ACTION

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  

Trump’s decision didn’t sit well with five GOP representatives from Illinois. They expressed their “disappointment” in a joint statement in which they noted that Blagojevich’s sentencing was “appropriate and fair” and represented “the low-end of the federal sentencing guidelines for the gravity of his public corruption convictions.” They further asserted, “Blegojevich is the face of public corruption in Illinois, and not once has he shown any remorse for his clear and documented record of egregious crimes. … We shouldn’t let those who breach the public trust off the hook.”

None of the other individuals Trump pardoned yesterday raised nearly the eyebrows or controversy as Blagojevich, which has most everyone wondering what was behind this decision. One thing’s for certain — this was a long-calculated move that Trump had been publicly mulling since 2018. Was it a setup by Trump to justify an eventual move to pardon those caught up in the Russia-collusion hoax — individuals like Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, and Roger Stone? Possibly. It would certainly take some of the wind out of the sails of those who would claim he was acting on purely partisan instincts given that Blagojevich is a Democrat. And if that is indeed part of Trump’s thinking, would he wait until after the election to act?

Furthermore, Trump can use this to call attention to his efforts on criminal-justice reform, a policy agenda that Democrats have long touted as their own and have used effectively against Republicans, especially with minority voters. Trump has seized that political ground.

Still, that Blagojevich used his power as governor to pursue personal gain is exactly the type of corrupt swamp creature Trump campaigned on cleaning up. It’s easy to see why critics blast Trump’s decision as a clear contradiction of that commitment.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/68695?mailing_id=4872&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4872&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

“Eleven years ago today, near the bottom of the worst recession in generations, I signed the Recovery Act, paving the way for more than a decade of economic growth and the longest streak of job creation in American history,” scumbag/liar-nObama boasted on “Presidents’ Day.”

First, we’ll stipulate something that isn’t said often enough: In America’s free-market economy, presidents have less impact on the economy than they take credit or receive blame for. Presidents are not kings or central-planning despots, even if, like scumbag/liar-nObama, they try to be. It’s also true that every president claims credit for the good and blames the other guy for the bad. That’s politics.

But let’s also set the record straight — again.

The “Great Recession” of 2008-2009 was seeded in the 1990s with Democrat policies regarding mortgage lending. The bubble that created took more than a decade to burst, but when it did, the crisis of confidence  yielded the worst recession since the Great Depression.

It’s also arguable that, unpopular and controversial as it was, Bush prevented a worse catastrophe by working with the Democrat Congress to bail out major banks. That decision certainly remains open for criticism, but scumbag/liar-nObama, to coin a phrase, didn’t build that.

What scumbag/liar-nObama did build was the slowest recovery in U.S. history. When the economy is, as he said, “near the bottom,” the only place to go is up. But it took a long time to move up because scumbag/liar-nObama increased federal spending dramatically, passing out “stimulus” cash to his favored constituency groups while promising “shovel-ready jobs” that never really materialized. Where the economy did grow, such as the energy sector, it was despite scumbag/liar-nObama’s best efforts to stifle that growth with draconian regulations and higher taxes. scumbag/liar-nObama oversaw two terms without a single year exceeding 3% economic growth — the average was just 2.1%. That was unprecedented, and it was appallingly bad for a recovery.

It is true that since scumbag/liar-nObama signed the Recovery Act America has seen uninterrupted job and economic growth. Even Leftmedia “fact-checkers” would rake him over the coals if that weren’t the case.

Yet in 2016, there were persistent rumblings of another recession as the economy slowed to a crawl. The likely reason that didn’t come to pass is Trump’s election. As his campaign press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, rightly argued, “President Trump reversed every single failed scumbag/liar-nObama-era economic policy, and with it, reversed the floundering scumbag/liar-nObama/loose lips liar-Biden economy.”

Trump grossly overstates the case when he claims, as he did in his State of the Union Address, that “our economy is the best it has ever been.” But his policies of reducing taxes and regulation removed significant obstacles to economic growth and ensured that we are, to coin another phrase, better off today than we were four years ago.

That’s really the point of scumbag/liar-nObama’s empty boast. He knows Democrats are in trouble this year, so, without a Democrat-induced recession in sight to derail Trump’s momentum, the best scumbag/liar-nObama can do is claim credit where it isn’t due.   

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/68662?mailing_id=4870&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4870&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

A constant theme on the left is that Donald Trump is a racist and his supporters are racists. Pete Buttigieg tried to soften the smear by saying that conservative voters were “at best looking the other way on racism.” This obscene accusation is demonstrably false.

First, the president’s economic policies have created tremendous benefits for minority communities. Unemployment rates for blacks and Hispanics are at record lows.

His crackdown on illegal immigration has boosted minority employment, and wages are rising fastest for those at the bottom of the pay scale. Many minorities are asking themselves why the left seems to care more about illegal immigrants than it does about native-born blacks and Hispanics.

Second, President Trump accomplished a number of important achievements that Barack scumbag/liar-nObama did not. Trump pushed through record funding for historically black colleges and universities, and he met with their presidents during the first weeks of his administration. 

Even liberal activist Van Jones gives the president credit, saying, “Black colleges have been struggling for a long time. A bunch of them have gone under. He threw a lifeline to them in real life in his budget.”

Trump signed historic criminal-justice reform, giving many minorities like Alice Johnson a second chance at life. 

Not only has Donald Trump done these things, he’s proud of it. He talks about it at his rallies in front of tens of thousands of MAGA-hat-wearing conservatives. At every one of these raucous events, Trump proudly declares how blacks and Hispanics are better off.

If his supporters were all racists, they should be booing and heading for the exits. But you don’t see that. Instead, they are cheering and applauding because they are good people.

And at the end of these rallies, you don’t just see cheers and applause. You often see tears. Why? Because Donald Trump almost always closes out his rallies by declaring, “We are one movement, one people, one family, and one glorious nation under God." 

While the left tries desperately to divide us with ugly lies and smears, President Trump’s policies are working for all Americans. Not surprisingly, most Americans (61%) now say that they are better off today than they were four years ago. And that sounds a lot like "Four More Years” to me!

Left-Wing Hate

Last weekend a deranged leftist tried to run down Trump supporters in Jacksonville, Florida. 

The same day, a “Bernie bro" vandalized the GOP headquarters in Eureka, California, and attempted to burn it down. Talk about "feeling the Bern!”

On Monday, a retired New York police officer celebrating his 50th birthday was punched in the face by a crazed progressive who assumed he was wearing a MAGA hat. The hat read, “Make Fifty Great Again.”

In New Hampshire Tuesday, a bitter leftist assaulted a teenaged boy in a MAGA hat and then broke the jaw of another man who intervened.

On Thursday, an angry liberal threatened Trump supporters with a cane sword, and, of course, that happened in Florida.

Sadly, such outbursts of left-wing hate and intolerance are happening all the time all over the country, like the Jewish man who was called Nazi by a loony leftist. 

Now, if there were five attacks against Democrats in the past week, I guarantee you the media would be connecting THOSE dots. There would be bold headlines on every front page and breathless reports on every nightly news broadcast. They would all be condemning the president, his supporters, Rush Limbaugh, and his listeners. 

But when the violence comes from the left, there’s none of that. The double standard is disgusting.

What Barr Said

Did you hear Attorney General William Barr diss the president? He told ABC News that Trump should tweet less about certain cases because it makes his job harder. I’m sure you heard that because the media can’t stop crowing about it. 

The White House said the president had no problems with Barr’s comments and that Trump has “full faith and confidence in Attorney General Barr.” Now here’s the rest of the story, which the media aren’t talking about.

Barr said that he met with Justice Department officials days ago to discuss the sentencing in the Roger Stone case. When they told him that prosecutors were pushing a sentence of seven to nine years, Barr said that was out of line. 

He suggested that the department should make no recommendation at all, while making the point that Stone was no threat to the public. That would argue for significantly less jail time, but the decision would be up to the judge. 

Barr left the meeting thinking everyone was on the same page, and was stunned when he heard media reports that prosecutors were asking for seven to nine years. He told his staff Monday night that the department’s position needed to be “clarified." 

The president’s tweet condemning the sentencing recommendation came Tuesday morning. Barr said he "never” discussed the Stone case with the president or the White House. You can watch the entire interview here.

This looks like another example of Deep State resistance. The holdovers from Mueller’s team wanted another Trump scalp and didn’t care what the attorney general said. They assumed that once it was done, once the recommendation of seven to nine years was filed, there was no way Barr would dare to undo it.

Well, there’s a new sheriff in town, and this president and this attorney general are determined to drain the swamp. Barr told ABC he wouldn’t be intimidated by anybody — not the president or even the Deep State bureaucrats who think they run the government.

Fighting for Life

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Thursday scheduled votes on two key pro-life bills — a ban on late-term abortions and a bill to ensure that babies who survive abortions are provided emergency medical care.

These should be easy votes. Polling shows that Americans overwhelmingly oppose late-term abortions and infanticide. 

Unfortunately, left-wing politicians are all in on abortion on demand. Colorado Democrats voted down similar bills this week, and I expect virtually every Senate Democrat will do the same. These votes will expose the pro-abortion extremists in the Democrat Party, drawing clear distinctions for voters this November.

2020 Update

• commie-Bernie Sanders is getting a boost from winning New Hampshire — he’s now up 10 points over Joe Biden in the latest national poll.

• loose lips liar-Joe Biden is facing a new threat in South Carolina and growing calls to drop out of the presidential contest.

• In another big blow to loose lips liar-Biden, Nevada’s powerful Culinary Union declined to endorse a candidate.

• And the blows just keep coming. New polling finds that the Burisma scandal is hurting loose lips liar-Biden’s image and campaign.

• Elizabeth dinky/liar-Warren is pulling her ads in South Carolina and betting it all on Nevada.

• Michael Bloomberg is facing more accusations of racism.

• The chairman of the Iowa Democrat Party is resigning.  ~The Patriot Post

On Presidents Day, we celebrate the life and accomplishments of our first president, George Washington, the father of our country, and Abraham Lincoln, our 16th president and one of our most renowned statesmen.

On that day, Feb. 17 this year, we should remember that the Framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure that an American president — such as Washington and Lincoln — would have the power to defend the country when the safety, security, and independence of its people are threatened.

And that power is exactly what they gave the president in the Constitution when they made him the commander in chief of our military forces.

This is particularly important given recent legislation passed by the House of Representatives, a so-called “war powers resolution.” It condemned President Donald Trump for ordering the lawful targeting of an Iranian general, terrorist mastermind Qassim Suleimani, and ordered Trump to stop using all military force against Iran without prior congressional approval.

Iran has been a longtime state sponsor of terrorism, according to our own State Department, and Suleimani made himself a target. He was a mass murderer responsible for thousands of deaths, including hundreds of Americans.

On a recent trip through Pennsylvania, I was reminded of what Americans have suffered at the hands of terrorists and the importance of having a commander in chief with broad constitutional authority to react immediately to threats against the nation.

On a cold, icy day, my wife and I stopped at the Flight 93 National Memorial, which honors the 33 passengers and seven crew members of United Flight 93 who died when their Boeing 757 airliner crashed into a field just outside Shanksville, Pennsylvania, on Sept. 11, 2001.

We all know what happened on 9/11. Al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial airliners. They flew two into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, and flew the third into the Pentagon, murdering almost 3,000 people.

The fourth flight was United Flight 93. It took off from Newark, New Jersey, headed for San Francisco with four hijackers on board masquerading as passengers. Forty-six minutes into the flight, they attacked the captain and first officer, took over the controls of the airplane, and changed direction to head for Washington, D.C.

Half an hour later, the plane crashed upside down at 563 miles per hour into the field where the memorial is today.

We know what happened in that critical half-hour not only from the cockpit voice recorder recovered by authorities at the horrendous crash site, but from the 37 telephone calls to, and voicemail messages left with, the friends and families of the passengers on the flight.

Through those phone calls, the passengers learned of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon and quickly realized why the hijackers were headed for Washington.

The passengers made a collective decision, took a vote, and decided to attempt to retake the plane. Among the passengers was Todd Beamer, an Oracle account manager who was the father of two sons, David and Andrew, and whose wife, Lisa, was pregnant with their third child.

A born leader, Beamer decided to take matters into his own hands and fight back. Before leading other passengers in a final fight against the terrorists, he called flight dispatch and spoke with Lisa Jefferson. He asked her to say the Lord’s Prayer with him.

After praying with her, Beamer uttered his famous words, “Let’s roll,” to his fellow passengers. The cockpit recorder captured the shouts, crashes, and sounds of the melee that occurred when the passengers attacked, including one who yelled, “Let’s get them!”

The 9/11 Commission concluded that the hijackers crashed the plane when they realized that the passengers were only seconds away from overcoming them and taking back control of the plane.

The Flight 93 National Memorial, just like the National September 11 Memorial & Museum in New York and the National 9/11 Pentagon Memorial, is deeply affecting. Set in a bucolic, quiet Pennsylvania field, the memorial is a solemn reminder of the ravages of terrorism and the triumph of ordinary heroes over evil incarnate.

It is impossible to view, listen to, and read the personal stories of the individual passengers on that flight without being greatly moved and greatly angered. The stories explain what has happened on the plane and what the passengers plan to do about it even as they say farewell to their loved ones.

These average, ordinary Americans took on four jihadist hijackers at the cost of their own lives. They prevented those terrorists from what would have been a devastating attack on a notable location in Washington, most likely the U.S. Capitol or the White House. The Flight 93 crash site is only 18 minutes flying time from Washington.

There is no need to rehash what happened after 9/11, including the immediate steps that President George W. Bush took to safeguard the country and to go after the terrorists who had sponsored, financed, and planned the attack on America. But Bush’s actions illustrate how important it was then, and is today, that our Constitution provides for a strong commander in chief.

As the Justice Department said in a 2001 legal opinion, no law and no congressional resolution “can place any limits on the President’s determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response or the method, timing, and nature of the response. These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the president alone to make.”

That is a good thing.

So while we are celebrating Washington, who led an eight-year fight for our liberty, and Lincoln, who fought to stop the breakup of the Union, we also should be thankful for other presidents who used the strong power of the executive to protect the nation.

That includes President Franklin Roosevelt, who led us in the largest war in our history against two brutal tyrannies, as well as Bush, who acted decisively after the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor.

Trump also should be applauded for taking out a terrorist thug who had American blood on his hands, and who would have continued to kill Americans.

Americans just like those who died on United Flight 93 when it crashed in what the National Park Service appropriately calls “a field of honor forever” in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/68624?mailing_id=4868&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4868&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

As National Review’s Andrew McCarthy observes, “The FBI’s former deputy director, though he undeniably misled investigators, remains a commentator at CNN. In the meantime, Papadopoulos is a felon convicted and briefly imprisoned for misleading investigators, while Flynn and Stone are awaiting sentencing on their false-statements charges. That covers both tiers of our justice system.”

So, why did the DOJ make this decision? Well, it appears to have boiled down to a question of winnability. As unsatisfying as that answer may be, the most unsatisfying answer of all may be that we may never fully know why. That said, there are some indications as to why the DOJ made this decision, and it wasn’t necessarily because of some deep-state cover-up.

First, as former GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy noted, this decision was made regarding a narrow specific incident — McCabe’s lying about a press leak. Furthermore, the DOJ’s announcement does not signal that McCabe is completely out of the woods — not by a long shot. It may be that McCabe factors into prosecutor John Durham’s  ongoing criminal investigation into the origins of the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation. That investigation could reveal much more serious criminal actions than lying about an unauthorized press leak.

A second reason that may have factored into this decision was the DOJ’s recognition that winning a conviction against McCabe was far from a forgone conclusion. The likelihood of getting a conviction with a Washington jury pool in the current highly partisan environment is slim. And adding to this is Trump’s careless penchant for publicly calling for the prosecution of those he believes wronged him. Even if his assessment is accurate, it only serves to bolster any claims from McCabe’s defense that the case is a politically motivated prosecution. As McCarthy states, “If you want people held accountable for their crimes, you have to ensure their fundamental right to due process. When the government poisons the well, the bad guys reap the benefits.”

On a positive note, Attorney General William Barr has installed an outside prosecutor to review Flynn’s case. This is part of a larger effort by Barr; The New York Times reports as he recently “installed a handful of outside prosecutors to broadly review the handling of other politically sensitive national-security cases.” Like a cat tasked with clearing the barn of rats, Barr has set about his work with the utmost seriousness. Trump needs to trust him, let him do his work, and avoid throwing out ammunition for Democrats to use against him.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/68639?mailing_id=4868&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4868&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

“A month before the 2016 presidential election, the FBI met Christopher Steele in Rome and apparently unlawfully shared with the foreign opposition researcher some of the bureau’s most closely held secrets, according to unpublicized disclosures in the recent Justice Department Inspector General report on abuses of federal surveillance powers.” So begins the latest revelation of deep-state corruption, courtesy of Eric Felten and RealClearInvestigations.

Felten continues, “Much of the public reporting regarding this meeting has focused on the information Steele shared with the FBI — and the many reasons agents should have doubted its credibility. But largely neglected has been the opposite side of the equation — what the FBI told Steele. The Inspector General reports that the bureau revealed to him much of the highly classified information that it had gathered regarding alleged Trump-Russia links.” That included information on Trump campaign staffers Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, Paul Manafort, and Michael Flynn — information known only by a select few FBI officials.

“The FBI had every reason to expect Steele to share information with Glenn Simpson, whose client was the Clinton campaign,” Felten adds. And, indeed, “Shortly after the Rome meeting, Steele briefed Simpson on what the FBI had disclosed to him.”

Oh, and the FBI paid Steele $15,000 to attend the three-hour meeting.

Remember, it was Steele who leaked his dossier to Yahoo News’s Michael Isikoff. While the FBI soon cut ties with Steele for that leak, it still used the dossier to obtain surveillance warrants against Page. scumbag/liar-Clinton likewise used Isikoff’s report to hit Trump on the campaign trail.

It’s like a playground game of telephone, only these are big players using each other to confirm bogus intelligence against a candidate for president. scumbag/liar-Clinton hired Steele, who made up dirt on Trump. Steele leaked it to the press, where scumbag/liar-Clinton could pick it up and use it. Steele also gave it to the FBI, which used it to surveil Trump’s campaign. The FBI gave Steele classified information regarding the investigations prompted by his dossier — and paid him to receive it.

This sordid tale is easily, in our view, the biggest corrupt endeavor in the history of presidential campaigns. And we continue learning more as time goes on.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/68638?mailing_id=4868&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4868&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Once again, the Democrats and their media enablers are screaming “IMPEACHMENT!” This time it’s the faux controversy stemming from Roger Stone's sentencing recommendation. To be clear, neither the attorney general nor the president have done anything irregular or illegal, much less impeachable. 

The president is the chief law-enforcement official in the country. He can voice an opinion about a legal matter any time he wants. 

The attorney general is in charge of the Justice Department. It is completely within his purview to review the recommendations of U.S. attorneys, especially if he believes one is particularly out of line. 

Roger Stone is not a threat to the public. He has not committed a harm to society so egregious that he should spend the better part of a decade behind bars. 

As one commentator put it, if leftists were really serious about criminal-justice reform, they wouldn’t be so eager to throw the book at a 67-year-old, first-time, non-violent offender. Even CNN's own legal analyst thought the initial sentence was “excessive.”

So Justice Department officials recommended a lower sentence in Stone’s case. But the sentence will not be set by the attorney general or the U.S. attorney. It will be set by the judge, who is free to ignore any recommendations the government offers. 

But if you’re looking for examples of inappropriate behavior, it is being reported that several members of Roger Stone’s jury had obvious partisan biases. The jury foreman was a former Democrat congressional candidate and an avowed opponent of the president. This raises serious questions of whether Stone received a fair trial. 

And we know that individuals in the scumbag/liar-nObama Justice Department lied to the FISA court to get warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. The House Intelligence Committee, under Rep. scumbag/liar-Adam Schiff, refuses to investigate this gross abuse of power. That sounds like obstruction of justice to me.

Huawei’s Hackers

As you may recall, a big part of the Trump administration’s “get tough” approach to China has been to hold the line against telecommunications giant Huawei due to concerns that it could hack communications systems and allow the Chinese government to spy on virtually everyone.

Here’s one indication of just how seriously the U.S. views this potential threat: Vice President Mike Pence said the Trump administration was “profoundly disappointed” by Great Britain’s decision to allow Huawei to build out part of its 5G infrastructure. 

Pence also suggested that it could even be a “deal breaker” for a future trade agreement between the U.S. and the UK. As you know, Britain is one of our main allies and trading partners.

But Huawei is not a hypothetical threat. The U.S. government knows Huawei is hacking its own communications systems. In fact, we’ve been watching it do it for the past 10 years with its 4G systems. 

Now the Trump administration is sounding the alarm, trying to get our European allies to wake up before they are further compromised by communist China. By the way, the Trump administration just filed new indictments  against Huawei, charging the company with racketeering and conspiracy.

Speaking of Compromised…

As the coronavirus continues to spread, more people are raising concerns about how previous administrations that worshipped at the altar of free trade have seriously compromised our safety and security.

Sadly, we encouraged many manufacturers and drug companies to transfer production to China because far too many politicians and corporate elites bought into the lie that “trade with China will change China." 

Some are warning that China could wage war on us without ever firing a shot. How? Key medicines and pharmaceuticals that millions of Americans depend on could be cut off because we are so dependent on Chinese medical supply lines. 

To be fair and balanced about this, what were Presidents Bush and Obama thinking? Did no one raise this issue before?

And medicines aren’t the only problem. We’re already largely dependent on China for rare earth metals that are critical to everything from iPhones to missiles.

On yet another front, the Department of Education is aggressively going after Harvard and Yale. Both institutions failed to report billions of dollars that they are legally required to disclose from foreign sources like China and Saudi Arabia. 

Not only are they turning our kids into historically ignorant socialists, they are comfortable taking money from Chinese communists and Saudi extremists. Both of these elite schools produce graduates who end up in leading positions in government, industry, and on Wall Street.

worthless-Omar Targets Israel

Rep. worthless-Ilhan Omar (D-MN) just introduced several bills that she’s calling the "Pathway to Peace.” Among other things, her legislation aims to roll back the president’s ability to impose sanctions on nations like Iran and Venezuela, and transfers billions of dollars from the Pentagon to the State Department to establish a “peacebuilding fund." 

And, of course, she’s also targeting Israel. 

worthless-Omar’s Stop Arming Human Rights Abusers Act may sound reasonable, except that when the progressive left complains about "human-rights abuses,” it rarely refers to Iran, North Korea, or Venezuela. It’s almost always a ruse to browbeat and condemn Israel for its response to Palestinian incitement and terrorism.

And worthless-Omar is a leading advocate of the anti-Semitic BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) movement against Israel, which is targeting the Jewish state for its alleged “human-rights abuses.”

What Moderates?

A few post-New Hampshire headlines caught my attention recently. The common theme is that the “moderate” candidates in the Democrat primary are dividing the vote and allowing commie-Sanders to prevail.

This is utter nonsense. There are no “moderates” in this field. I know I have written about this before, but it cannot be stressed enough. 

As we saw in the last Democrat debate, all the candidates (save one) are comfortable with the “socialist” label. They are all pro-abortion, open-borders, big-government extremists. And, please, do not take my word for it.

One news outlet analyzed loose lips liar-Joe Biden’s platform and wrote this:

The 2020 Democratic frontrunner’s emerging policy agenda is anything but moderate… loose lips liar-Biden has proposed ideas more ambitious and liberal than policies supported by scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton in the 2016 campaign.

The Washington Post editorial board recently stated, “No, socialist-Pete Buttigieg and loose lips liar-Joe Biden are not ‘centrists.’” The Post wrote that the narrative of a left/center split in the race was “false." 

It noted that socialist-Pete Buttigieg had "expressed sympathy” for commie-Bernie Sanders’s policy goals, and concluded by observing that, “Every major Democratic candidate is running on an agenda to the left of Mr. scumbag/liar-nObama’s.”

And the left-wing outlet Axios declared, “Democratic ‘Moderates’ Are Liberal As Ever,” adding:

loose lips liar-Joe Biden and socialist-Pete Buttigieg are considered the leading 2020 Democratic moderates, but even they have taken positions to the left of Barack scumbag/liar-nObama… The fact that they’re called centrists now in the media shows how much the Democratic Party has shifted.

Please share this message with all your friends and family members! Don’t let them fall for the fake news that any of the Democrat contenders are “moderates.”   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/68587?mailing_id=4864&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4864&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

As we’ve said before, there are legitimate arguments about presidential and congressional war powers, which is the main reason for the votes of those eight Republicans. The problem is primarily because Congress has become content with leaving those decisions to the president. The president wants the freedom to move troops without the partisan and political squabbling inherent in going before Congress. Members of Congress want all of the political benefit from criticizing the president with none of the responsibility for the policy. No one seems to remember the Constitution’s general prescription for war.

In the case of Iran, however, this resolution is particularly interesting coming on the heels of the successful mission to terminate Gen. Qasem Soleimani, leader of Iran’s elite terrorist Corps-Quds forces and murderer of hundreds of American soldiers. It was a legitimate operation against an enemy of the United States, undertaken in an authorized theater of American military operation.

When Barack scumbag/liar-nObama ordered the mission to terminate Osama bin Laden — not in a theater of American operation, by the way — Mitch McConnell wrote letters of credit and appreciation. Democrats showed no such magnanimity after Trump’s strike against Soleimani. Yet we all know that if scumbag/liar-nObama had killed Soleimani, there would not be a Democrat on the planet complaining about it.

Speaking of scumbag/liar-nObama, most of the Democrat consternation over Trump and Iran stems from Trump keeping his campaign promise to exit the sham nuclear deal. Whereas scumbag/liar-nObama gave Tehran’s mullahs everything they wanted in terms of nuclear development and sent them pallets of cash as ransom for hostages, Trump is having none of it, exiting that deal, increasing sanctions pressure, and killing Iranian terrorists. Democrats can’t stand it and thus are left with toothless resolutions to undermine American foreign policy and national security.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/68591?mailing_id=4864&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4864&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

This week, in what amounts to unfortunate timing — but an entirely avoidable error — at 0145 Tuesday morning, Trump (or one of his social-media minions) posted the following statement about the sentencing of Roger Stone: “This is a horrible and very unfair situation. The real crimes were on the other side, as nothing happens to them. Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice!”

That statement was correct. And Trump has rightly argued about sentencing before, especially in regard to those who have been caught up in dragnets because he and his administration have clearly been the targets of unjust investigations seeded by deep-state actors.

Unfortunately, once again, after the administration’s best week on record, Trump has unwittingly derailed some of that momentum with an unforced error.

For the record, last week was the best of any for the Trump administration. On Monday, Gallup reported that Americans are very optimistic about our country. Tuesday, the president delivered an outstanding State of the Union Address to Congress. Wednesday, he was acquitted on both articles of impeachment, dispensing with the Democrats’ impeachment charade. Thursday, Democrats were in full panic mode about commie-Bernie Sanders and Trump’s increased prospects for reelection. Friday, the administration’s week ended with a stellar jobs report.

But this week, a careless social-media post has diverted attention from that great week.

As it turns out, Attorney General William Barr, the administration’s strongest right-thinking advocate for Rule of Law, had already determined that he would seek a reduction of Stone’s sentencing after his conviction for lying to investigators and obstructing Congress.  According to The Wall Street Journal, “Senior Justice officials had concluded on their own that the sentence recommendation was excessive and had decided to rescind it before Mr. Trump’s tweet.”

Then came Trump’s most egregious error: After becoming aware of Barr’s plan, he doubled down on his assertion about Stone’s sentencing. Trump has the power to pardon Stone, commute his sentence, etc. He should have let this play out and get out of Barr’s way.

In effect, Trump unintentionally set up Barr for criticism, and the latter lamented, “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?”

Predictably, Democrat Party leaders and their Leftmedia publicists immediately claimed that Trump and Barr were colluding on the Stone sentencing. They demanded the resignation or (yes) impeachment of Attorney General Barr.

For his part, Barr rightly rebuked Trump for his carelessnesses: “I think it’s time to stop the tweeting about Department of Justice criminal cases. I’m not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody … whether it’s Congress, a newspaper editorial board, or the president. I’m gonna do what I think is right, and you know, to have public statements … made about the department, about our people in the department, our men and women here, about cases pending in the department, and about judges before whom we have cases, make it impossible for me to do my job and to assure the courts and the prosecutors in the department that we’re doing our work with integrity. I cannot do my job here at the department with a constant background commentary that undercuts me.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell backed Barr: “The attorney general has said it’s making it difficult for him to do his job. I think the president ought to listen to the attorney general. … The president made a wise selection in picking Bill Barr. I think he ought to listen to him. … I think the attorney general knows what he is talking about. … I think he’s told the president this is not helpful, making it difficult for him to do his job. I think the president ought to listen to him.”

Responding on Trump’s behalf, White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham insisted Trump “wasn’t bothered by [Barr’s] comments at all and he has the right, just like any American citizen, to publicly offer his opinions.” She added, “President Trump uses social media very effectively. … The president has full faith and confidence in Attorney General Barr to do his job and uphold the law.”

Memo to Stephanie: Nobody is questioning the “right” of Trump to post comments on social media. We question the wisdom of those comments. This was not an example of “using social media very effectively.” It was an example of using social media very carelessly.

Moving forward, the real test of whether President Trump is capable of a modicum of teachability will be if he takes Barr’s advice, as indeed he should — a cease and desist regarding pointless distractions from his administration’s extraordinary successes and future agenda. Hopefully, having been challenged by Barr, he will not be so “bothered” that he insults Barr, as he has with other former administration officials who have been loyal to him and their oaths “to support and defend” our Constitution.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/alexander/68605?mailing_id=4864&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4864&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Attorney General William Barr had a big day Monday. He began the day by announcing indictments against four members of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. According to the Justice Department, they are responsible for the massive Equifax hack in 2017 that compromised the personal data of nearly 150 million Americans.

In his remarks, Barr noted that China has demonstrated a “voracious appetite for the personal data of Americans.” He cited the Chinese hacking of Marriott hotels, the  Anthem health insurance company, and the Office of Personnel Management, which exposed the records of millions of U.S. government employees.

While I am glad Barr announced these indictments, it is highly unlikely that these Chinese military officials will ever be brought to justice. The real news is what the indictments say about China’s intentions. 

As we reported yesterday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned the nation’s governors that there is a real effort by the communist Chinese government to compromise their administrations and to bully state and local officials. 

Now we know that the People’s Liberation Army is attempting to capture voluminous amounts of information on as many U.S. citizens as possible. Why? 

Barr indicated that the Chinese are using the information to “feed China’s development of artificial intelligence” and for “the creation of intelligence targeting.” Barr also noted that nearly 80% of the government’s economic espionage cases “have implicated the Chinese government.”

This is not how a trading partner treats its allies. America’s corporate and political elites need to wake up and confront the danger coming from Beijing. It is not just a giant marketplace eager to do business with America. 

Suing Sanctuary States

After taking on the communist Chinese, Attorney General Barr turned his attention to the left-wing sanctuary states and cities thwarting the Trump administration’s efforts to deport criminal aliens. 

Speaking to the National Sheriff’s Association, Barr announced that the Justice Department was launching “a significant escalation in the federal government’s efforts to confront the resistance of 'sanctuary cities.‘”

Barr blasted “so-called 'progressive’ politicians” for “jeopardizing the public’s safety by putting the interests of criminal aliens before those of law-abiding citizens.” He said:

When we are talking about sanctuary cities, we are talking about policies that are designed to allow criminal aliens to escape… Their express purpose is to shelter aliens whom local law enforcement has already arrested for other crimes. This is neither lawful nor sensible.

Barr announced that in addition to pending federal lawsuits against California, the Justice Department will also sue the state of New Jersey and King County, Washington, seeking to overturn illegal “sanctuary” policies. And he made it clear that these actions are just the beginning.

While some try to downplay the connection between crime and illegal immigration, this is an extremely serious issue, which the left completely ignores. 

A recent report from Texas revealed that more than 200,000 illegal immigrants were booked into local jails over the past eight years. Combined they committed nearly 500,000 offenses, including:

• 500 homicides

• 297 kidnappings

• 3,122 sexual assaults

• 23,954 assaults

• 2,026 robberies

• 8,070 burglaries

• 3,158 weapon charges.

Kudos to the Trump/Pence administration for taking on the left’s open-borders extremism and for putting the safety and security of American citizens first!

Defending Faith

Monday, I attended a day-long meeting at the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. Among the many issues discussed was how to adequately describe a country like Iran, whose supreme leader has repeatedly declared that one of his regime’s stated goals is a second Holocaust through the “annihilation” of the Jewish state. 

After that, I flew to San Antonio, Texas, to address the Christians United for Israel (CUFI) Leadership Summit regarding growing religious persecution around the world. CUFI has devoted significant resources to fighting anti-Semitism, as well as Christian persecution overseas.

I believe every church in America should be speaking up on this issue. I know many pastors are uncomfortable addressing issues like marriage and abortion because they don’t want to “get involved in politics." 

But there is no excuse to not speak up for Christians around the world, many of them poor and people of color, who are being shot, hacked to death, burned alive, and sold into slavery. It’s not a surprise that the world looks the other way when Christians are murdered in massive numbers. But it’s inexcusable for the Church to look the other way. 

If your pastor has not addressed the persecution of Christians recently, please urge him to speak up.

Trump Revs Up Republicans

While the media are focused on the Democrat horse race, President Trump went to New Hampshire Monday and fired up Republican voters like only he can. He packed a 12,000-seat arena and even the overflow area was overflowing! 

ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl noted that the Democrats held an event at the same arena over the weekend, and even with all Democrat candidates there together the crowd for Trump was "bigger by far."   

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/68523?mailing_id=4859&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4859&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body