history of America.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/68742?mailing_id=4879&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4879&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Controversy was sparked after President Donald Trump publicly weighed in on the excessive sentencing recommendation prior to Barr’s announcement of his review. Much of the mainstream media claimed Trump had pressed Barr to act. Barr responded to Trump by essentially telling him to stop publicly commenting on DOJ criminal cases as it was making it “impossible” for him to do his job.

Seeking to fuel the false narrative of a Trump-Barr collusion scandal, all four prosecutors on the Stone case withdrew in protest of the DOJ leadership’s decision. Predictably, House Speaker liar-Nancy Pelosi blasted Barr’s decisions and called for an investigation: “It is outrageous that DOJ has deeply damaged the rule of law by withdrawing its recommendation. Stepping down of prosecutors should be commended & actions of DOJ should be investigated.”

This was a self-inflicted controversy Trump could have avoided. As Mark Alexander observed, “Trump unintentionally set up Barr for claims of collusion and corruption, and left Barr in between a rock and hard place. As Barr noted: ‘Once [Trump’s comment posted], the question is, now what do I do? Do you go forward with what you think is the right decision or do you pull back?’”

Fortunately, irrespective of the MSM narrative and liar-Pelosi’s politically calculated objections, Judge Jackson agreed that the federal prosecutors’ original sentencing recommendation was excessive, proving the assessments of both Barr and Trump correct. However, Judge Jackson did excoriate Stone in her sentencing, stating, “The truth still exists; the truth still matters. Roger Stone’s insistence that it doesn’t, his belligerence, [and] his pride in his own lies are a threat to our most fundamental institutions, to the foundations of our democracy. If it goes unpunished, it will not be a victory for one party or another. Everyone loses. The dismay and disgust at the defendant’s belligerence should transcend party.”

It has become apparent that Trump is acting to establish his own narrative to counter that of the Democrats and their media allies. As ham-fisted as he may be at times, he is likely setting the stage for his eventual decision to pardon Stone and others caught up in the Democrats’ and the deep state’s politically motivated Russia-collusion hoax. And Trump is correct in noting that they were all targeted in a concerted effort to seek his removal from office. Will Trump act to pardon Stone before the election?  

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/68748?mailing_id=4879&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4879&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

We’ve seen this pathetic movie before, so there’s no need in rehashing how Democrats and their Leftmedia super PAC seized on phony allegations that Trump “colluded” with Russia to defeat scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton in 2016. They spent nearly three years yammering about it only to finally be distracted by the Ukraine fiasco. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t some aspects of this story that deserve a refresher.

First of all, this isn’t new. As Mark Alexander argues, “Russia has strived to interfere with American elections since the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 and the rise of the Soviet communists. The only thing new about this ‘interference’ is that it has been, and remains, fodder for the Left to undermine Trump’s presidency. The irony is, leftists and their Leftmedia propagandists are, as they were in 2016, backing a communist who they hope will defeat Trump.”

Anyone remember when Ted Kennedy requested Soviet interference to help defeat Ronald Reagan in the 1984 election? The New York Times doesn’t, because that inconvenient history doesn’t help Democrats now.

Today’s news follows the same template used in 2017. As the Times reminds us, “The intelligence community issued an assessment in early 2017 that President Vladimir V. Putin personally ordered a campaign of influence in the previous year’s election and developed ‘a clear preference for President-elect Trump.’ But Republicans have long argued that Moscow’s campaign was intended to sow chaos, not aid Mr. Trump specifically.”

Republicans were exactly right. Besides, Trump has been tough on Russia throughout his presidency, and his work to bolster U.S. energy production (especially via fracking), strengthen NATO, and stabilize Europe and the Middle East are directly counter to Putin’s objectives. The idea that Putin truly prefers Trump over Sanders or any other Democrat is ludicrous.

Moreover, Moscow generally interferes in a way that supports the expected loser in order to undermine the eventual winner. Given that everyone thought scumbag/liar-Clinton was going to win in 2016, that left the Russians with the obvious choice of “backing” Trump. Their objective succeeded beyond Putin’s wildest dreams, as Democrats aided him in peddling the narrative that American election integrity was compromised and a duly elected president was somehow corrupt, even going so far as to impeach that president. Putin got four years of chaos out of a few Facebook ads. Of course he’s going to run that same play (with necessary operational tweaks), and Democrats, the Leftmedia, and apparently some deep-state intelligence officials are all too eager to help him.

One final history lesson: Barack scumbag/liar-nObama’s administration was well aware of Russian efforts to interfere all throughout 2016, yet scumbag/liar-nObama and his cadre of deep-staters said and did nothing to stop it, in part because it was so ineffectual but primarily because they didn’t want to taint Clinton’s supposedly certain victory. Only when Trump shocked the world by winning did scumbag/liar-nObama’s gang decide to turn this “crisis” into an opportunity to undermine the incoming president with the Russia-collusion hoax.

After last week’s report to Congress, Trump removed acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire and chose German ambassador Richard Grenell to take his place. It’s part of a general and much-needed house cleaning after Trump’s impeachment and acquittal. Nevertheless, the Democrats’ 2020 playbook is now evident.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/68749?mailing_id=4879&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4879&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Twenty-three years ago, I was asked to give a talk to the New York City Bar Association as part of a symposium titled “Executioners, Jailers, Slave Trappers and the Law: What Role Should Morality Play in Judging?” I was charged with addressing what judges should do when faced with moral quandaries over issues like partial-birth abortion (also called “dilation and evacuation abortions,” or “D&E abortions”) and physician-assisted suicide. While I was discussing the present, the other panelists — most of whom were judges — were discussing the past (as in, “What should judges have done about slavery?” or “Should judges have taken stronger stances against fascism in Germany?”).

Observations I made back in 1997 strike me as even more significant now. I said: “How does an unjust law come into existence? How does an evil law come into existence? … (These laws) do not come sweeping into our lives like a blizzard. They come in like cold air through cracks in a window. … I must confess, I am particularly concerned by the modern advocacy for physician-assisted suicide at a time when we are also arguing for more government intervention, if not control, over the health care system. … I am very concerned about the prospect of a faceless bureaucracy making decisions about the adequacy, the appropriateness and the finality of care. We all should be.”

One thing that did not occur to me in 1997 was the prospect of withholding health care based upon one’s political views. In the current climate, with Democratic presidential candidates advocating for “Medicare for All,” it should.

Universal health care activists love to point to England’s National Health Service, or NHS, as a model. It isn’t a model for plenty of reasons including chronic underfunding, staff shortages, bed shortages, long wait times (even NHS champions admit that patients can wait over a year for anything beyond basic care), “war zone” conditions for easily anticipated situations (like winter flu season) and shockingly poor cure rates.

That is concerning enough. But this week, Sky News reported that new rules that will take effect in April permit NHS staff to refuse to treat patients who are homophobic, sexist or racist.

To be clear, this rule applies only to nonemergency care. And it is intended to shield NHS workers from barrages of verbal abuse. (There are similar rules in place now that apply only to aggressive or physically violent behavior.)

Medical caregivers should not be subjected to vicious and insulting tirades by people they are trying to help. But I cannot help but wonder what would happen if the United States were to implement single-payer health care and such a rule were put into place here.

A few years ago, the idea that someone could be refused health care because of his or her politics would have seemed hysterical and absurd. But perhaps not anymore.

In 2013, it was revealed that the Internal Revenue Service under the administration of former President Barack scumbag/liar-nObama had been deliberately holding up and delaying applications for tax-exempt status if they were filed by conservative organizations or had “tea party” in their name, leaving them unable to fundraise in support of conservative candidates in the 2012 elections. Lois Lerner, then-director of exempt organizations for the IRS, apologized, saying that these decisions were inadvertent and not deliberate discrimination. She was placed on administrative leave and then resigned. But Lerner refused to testify before a congressional committee when asked to do so, instead invoking her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. She was subsequently held in contempt of Congress. Congress then asked the IRS for Lerner’s emails, which mysteriously disappeared when her server “crashed.” This doesn’t sound “inadvertent.”

Similarly, Americans wonder why some people who are accused of lying to Congress or law enforcement — like Roger Stone, George Papadopoulos and former national security advisor Michael Flynn — receive convictions and/or face long prison sentences while others — like scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton and Andrew McCabe — get a pass.

When the IRS can discriminate against the president’s political opponents, and when we see a two-tiered system of justice that appears to favor rich, powerful or well-connected Democrats, that does not inspire much confidence that a government-run system of health care would be operated fairly and dispassionately.

As noted above, the new NHS rule is intended to protect health care workers from insults and slurs. But it is easy to see how something similar in the United States could be twisted for political advantage, particularly given the widespread tendency in some quarters to treat every political, policy or cultural disagreement as an expression of hate: racism, sexism, homophobia or other bigotry.

Left-wing organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center smear Christian activists as homophobic and post them on their map of “hate groups.” Social media giants pull down posts and videos from conservatives and pro-life activist groups such as Prager U and Live Action. College campuses are notoriously intolerant of conservative speakers, and shut down speakers and other events with threats of violence.

And then there’s the antifa movement, which treats every political disagreement as incipient fascism that justifies violence.

The point is not that these groups are arms of the government. The point is how easy it has become to smear people as “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobic” or “haters.”

Under those circumstances — and given the discrimination we have seen our government engage in — I am even more leery of government-run health care than I was back in 1997.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/68713?mailing_id=4876&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4876&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

Sen. Elizabeth dinky/liar-Warren’s reason for doing so was unintentionally hilarious. “It’s not just about expansion, it’s about depoliticizing the Supreme Court,” she stated.

Others were less amusing. “It’s no more a departure from norms than what the Republicans did to get the judiciary to the place it is today,” asserted socialist-Pete Buttigieg. “Bold, ambitious ideas need a hearing right now.” Sen. Amy Klobuchar was more pragmatic, saying, “You always want to look at all ideas, but I think right now the most reasonable thing is to win the elections and to try to stop the bad judges.”

As the Democrats’ orchestrated debacle at the Brett Kavanaugh hearings indicated quite clearly, “bad judges” are seemingly those appointed to the Court by President Donald Trump. Thus, the evisceration of a decent man’s reputation, courtesy of rank political maneuvering and an unprecedented level of media smearing, was perfectly acceptable.

By contrast, Sen. commie-Bernie Sanders would attempt to achieve the same result by a different means. “I do not believe in packing the court,” he said. “We’ve got a terrible 5-4 majority conservative Court right now. But I do believe constitutionally we have the power to rotate judges to other courts and that brings in new blood into the Supreme Court and a majority I hope that will understand that a woman has a right to control her own body and that corporations cannot run the United States of America.”

A “terrible 5-4 majority” is in the eye of the beholder. As George Washington University associate professor Brandon L. Bartels inconveniently pointed out in 2018, swing-vote Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement gave Trump and a GOP Senate “the chance to cement a reliable conservative majority on the Supreme Court for the first time since the New Deal began.”

The New Deal was initiated in 1933. Thus, what Democrats really want is what they had for more than three-quarters of a century, as in a Court willing to implement agendas rejected by state legislatures and/or voters themselves. Toward that end they have no problem whatsoever when a majority of justices “discover” previously undiscovered constitutional rights that align with leftist ideology.

In short, no one is more pleased with a “politicized” Supreme Court than the same Democrats who would pack it when that agenda may no longer be realized.

Moreover, their appetite for judicial supremacy is hardly satiated by SCOTUS. In a speech at the American Law Institute on May 21, 2019, Attorney General William Barr noted as much. “Since President Trump took office, federal district courts have issued 37 nationwide injunctions against the executive branch,” he stated. “That’s more than one a month. By comparison, during President [Barack] scumbag/liar-nObama’s first two years, district courts issued two nationwide injunctions against the executive branch, both of which were vacated by the Ninth Circuit. And according to the [Justice] Department’s best estimates, courts issued only 27 nationwide injunctions­ in all of the 20th century.”

There’s a method to the madness of judicial activism favored by the American Left. As columnist David Horowitz has pointed out, SCOTUS only heard 60 cases in 2018. “Meanwhile,” he notes, “the lower courts heard tens of thousands of cases, and their dockets are full of every political issue under the sun.”

Why is that important? Because the sheer volume of cases advantages the activism.

Despite that advantage, it’s still not enough for a party seeking unassailable power. “More and more Democrats are becoming convinced that we cannot resign ourselves to the third branch of government being captive to partisan Republican forces for the next 30 years,” stated  Brian Fallon, a former scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton advisor who now heads the group Demand Justice.

On the other hand, being captive to partisan Democrat forces is fine, even if it requires stacking the court. “To many leftists and left-liberals, such drastic action is needed if any progressive legislation in the future is to survive,” Vox columnist Dylan Matthews wrote in 2018. “The concerns in question have less to do with hot-button social issues like abortion and LGBT rights and more to do with the constitutionality of economic regulation and redistributive programs.”

Aaron Belkin, San Francisco State University associate professor and executive director of Pack the Courts,  echoes that sentiment. “The strategy is to make the 2020 [Democrat] candidates understand that if they don’t come up with an agenda to deal with the courts, everything they are talking about is going to be dead on arrival,” he insists.

Again, note that if “progressive legislation” aligned itself with a majority of Congress or voters themselves, SCOTUS rulings would be irrelevant. That it not only isn’t but also requires court packing to pass a legislative agenda that would otherwise “be dead on arrival” speaks volumes.

Fortunately, Democrats would have to gain complete control of Congress and the presidency to make it happen. The Constitution grants Congress the power to determine the number of justices, and it passed the Judiciary Act of 1869, setting the number at nine.

Democrats assert that packing is justified due to Republicans refusing to hold a vote on Judge Merrick Garland in 2016. Republicans countered that it was not proper to hold a vote during an election year, a position supported by loose lips liar-Joe Biden in 1992, when he insisted a “lame duck” president should not be in a position to nominate a justice. (It should be noted that Garland would have changed the ideological composition of the Court, and Republicans wanted voters to weigh in.) Democrats’ fury intensified when Donald Trump beat “sure thing” scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton and put Neil Gorsuch on the Court.

Democrats have convenient memories. Prior to 2013, nominees for federal courts and SCOTUS effectively needed 60 votes, meaning a filibuster could thwart a nomination indefinitely. Former Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry dinky-Reid was incensed by such GOP-led filibusters holding up his judicial picks, so he invoked what is known as the nuclear option, lowering the threshold to a 51-vote majority for all judges except those appointed to SCOTUS. Following Trump’s victory, Republican and current Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell extended the nuclear option to SCOTUS justices, paving the way for the appointment of Gorsuch by a 54-45 margin.

Tit for tat? Absolutely. But Democrats have no one to blame but themselves, mostly for assuming Republicans would never behave like … Democrats.

Hence, court packing becomes the next “logical” step in a dangerous game of one-upmanship. Leftists’ real agenda? Like their desire to eliminate the Electoral College, abolish or reconfigure the Senate, and give voting rights to felons, 16-year-olds, and illegal aliens, court packing is about what it has been since FDR first attempted it: the acquisition and maintenance of power, by any means necessary.

Americans should remember that agenda next November.  

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/68706?mailing_id=4876&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4876&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Bloomberg then asserts, “If you show up with prostate cancer and you’re 95 years old, we should say, ‘Go and enjoy — lead a long life. There’s no cure. We can’t do anything.’ A young person, we should do something about it. Society’s not willing to do that yet.” (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, call your office.)

Predictably, Bloomberg’s comments invited condemnation, though his assessment of the costs associated with government-provided healthcare was accurate. As Sarah Palin warned back in 2009 — to great mockery from the Left — a government takeover of America’s healthcare system would lead to the creation of “death panels.” Bloomberg’s comments simply confirm the reality that in a socialized medical system, cost assessments done by government officials rather than a patient and his doctor would be the ultimate determining factor as to what type and level of care an individual could expect to receive.

This is what makes socialist commie-Bernie Sanders’s “Medicare for All” plan so noxious and dangerous to Americans’ healthcare needs. In fact, not only has commie-Sanders doubled down on his extreme plan but he’s now saying that it represents a “compromise” position. In other words, it doesn’t go as far as he wants. commie-Sanders opined this week, “My view is that Medicare for All … is already a compromise. It is a four-year transition period.”

The problem is that Bloomberg’s plan isn’t much better. He still embraces more government as the “solution,” leading inevitably to government dictating people’s healthcare choices. While he doesn’t advocate commie-Sanders’s plan for a complete government takeover of healthcare, he does call for a public-option plan that essentially amounts to scumbag/liar-nObamaCare with more price controls.

In the end, the “solutions” both Bloomberg and commie-Sanders offer to rising healthcare costs come from the same big-government ideological perspective. The only difference is a question of degrees of control.   

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/68722?mailing_id=4876&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4876&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Mark Alexander suffered through the debate on your behalf, and here are some of his real-time observations:

As I have avoided these debates thus far, it is interesting to see this crew in action – they HATE each other. And all of them are demonstrably inept. I understand why the Iowa and New Hampshire Demo turnouts were unimpressive. Making the spectacle more obnoxious is the electronic backdrop behind the candidates with giant stars distractingly floating around – looks like AV console operator took some bad drugs.

This actually just happened: commie-Bernie Sanders was listing all the ethnic groups that the Democrats need to motivate, and when he mentioned “Native American,” dinky/liar-Warren raised her hand. It was part of the second grade classroom hand-raising contest on stage, but appeared as if she was again, trying to claim her native heritage.

Warren is HAMMERING Bloomberg, relentless on his hush money to female employees he has insulted or assaulted. This is most likely going to be the takeaway on Bloomberg. And the Demos’  Leftmedia propagandists will trumpet dinky/liar-Warren’s attack because they are mostly commie-Bernie fans.

Listening to commie-Sanders for more than just soundbites, it quickly becomes evident that he is on another planet. He fabricates facts in virtually every sentence, just pulls most of his facts out of thin air. This helps explain why he is so appealing to adolescents.

Everybody is referring to Bloomberg as “mayor” after his years ruling over NYC, which diminishes socialist-Buttigieg’s “mayoral status.” socialist-Buttigieg took some cheap shots at Klobuchar and Warren came to her defense – some staged sisterhood thing.

Predictably, they are all attacking Bloomberg. socialist-Buttigieg had a good shot against commie-Sanders and Bloomberg, saying that commie-Sanders wanted to “burn this party down” while Bloomberg “wants to buy this party out.” socialist-Buttigieg insisted, “Let’s put forward somebody who’s actually a Democrat.”

For pretty much the first 30 minutes, loose lips liar-Joe Biden said next to nothing. Apparently his strategy is just to let the rest of the crew attack each other, uninterrupted fratricidal fire.

Halfway in and Bloomberg is fumbling badly. But with the hundreds of millions of dollars he’s spending on advertising, it won’t matter what his stage performance looked like. All most Americans will know about Bloomberg will shaped by his media soundbites. Bloomberg has now spent about $430 million and it’s his first appearance – for perspective Trump spent about $650 million in 2016.

In the end, Bloomberg was the big loser, and never should have appeared on this stage. dinky/liar-Warren’s Bloomberg attacks made commie-Sanders the winner. But my overall takeaway, this is confederacy of dunces.

Perhaps the most glaring example of the venom in the debate last night was dinky/liar-Warren’s broadside on Bloomberg’s demeaning comments about women and nondisclosure agreements to cover them up. “I’d like to talk more about who we’re running against — a billionaire who calls women ‘fat broads’ and ‘horse-faced lesbians,’” Warren said. “I’m not talking about Donald Trump. I’m talking about Mayor Bloomberg.”

After Bloomberg offered an incredibly lame deflection on the nondisclosure agreements, Warren leveled him. “I hope you heard what his defense was. ‘I’ve been nice to some women,’” dinky/liar-Warren said. “What we need to know is exactly what’s lurking out there. He has gotten some number of women — dozens, who knows — to sign nondisclosure agreements both for sexual harassment and gender discrimination in the workplace. So, Mr. Mayor, are you willing to release all of those women from those nondisclosure agreements so we can hear their side of the story?”

Bloomberg’s reply? “None of them accused me of doing anything other than maybe they didn’t like a joke I told.” That didn’t play well with the audience. But again, most Democrat voters won’t know anything about the hits he took; they will only know what his next $500 million in ads tell them.

Other candidates hit Bloomberg too. “I think we need something different from Donald Trump,” declared Amy Klobuchar. “I don’t think we look at Donald Trump and say, ‘We need someone richer in the White House.’”

“We have a grotesque and immoral distribution of wealth in income,” Sanders thundered. “Mike Bloomberg owns more wealth than the bottom 125 million Americans. That’s wrong. That’s immoral. That should not be the case.”

But Bloomberg hit back, especially at commie-Sanders and his socialism. Bloomberg has eight enormous estates around the world, but when challenged about his wealth, he jeered, “What a wonderful country we have. The best known socialist in the country happens to be a millionaire with three houses.” commie-Sanders responded he does have a “camp,” which you can see here.

“We’re not going to throw out capitalism,” Bloomberg insisted. “We tried that. Other countries tried that. It was called communism, and it just didn’t work.”

Mark Alexander concluded, “Obviously, Bloomberg never should have gotten on that stage, but like most the insular mega-wealthy, he thought he was bullet proof. And Warren won the debate … for commie-Sanders.”

More fun to come: Debate 10 is 25 February in Charleston, SC, and 11 is 15 March in Phoenix. Will Bloomberg attempt to redeem himself? Probably.   

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/68724?mailing_id=4876&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4876&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Senate Minority Leader Chuck scumbag-Schumer is not happy—again. And neither are other elected Democrats who have mounted a full-scale attack against Attorney General William Barr for recommending a reasonable prison sentence for Roger Stone, rather than the draconian sentence Barr’s subordinates advocated in a court filing.

scumbag-Schumer, D-N.Y., wants the Justice Department inspector general to investigate Barr because scumbag-Schumer thinks Barr gave Stone a sweetheart deal at President Donald Trump’s direction. Barr denies it.

Whether the inspector general takes up the issue is anyone’s guess. But if his office does, its report no doubt will highlight the fact that all lawyers in the Justice Department work for the attorney general, and that every attorney general has the right to overrule (and even fire) his subordinates in any case.

For his part, Barr told reporters that “the essential role of the attorney general is to keep law enforcement, the criminal process sacrosanct to make sure there is no political interference in it. And I have done that, and I will continue to do that.”

Contrary to the claims against Barr of unfair “political interference” in the pending sentencing of Stone, his handling of the over-the-top recommendations by prosecutors demonstrates that he is doing exactly what attorneys general are supposed to do and that he is committed to restoring evenhanded enforcement of our nation’s laws.

No one disputes that Stone was accused and convicted of several serious crimes—obstructing a congressional investigation, making false statements to Congress, and witness tampering.

Let’s set aside questions that have arisen about the trial and conviction given the recent revelations that the jury foreperson, a former Democratic congressional candidate, exhibited an anti-Trump bias in numerous posts on social media (calling Trump a #KlanPresiden) and tweeted specifically about Stone’s arrest.

Everyone agrees that Stone—once duly convicted—must be punished for his actions.

But what is an appropriate punishment? And more importantly, who gets to decide?

Those are the questions that came to the forefront when four career prosecutors recommended that Stone—a nonviolent, first-time offender—serve seven to nine years in prison, and even more so when scumbag-Schumer requested that the inspector general investigate the overriding of the prosecutors’ recommendation by higher officials within the Justice Department.

Stone’s base offense level under the federal sentencing guidelines—which are only advisory in nature—calls for him to serve 15 to 21 months in prison. The prosecutors on the case, however, submitted a sentencing memorandum arguing that several other enhancements should apply that would raise the proposed sentence to seven to nine years.

Prosecutors argued that the biggest of these enhancements should apply because Stone threatened “to cause physical injury to a person, or property damage, in order to obstruct the administration of justice.”

Their basis for that claim is several statements made by Stone when he told a potential witness—radio talk show host Randy Credico—that Credico should “prepare to die” and that Stone would take his dog away from him.

True, these sound bad on their face. But Credico told the judge he did not take these bombastic threats seriously and never felt physically threatened. In fact, Credico said that these “bellicose tirades” were just “Stone being Stone. All bark and no bite.”

Thus, when taken in context, this recommended enhancement seems like a stretch—something that would be more appropriately applied in an organized-crime case or gang-related case.

If this single enhancement were removed, Stone’s guideline range would drop significantly, to 37 to 46 months in prison.

Federal judges typically give great weight and serious consideration to the recommendations of the prosecutors on a given case. Here, the Justice Department filed an amended sentencing memorandum telling the judge that “the range of [approximately seven to nine years] presented as the applicable guidelines range would not be appropriate or serve the interests of justice in this case.”

The Justice Department noted that a sentence of approximately seven to nine years “more typically has been imposed for defendants who have higher criminal history categories or who obstructed justice as part of a violent criminal organization.”

In protest of this revised sentencing memo, the four prosecutors who made the original recommendation resigned from the case. One resigned from the Justice Department.

scumbag-Schumer and others claim that the recommended lower sentence is the result of undue political influence in the criminal justice process.

House Speaker liar-Nancy Pelosi of California, Sen. scumbag-Cory Booker of New Jersey, House Judiciary Chairman scumbag liar-Jerrold Nadler of New York, Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Sen. Elizabeth dinky/liar-Warren of Massachusetts are among other prominent Democrats criticizing Barr.

dinky/liar-Warren has called for Barr’s impeachment, as have others on the left and in the media.

Really? What choice did those at the Justice Department have–up to and including Barr—but to step in and correct an unreasonable and unduly harsh sentencing recommendation?

This is particularly the case in light of reports that the recommendation these prosecutors made was, in fact, far harsher than what they told senior leadership they were going to make to the court. This raises questions about whether the prosecutors misled Barr and other department leaders in the first place.

It is the duty of the attorney general to lead the Justice Department by setting priorities and ensuring the fair administration of justice, devoid of political influence or pressure.

Subordinates in the department, including all assistant U.S. attorneys and each of the 94 Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys, work for the attorney general, not the other way around. If they don’t like the attorney general’s priorities, they can resign.

This matter is complicated, of course, by President Donald Trump’s tweets about the sentencing recommendation for Stone.

Yes, the president has a right to tweet. But it can complicate the case when this or any other president makes public statements about an ongoing federal criminal matter. It’s what President Barack scumbag/liar-nObama did in 2009 about the appropriateness of the death penalty for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, accused of being a planner of the 9/11 attacks.

Here, it appears that Barr’s decision to amend the government’s sentencing memo took place before Trump’s tweet blasting the original sentencing memorandum as “horrible and very unfair.”

This undercuts scumbag-Schumer’s claims of political interference. Barr says the president’s tweets had nothing to do with his decision.

Barr’s actions were necessitated by the initial unfair (and seemingly unjustified) recommendation of up to nine years in prison for a nonviolent, first-time offender.

His actions as attorney general were an important step toward ensuring accountability in the Justice Department and fulfilled his promise to restore the impartial administration of justice for all of our nation’s citizens.  

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/68686?mailing_id=4872&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4872&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

To watch the mainstream media, one would think we’re living in the most violent time in the history of America. In reality, gun-related murders in general, and school shootings in particular, are less frequent now than 30 years ago.

Another “epidemic” that causes anxiety for parents is bullying. But is it really an epidemic? Is bullying more common, or crueler, than in previous generations? Or are we simply raising a generation of victims, discouraged from standing up for themselves and incapable of dealing with the types of bullies that have been around forever?

“Many states have even passed anti-bullying laws, only to discover that the laws not only fail to fix the problem but probably make it worse,” notes The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh. “We have sent armies of psychologists into the schools, with the hope that medicalizing the problem might do the trick if legislating it didn’t work. And if all else fails, we have recourse to anti-bullying PSAs, anti-bullying seminars, anti-bullying websites, anti-bullying posters, and anti-bullying bumper stickers. But there is little evidence that any of these measures have made a significant impact.”

Many of today’s parents remember being told when they were children, “You better not start a fight, but if someone picks a fight with you, you’d better end it.” Not so now. Today, the bully and the victim are treated as moral equals if the victim has the temerity to actually fight back.

The idea that “it doesn’t matter who started it” is logically ludicrous and morally reprehensible. It absolutely does  matter who started it. To say otherwise would be to argue that, if a rape victim fought back and killed her attacker, she and the rapist bear equal blame for the outcome. No sane person would take such an obviously idiotic position.

To say otherwise sends a horrible message to children, who should be taught that there is nothing laudable about being weak or cowardly. There is nothing praiseworthy about allowing evil to prevail uncontested.

Children are told that they should be the “bigger person” and walk away from bullies. That’s fine, to an extent. Certainly, we should not encourage children to throw punches if someone mocks their new haircut or criticizes their shirt. But what should the response be to relentless public humiliation? To being slapped, kicked, punched, or tripped? How many times should the victim walk away? And what message does it send to the bully when they are allowed to be school-aged tyrants who torment their peers without consequence?

Bullies thrive on power. They lust for the feeling of dominion they get over a submissive, terrified victim. Like a junkie, they get high on the feeling of dominating a weaker person. And like a junkie, over time it takes more and more to achieve that same high. The hateful, humiliating words get viler. The physical abuse gets more aggressive.

Even worse, when a child walks away from a bully out of fear rather than from a position of strength, no matter what lofty praise parents or teachers heap on the child, the child will still feel the shame and embarrassment of cowardice.

In the end, the only way to deal with bullies is for the victims to fight back. It can be frightening, but it will teach them the lesson that courage is not the absence of fear; rather, it is the willingness to persevere in the face of fear.

As Archbishop Desmond Tutu so eloquently stated, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”   

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/68675?mailing_id=4872&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4872&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Since the law’s implementation, it has been used more than 3,500 times to temporarily confiscate people’s firearms, and, the Associated Press reports, “the pace accelerat[ed] during the last half of 2019.” The question remains: Has the law demonstrably proven to effectively prevent people from harming themselves or others? Predictably, answers vary depending on who is asked.

On the one hand, Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri asserts, “We have needed this law for decades.” On the other hand, sheriffs from several other Florida counties — who have never issued red-flag orders — noted that the reason was that they simply hadn’t needed them.

The crux of the problem with red-flag laws is the violation of constitutional protections for due process. For example, with Florida’s law, if a civil court issues a confiscation order, it’s up to the defendant to not only prove his innocence but also to provide for his own counsel. As the AP notes, “Others say it discriminates against the poor: Because the hearing with a judge is not a criminal proceeding, low-income defendants aren’t provided with a free lawyer.”

Following the red-flag confiscation of firearms, a hearing is held within two weeks wherein a judges decides if the person’s firearms will be withheld for a year. Once again, no actual law has been broken by the individual; confiscation happens merely based upon the arguments and evidence presented by law enforcement that an individual in question poses a threat. The fact remains that these red-flag laws create a highly problematic and dubious system rife with the potential for rampant corruption and the trampling of people’s constitutional rights. The experience of gun owners in Florida largely proves it.  

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/68673?mailing_id=4872&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4872&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body