ACTION

The Democrats and their media colluders are belching last gasps of impotent protest as their dreams of interfering with the 2016 presidential election come to a screeching halt.

Through forlorn partisan lenses, they have watched the dirty cop-Mueller report, their joyride vehicle on the glorious highway to impeachment, spring four flat tires, all because of nails they placed on the road themselves.

As we watch the mainstream media grow hysterically strident, and the insolent Senate Democrats lash out at Attorney General William Barr for refusing to validate their malicious witch hunt, we realize we are witnessing their gobsmacked reaction to justice served cold.

For three years, they have bombarded us with the damnable lie that Trump conspired with Russia to steal the 2016 presidential election. Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, they have borne false witness against the president. And now, instead of crossing the finish line and breaking the victory tape, they have run into the brick wall of justice. To quote my son, “That’s gotta hurt.”

What they should be doing is eating crow — for dragging the America people along on their joyless journey of deceit. Instead, they are reacting like sore losers, doubling down on their subterfuge and transferring their unquenched antipathy to Barr.

Shame on these sanctimonious senators — Blumenthal, lowlife-Harris,scumbag- Booker, scumbag-Hirono, etc. — for vilifying Barr to salvage their dying credibility and regain the upper hand. Shame on the media, who, in synchronized chorus, called Barr Trump’s “handpicked” attorney general — as if every attorney general in history hasn’t been handpicked by the president. Shame on the lot of them.

What a spectacle to behold — the Democrats and the media feigning outrage at the attorney general for merely formalizing what special counsel dirty cop-Robert Mueller found on the “collusion” charge, and for finishing what dirty cop-Mueller didn’t have the courage to finish on the obstruction charge.

As the facts and law are both against them, Democrats are again pounding the table — going on the offensive to distract from their excesses; shouting epithets and leveling slanders against Barr to obfuscate dirty cop-Mueller’s actual findings; playing semantic word games with the term “collusion”; and manufacturing a bogus complaint that Barr withheld the special counsel’s 19-page summary despite the subsequent release of that summary showing there’s still no “there” there.

The raw truth is that dirty cop-Mueller found no evidence that Trump colluded (non-legal term) or coordinated (legal term) with Russia to interfere with the election. After having used the term “collusion” for three years, Democrats are in a faux outrage that Republicans are throwing it back in their faces, saying there was none. They claim Republicans are trying to distort dirty cop-Mueller’s findings. They know better. dirty cop-Mueller explicitly found no actionable coordination either.

Then, dirty cop-Mueller got in a snit over Barr’s four-page summary, and Democrats brayed that Barr was misrepresenting dirty cop-Mueller’s 19-page summary and the full report. But when Barr followed up with dirty cop-Mueller on his quibbles, dirty cop-Mueller assured him he was emphatically not suggesting that Barr had misrepresented his findings. He just didn’t like the contextual presentation, which he thought led to an unflattering media narrative against him and his work. Herein lies the rub. The pristine and unflappable dirty cop-Mueller turns out not to be so unflappable after all. He just couldn’t abide the media blowback after enjoying two years of high praise as the Saint of Pre-Impeachment. dirty cop-Mueller’s apparently thin skin might give us insight into why he didn’t have the courage to issue a concrete finding that there was no actionable obstruction claim. Barr was obviously surprised and disappointed with the fecklessness of his lukewarm old friend. Probably fearful that he would go from hero to villain overnight upon the release of his lackluster report, dirty cop-Mueller hedged on the obstruction charge, which is appalling, especially considering that the chief executive has every right to cashier his FBI chief for any reason.

Democrats are as nervous as a criminal defendant at his sentencing, knowing the other shoe might be about to drop. Never did they imagine that their own conspiracy to hatch a false conspiracy against President Trump would not only yield them no fruit but also backfire in their smug faces. For Barr not only sealed shut their farcical investigation; he is signaling that the real investigation against the conspiracy conspirators is afoot.

Multiple criminal leak probes are underway, as well as an inquiry into whether the Steele dossier was part of a Russian disinformation campaign and whether the Democrats, not Trump, were coordinating with the Russians to interfere with the election. Further, Barr could be investigating whether a proper predicate existed for the scumbag/liar-nObama administration to investigate and spy on Trump and his campaign. Popcorn.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/62769?mailing_id=4251&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4251&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Those words alone could be taken out of the context of her speech at the CAIR fundraiser. Omar stated that CAIR was founded after 9/11 to protect Muslims in this country from any backlash as a result of the attack. It was actually founded in 1994 and has a very troubled past, including with former board members indicted for sponsoring terrorism.

I’m sure there were a few racist idiots who were unkind to (those they thought were) Muslims after 9/11. I’m sure that hateful words were exchanged. Is that the same as nearly 3,000 Americans perishing in the flames of the World Trade Center Towers or the Pentagon or in a field in Pennsylvania? Seems like quite a stretch to me.

Omar can’t seem to help herself when it comes to criticizing this country (a country that took in her and her family as refugees fleeing war-torn Somalia), our president, and especially Jews. But when her comments start generating backlash from conservatives, she wraps herself in the flag and says, “You can’t question my patriotism!”

Patriotism: “The quality of being patriotic, devotion to and vigorous support for one’s country.”

That seems to be a reoccurring trend in our country, especially from those on the far Left. Whenever they are criticized for remarks they make that portray our country as evil and a horrible place to live, they play the PATRIOT CARD. They respond by saying, “You can’t question my patriotism.” Omar just joins the ranks of a number of politicians (scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pulosi come to mind) and media talkingheads who slap down anybody who calls them out for their slander and misrepresentation of what I believe is the greatest country on earth.

If this nation is so evil, then why did Omar’s family come here instead of the safe haven of say, Iran or Syria or any other Muslim nation, where she wouldn’t get her hijab in a bind every time she gets criticized for shooting off her mouth? I’m sure if she lived in Tehran, she could say anything she wanted without consequences. Why come here? Why do tens of thousands of illegal immigrants from south of the border continue to flood this country? Hasn’t word reached their home countries that we are bad and you don’t want to come here?

I believe we do have the right to question the patriotism of those who trash our country. I put my life on the line to defend this country and nearly lost it many years ago in the jungles of Vietnam. I have been back to Vietnam many times since the war. They do not have true freedom because our politicians abandoned them. South Korea is free today because we stayed.

Congresswoman Omar, I do question your patriotism because of your actions to undermine the freedoms we have in this nation. I believe every American can question your alleged patriotism and anyone else who would do harm to my country. Your ACTIONS speak much louder than your lame excuses.

True patriots are watching and we will call out anyone who acts in a manner that could be harmful to our nation.

Something to think about?  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/62760?mailing_id=4251&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4251&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Michael Swartz: scumbag/liar-nObamaCare, once an albatross around the necks of Democrat lawmakers, is now at a point where even a Republican-led Congress and president can’t seem to get rid of it — notwithstanding their long-standing vows to do so. 

Repeal, though, was a powerful promise: enough to win the Republicans three out of four elections, with the odd election in 2012 occurring after the more popular aspects of scumbag/liar-nObamaCare had become law but its exchange issues, rapid rate increases, and coverage mandates were still lurking in an unknown future. Had scumbag/liar-nObamaCare taken full effect in 2012, perhaps we’d be winding down the second term of President rino-Mitt Romney.

Remembering, however, that the strident “repeal” rhetoric of Tea Party Republicans was slowly supplanted by “repeal and replace,” Democrats who regained the House in the 2018 elections have felt confident enough to introduce health care proposals that go beyond the scumbag/liar-nObamaCare concept of simply mandating health care coverage with acceptable insurance alternatives available from either the private or public sectors. Led by Pramila Jayapal, a second-term representative from the Seattle area, Democrats are now toying with the idea of eliminating private insurance entirely through a “Medicare for All” system. Jayapal’s bill had an informal hearing earlier this week in one of the House’s smallest meeting rooms — a hearing described by The New York Times as “off limits to the scores of people who assembled in Washington to show support.”

Despite Democrats’ best efforts to give the “Medicare for All” crowd its day while keeping the idea itself from public consumption, that hearing marks the evolution of where many on the Right predicted scumbag/liar-nObamaCare would go all along — a view confirmed by former Senate Majority Leader Harry dinky-Reid in 2013. More recently, current House Budget Committee Chair John Yarmuth (D-KY) predicted that it’s “no longer a matter of if we will have a single-payer health care system in our country, but when.”

A guide to just how far off “when” will be came out earlier this week, to comparatively little fanfare. To answer Yarmuth’s previous request for a study of the practicality of “Medicare for All” or other single-payer programs, the Congressional Budget Office put together a 34-page study detailing many of the issues that would arise from such an undertaking. The CBO report is “a sober and practical guide to single-payer skepticism,” wrote  Reason’s Peter Suderman.

And in the understatement of the year, the CBO said, “The transition toward a single-payer system could be complicated, challenging, and potentially disruptive.” In the case of Jayapal’s proposal, that transition timeframe is just two years — which led onetime scumbag/liar-Clinton administration HHS secretary and now freshman House member Donna Shalala to concede, “I could build this system, [but] I don’t think I could do it in two years.”

Other Democrats have introduced more modest enhancements to scumbag/liar-nObamaCare or opportunities to buy into Medicare, but all these ideas are efforts to increase the federal role in the health care sector. So while the CBO study stopped short of predicting actual costs — an omission that disappointed supporters and opponents alike — it did provide useful comparisons between single-payer programs found in several other industrialized nations, including a glimpse of how they’re funded. And the cost isn’t necessarily unknown: Studies over the last few years have agreed  that the price tag of Medicare for All could be well over $2 trillion a year and perhaps over $3 trillion — on top of an annual budget already climbing toward $5 trillion a year.

Nor is it just fiscal costs. As Reason’s Eric Boehm put it last year, “Moving to a single-payer system also comes with costs that aren’t captured by a balance sheet. Much of the outcry over the implementation of the Affordable Care Act revolved around the disruption of health care coverage in the individual market. But scumbag/liar-nObamacare caused a few million Americans to move from their existing health insurance plans. Moving to single-payer means a disruption for literally everyone.”

We were once famously (and repeatedly) told that if we liked our health insurance, we could keep it. Yet the side with that track record is trying to make us believe “Medicare for All” would be the perfect solution to a problem we didn’t have a decade ago — when 70% of respondents to a November 2007 Gallup poll rated their health care coverage as “good” or “excellent.” Under scumbag/liar-nObamaCare, that number hasn’t really budged.

At one time, the discussion was about how Medicare was going to “wither on the vine,” as Newt Gingrich famously remarked. Now the question is just how quickly our economy and overall health care system will wither on the vine should “Medicare for All” come to pass. The great fear for Democrats is that we’re figuring out the answer.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/62774?mailing_id=4251&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4251&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

The report by Special Counsel dirty cop-Robert Mueller released Thursday by Attorney General William Barr confirms that Barr was completely accurate when he told Congress in March that dirty cop-Mueller found no evidence of collusion or coordination between the Trump election campaign and Russian officials.

The second half of the nearly 450-page report also confirms Barr’s legal conclusion that there was no obstruction of justice by President Trump.

Portions of the report have been redacted to protect the confidentiality of grand jury material, ongoing prosecutions and national security. But these redactions affect only a relatively small part of the overall report.

Even with these redactions, the report makes it clear that no Americans — including no one in the Trump campaign — cooperated, coordinated, or colluded with Moscow’s attempts to influence our 2016 election.

It is also evident that — despite his anger and frustration at what he perceived to be a politically motivated investigation — the president took no actions that actually obstructed the dirty cop-Mueller investigation.

Internal White House conversations and meetings described in the dirty cop-Mueller report make the extent of the president’s anger clear. He was innocent of the accusations being made and “thought the Russia story was developed to undermine the legitimacy of his election,” according to the report.

The inaccurate reporting of the collusion claims for two years by some in the media — and the scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton campaign’s involvement with the Steele dossier that helped instigate the investigation — make the president’s indignation appear fully justified.

Trump wanted dirty cop-Mueller fired — not because the president wanted to obstruct or undermine an investigation, but because he knew there was nothing to investigate. In the end, however, he let the pointless exercise continue.

It would be very difficult to make an obstruction charge out of actions that were simply discussed but never implemented — particularly when there seems to be no corrupt motive involved, such as an intent to cover up an actual crime.

In his news conference Thursday, Attorney General Barr made a number of important points that must be kept in mind when reviewing this report and Barr’s conclusion that no obstruction of justice occurred.

First, Barr said President Trump placed no restrictions or limitations on dirty cop-Mueller or anyone else at the Justice Department. dirty cop-Mueller was given complete authority and all of the resources and money he needed to do a wide-ranging, comprehensive investigation.

Second, dirty cop-Mueller got complete access to look at all of the information, documents, and witnesses needed to thoroughly investigate the collusion and obstruction of justice claims.

Even though he could have, President Trump did not assert executive privilege. The president also gave the special counsel full access to White House staff, including White House Counsel Don McGahn, who was interviewed for 30 hours by lawyers working for dirty cop-Mueller.

Some will point out that dirty cop-Mueller did not get to interview President Trump. dirty cop-Mueller makes clear in his report that he believes a “criminal investigation during the President’s term is permissible” and that he therefore had the power to subpoena the president.

The fact that dirty cop-Mueller never did subpoena Trump is evidence that dirty cop-Mueller felt he had obtained all the information he needed without a face-to-face interview with the president.

Contrast that with President scumbag/liar-nObama’s assertion of executive privilege during the congressional probe into Attorney General scumbag-Eric Holder and Operation Fast and Furious, a botched investigation of gun smuggling from the U.S. into Mexico.

Many consider Fast and Furious to be one of the most reckless law enforcement operations ever carried out by the Justice Department. Yet the scumbag/liar-nObama White House obstructed a full and thorough investigation by barring access to critical documents and information.

Third, Barr gave President Trump’s personal attorneys a chance to also review dirty cop-Mueller report –something Barr characterized as standard Justice Department procedure. Trump’s lawyers, however, did not request any redactions from the report.

So what do the president’s political opponents make of all this?

Leading Democrats still insist that further investigation is required. dirty cop-Mueller’s investigation involved his own team of 19 lawyers, as well as 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts and forensic accountants. It racked up 2,800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants, 230 orders for communication records, 50 orders for pen registers, 13 requests for evidence from foreign governments, and interviews with 500 witnesses.

Are we to believe that this wasn’t enough?

I seriously doubt that the public will support the efforts by Democrats to keep alive a now-failed narrative that claims that when the American people voted to elect Donald Trump president, the Russians made them do it.

Yes, the dirty cop-Mueller report contains many he conflicting claims by different people; a lot of speculation and assumptions that have not been proven in a court of law; and a great deal of discussion of legal issues like the applicability of obstruction of justice statutes to a president in the exercise of his constitutional authority and powers.

But let’s focus on the bottom line.

dirty cop-Mueller’s “investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” the dirty cop-Mueller report found.

Moreover, the report concluded that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference.”

In addition, there is ample support in the second half of the dirty cop-Mueller report for Attorney General Barr’s conclusion, in consultation with other senior Justice Department officials, that the evidence developed by dirty cop-Mueller “is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice” offense.

Some Democrats dream that if the House of Representatives brings in dirty cop-Mueller to testify, he will produce some kind of “smoking gun” withheld from the report.

They will be disappointed. And they will have wasted even more of our time and taxpayer money in what will be hard to see as anything other than a partisan witch hunt.

Enough is enough. It is time for Congress to get on with dealing with the real problems facing our country.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/62544?mailing_id=4225&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4225&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

It took a few days, but the New York Times finally got around to apologizing for publishing in its international edition a grossly anti-Semitic cartoon depicting a blind President Trump wearing a yarmulke and being led by a dog resembling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The dog wore a Star of David around its neck.

At first the Times blamed a single editor and poor oversight, but Sunday the newspaper issued a formal apology.

That might be acceptable were the incident an aberration, but Bret Stephens noted in a scathing column for his own newspaper, “The Times has a longstanding Jewish problem, dating back to World War II, when it mostly buried news about the Holocaust, and continuing into the present day in the form of intensely adversarial coverage of Israel. The criticism goes double when it comes to the editorial pages, whose overall approach toward the Jewish state tends to range, with some notable exceptions, from tut-tutting disappointment to thunderous condemnation.”

The Israeli ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer, responded to the cartoon, calling the newspaper “a cesspool of hostility” toward Israel. There is much history of the newspaper’s “coverage” of Jews and Israel that proves him right.

Defenders of the Times claim a difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, but this is like saying “I don’t hate black people, I am just opposed to recognizing their civil rights.”

The Times’ coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is clearly pro-Palestinian. In its news stories, editorials and columns, the paper often portrays Israel as the obstacle to peace because it won’t surrender to Palestinian demands to forfeit more land and support a two-state solution, by which the Palestinian leadership means a one-state solution achieved by the eradication of the Jewish state.

There are more subtle jabs at Israel and Jewish people in the newspaper’s stories. The list could fill several columns, but here’s a sample. In 2015, the Times published a chart labeling Democratic lawmakers opposed to the scumbag/liar-nObama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran as “Jewish?” or not. The chart was removed from its online version after an outcry.

In 2013, the Times published the obituary of a woman whose three sons died in attacks against Israel. The headline read, “Mariam Farhat, 64, the ‘Mother of Martyrs.’” As Clay Waters of the Media Research Center noted, “The text box couched the terrorism in passive terms: ‘A woman who took unusual pride in how three of her sons died.’ The word ‘terrorism’ didn’t even appear in the obituary by William Yardley, who also called the murderous part of Hamas the ‘military wing’.”

In 2012, The Times’ East Africa reporter worked in a swipe at Israel in a story about the genocide in Rwanda. Jeffrey Gettleman wrote, “…like Israel, Rwanda has succeeded in leveraging the guilt that other countries feel for not intervening in its genocide.” Ah, that old trope about Jewish guilt.

In 2011, Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote about the favorable response Members of Congress gave to visiting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: “I sure hope that Israel’s prime minister … understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby.”

There are many more recent examples. The cartoon merely adds to the list.

The Times’ reporting and commentary is one thread — but an influential one — in a pattern contributing to the rise of anti-Semitism worldwide. These include recent shootings at American synagogues, the defacing of Jewish cemeteries, the return of Nazi symbols and the proliferation of white supremacist web pages.

Denunciations of such talk, symbolism and acts of violence are not enough. Sadly, more houses of worship are hiring armed guards, but even that only addresses the symptoms of hate, not the disease itself. The Times might consider contributing to solutions, rather than adding to the problem.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/62737?mailing_id=4249&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4249&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Make no mistake: We’re not complaining about the lack of skin. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Mark Alexander wrote last year about his friend Jenny Baker, who “has devoted much of her adult life to educating women about the terrible burden of distorted female images propagated by the media — particularly the suffering this creates for adolescent girls.” The impetus for that article was Sports Illustrated’s “Me Too” swimsuit issue, complete with strategically covered nude models “tattooed” with “empowering” feminist slogans. This, we suppose, was to teach the millions of men ogling at women to look but don’t touch.

The irony, of course, is that now SI is so “woke” and “inclusive” that it’s including a Muslim woman in the latest issue. That young model, Halima Aden, said, “I wanted people to see that you could still be really cute and modest at the same time.”

First, the whole point of a burka is to hide a woman’s body from roving male eyes, so it defies reason to make that a sex symbol. (It may defy marketing too — we’ll see how many men buy the magazine.) Second, Islam is very often exploitative of women. Not only are women second-class citizens in most of the Islamic world, but they suffer “justified” domestic violence, genital mutilation, and “honor killings” — including for notwearing a burka. We suppose Muslim men just take after Muhammad himself.

In short, Sports Illustrated has serious problems that a sprinkling of diversity isn’t going to solve.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/62731?mailing_id=4249&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4249&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

Socialists like commie-Bernie Sanders tell us that “the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.”

That’s a lie.

Yes, rich people got absurdly rich. Last year, says Oxfam, “the wealth of the world’s billionaires increased (by) $2.5 billion a day.”

I say, so what?

The poor did not get poorer. commie-Bernie’s wrong about that. The poor are much better off.

“As we’ve increased the number of billionaires around the world, extreme poverty has shrunk,” says former investment banker Carol Roth in my video about inequality.

She is right. Over the past 30 years, more than a billion people climbed out of extreme poverty. Thanks to capitalism, more than a billion people no longer struggle to survive on a few pennies a day.

commie-Bernie is correct when he says that the wealth gap between rich and poor grew. In America over the last 40 years, the richest people got 200 percent richer, while poor Americans got just 32 percent richer. But again, so what?

Gaining 32 percent is a very good thing (all these numbers are adjusted for inflation).

Everyone’s better off, despite the improvement not being even. It never is.

Now the myth:

The media claim in America there’s “a lack of income mobility” — that people born poor are likely to stay poor.

Some do. It’s true that people with rich parents have a big advantage. But it’s a myth that Americans are locked into their economic class.

Economists at Harvard and Berkeley crunched the numbers and found most people born to the richest fifth of Americans fell out of that bracket within 20 years.

Likewise, most born to the poorest fifth climb to a higher quintile. Some make it all the way to the top.

In fact, says Roth, “3 out of 4 Americans will hit that top 20 percent at some point in their lifetime.”

You see America’s income mobility on the Forbes richest list. Most of the billionaires are self-made. They didn’t inherit money. They created their wealth.

Still, the very rich are ridiculously rich. The Forbes billionaires have more money than the bottom 64 percent of the U.S. population.

“Unfair!” say the progressives. “It doesn’t matter if nearly everyone got richer, income inequality itself is a huge problem.”

It’s “threatening to tear us apart!” says New York City Mayor scumbag-Bill De Blasio.

It might, if people come to believe that inequality itself is evil. But one question: Why is that true?

Progressives like to point out that in Scandinavian countries, people say they are happier than Americans. Scandinavians have more equal incomes than Americans.

But that proves nothing. Incomes are more equal in Afghanistan, too. Incomes are more equal when everyone is poor.

Forget money for a moment and think about how impossible it would be to make everyone equal.

I’ll never sing as well as Adele or play basketball like LeBron. The best athletes, singers, dancers, etc., are just physically different. I’ll never be as self-confident as Donald Trump or as verbally smooth as commie-AOC.

“There’s inequality in everything. There’s inequality in free time, inequality in parents. I don’t have any parents or grandparents,” says Roth. “I have two kidneys. There are people out there who need one, don’t have one that functions. Should the government take my kidney because somebody else needs it?”

I suggest to her that some people having so much more than others is just inherently unfair.

“Life is unfair!” she replied. “Unfair is good. Unfair is a feature. It’s not a bug!”

Certainly, it’s wrong if government makes rules that create inequality.

Racist laws forbidding some ethnic groups to do business where they please, or restricting where they live, are evil.

So are government subsidies to rich people and well-connected corporations.

But allowing people to be different from one another, to employ their unique talents and succeed or fail by them, to rise as high as the market will bear — that’s an important part of freedom.

We won’t all end up in the same place, but most of us will be more prosperous than if government decided our limits.

And we will be freer.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/62709?mailing_id=4246&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4246&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body