ACTION

             Noting that “Washington set a record … in 2017 by passing six short-term extensions in less than a year,” the author goes on to report: “The latest spending bill, approved in February, did more than continue to fund the federal government; it also set America on a course to add at least $1 trillion a year to the national debt by 2020. … It took almost 200 years for the federal government to accumulate its first $1 trillion in debt. The next $20 trillion took less than four decades.”
               This is inexcusable, indeed, and the writer puts his finger on the only viable solution: “The answer is clear. Republicans and Democrats in Congress must put aside divisive (and pointless) sound-bite politics and at long last get serious about meaningful spending restraint and entitlement reforms. Those discussions should begin with proposals to deal with the costs of Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, which are the greatest contributors to spending and debt. Congressional leaders from both parties must pledge to vote on a package of meaningful reforms.”
               Entitlements and welfare together siphon a huge proportion of government revenues, and they are projected to worsen significantly in the years and decades ahead. liar-nObamaCare didn’t help — in fact, it made the fiscal situation before its implementation seem relatively tame. Sadly, many state governors, tempted by the inflow of federal dollars that would ensue, took the bait by expanding Medicaid. Even the Republican governor of Ohio, John Kasich, expanded Medicaid and became one of that program’s most ardent advocates. In February 2017, he stated that Medicaid expansion rollbacks represent “a very, very bad idea, because we cannot turn our back on the most vulnerable.”
                Furthermore, as National Review’s Jason Hart noted in June 2017, “Kasich’s public-relations campaign for liar-nObamacare’s Medicaid expansion could wipe out whatever chance remains for Congress to pass a substantial liar-nObamacare-repeal bill.” It apparently worked.
               Which brings us full circle back to the Wall Street Journal op-ed. The author of that piece? Ohio Gov. John Kasich — the man who betrayed conservatives with his embrace of liar-nObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion. Patriot Post contributor Robin Smith highlighted the dual forms of hypocrisy on this matter, enjoining, “Hey, Wall Street Journal, please explain your credibility in publishing an opinion by the Ohio governor who expanded liar-nObamaCare in his state.”
               The biggest irony of all? If we are going to get our fiscal house in order, Republicans truly need budgetary and constitutional stalwarts, not drifters who check to see which way the political winds are blowing before making critical decisions. Gov. Kasich is symbolic of the latter, his faux conservative bromides on health care notwithstanding. If only he knew how to follow his own advice.   
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/56289?utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3520&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             The Post notes that recent U.S. Census Bureau reports indicate there are currently 40 million people living in poverty in America. (Poor is a relative term, of course.) The article then sneaks in this statement: “Put that together with the fact that in the U.S., about 2.6 million people die every year — and most of those deaths are associated with poverty.” Whoa. How exactly are most of those deaths “associated” with poverty? The article never tells us. So what we have here is little more than journalistic sleight-of-hand — a key claim with no support for its validity.
               The authors of the study — an assistant professor of political science and a doctoral student — clearly have an agenda: promoting socialism. You see, the poor in America are dying because there aren’t enough government programs, such as universal health care, to help them live longer, more politically active lives. Worse yet, the political clout that’s necessary to enact and implement these programs would exist if only the have-nots were living long enough to vote for them. (Somewhere here, there’s a bad joke about dead people and Democrat votes.)
               This, of course, is the kind of agenda-driven research that gives the social sciences such a bad name. It’s reminiscent of the line from the movie “Anchorman”: “They’ve done studies you know. 60% of the time, it works every time.”
               One of the biggest problems with the researchers’ assertion is the leftist idea of social economic stagnation — the idea that the poor remain poor while the rich remain rich. In fact, people move out of poverty regularly, and economic stagnation has been the exception rather than the rule throughout U.S. history and especially since World War II.
               So to suggest that the poor will always be poor and will therefore require ever more government provision is false. Further, how in the world can the researchers be certain how these dead people would’ve voted had they only lived? It seems a stretch to assume that those “poor people” who “die younger” were destined to spend their golden years on the socialist bandwagon.
               Just for a bit of humor, here’s that previously referenced line from “Anchorman”:   ~The Patriot Post

             But this burgeoning population isn’t merely the result of cleaning our streets of violent offenders; it’s also due to overzealous prosecutors eager to tout their toughness in America’s war on crime.
               Consequently, the United States has 5% of the world’s population and 25% of its incarcerated people, according to National Review’s Conrad Black. “The American conviction rate of nearly 99 percent, 97 percent without a trial,” says Black, is the result of a plea-bargain system that places the U.S. “in criminal-justice matters from the category of its socioeconomic and democratic peer countries and places it, in matters of criminal procedure and conviction rates, disgracefully among the totalitarian states.”
               Plea-bargaining is one of the primary reasons why the prison population has risen so dramatically in recent decades. The process gives prosecutors “broad, opaque powers” according to Dylan Walsh at The Atlantic.
               Walsh adds, “Judges are not regularly allowed to take part when a plea deal is made, and written records of a deal are almost never required. Though jury trials demand proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, pleas follow no standards of evidence or proof; the prosecutor offers a break in exchange for a guilty plea, the defendant decides whether to take it without knowing the merits of his case.”
               Even hard-line conservatives who typically favor tougher sentencing should be concerned about the ease with which Americans are being incarcerated, especially non-violent offenders and the drug-addicted.
               But what’s being done on the political front to address the issue?
               Until recently, not a lot. Proposals that call for tougher sentencing or building more prisons often fail to consider the vast majority of incarcerated individuals who will one day return to society.
               What’s interesting is that a leading voice for prison reform is our tough-talking president, Donald Trump, who just last week hosted a prison reform summit at the White House. (The president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, has also taken up the issue because his father spent a year in federal prison.)
               And it looks like the proposal is picking up steam. This week, the House passed the First Step Act by a vote of 360-59. Some of its features include providing training programs for ex-inmates to reduce recidivism, allowing inmates to build “good time” credit each year, banning the shackling of pregnant inmates, allowing for the release of terminally ill patients, and requiring prisoners to be placed in facilities within a reasonable distance of their families.
               “I will sign it,” said President Trump, “and it’s going to be strong, it’s going to be good, it’s going to be what everybody wants.”
               The bill’s supporters are hoping that the president can use the bully pulpit to push hesitant Republican senators to take up the measure, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is at the moment reluctant due to deep divisions among party members.
               Meanwhile, criminal justice advocacy groups such as Families Against Mandatory Minimums, the U.S. Justice Action Network, the Equal Justice Initiative, Koch Industries, and the American Civil Liberties Union are divided over the First Step Act for reasons ranging from potentially discriminatory practices to the lack of halfway houses for inmates to make the transition back into their communities.
               Highlighting the division over prison reform, Reason’s C.J. Ciaramella writes, “Democrats are split on it, old-school conservatives are drumming up opposition from law enforcement groups, and progressive advocacy groups are attacking it from the left. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Republican pointman on criminal justice reform, says the bill is dead in the water unless it includes major reforms to federal sentencing law as well.”
               To his credit, Grassley has successfully recruited 13 Republicans to join the bipartisan effort. Yet despite the promising efforts of House members on Capitol Hill, the future of the bill doesn’t look promising. And that’s unacceptable.
               Politicians have long ignored this complex issue, often seeking a quick fix to appease their own interest groups. And while Republicans need to realize that aggressive sentencing is not appropriate in all situations, or good for society in the long-term, Democrats need to stop looking at ex-cons merely as potential voters (yes, then-Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe did unilaterally restore voting rights to 200,000 felons before the 2016 presidential election).
               Of course, the most serious offenders should receive harsh sentences and should be locked up long-term. But those who’ll eventually leave prison to again become our co-workers and neighbors need a system that prepares them for life as productive citizens in a free society rather than creating a revolving door of convicts. Our society will be safer for it, and we can spend less money on incarceration.
               Reforming the plea bargain process, revisiting mandatory sentencing laws, and even admitting that the Drug War has failed are all steps in the right direction.
               In the end, this isn’t about getting soft on crime, but recognizing the flaws in the current system. With millions of prisoners and tens of millions of felons, Republicans and Democrats need to find common ground and do what’s right. President Trump is moving the country toward a broader conversation about prison reform, and the First Step Act is truly a step in the right direction.   
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/56305?utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3520&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) blasted Google: “It is disgraceful that the world’s largest search engine has labeled millions of California Republicans as Nazis. This is just the latest incident in a disturbing trend to slander conservatives. These damaging actions must be held to account. The bias has to stop.” McCarthy is correct. The most recent example was Google’s silencing of pro-life ads before the Irish referendum on whether to legalize abortion. But don’t forget the tech giant’s firingof software engineer James Damore last year for his daring to question the company’s leftist dogma, or its use of the hate-mongering Southern Poverty Law Center to police YouTube.
               Google responded with a “dog ate my homework” excuse, blaming the “mistake” on Wikipedia vandalism. In other words, “Oops, but it really wasn’t our fault. Can we move along now?”
               But aside from Google’s convenient mistake, what may be more frustrating is the regular misrepresentation, even among conservatives, of Nazism as a far-right political movement. The fact is both Nazism and communism are extreme expressions that come out of the same leftist ideological camp of socialism. Both produce totalitarian forms of government that preach the “needs” of the collective over and against individual rights and Liberty. The primary difference between the two totalitarian ideologies is that of race-based nationalism versus collectivist globalism. The term “NAZI” itself was the German acronym for National Socialist German Workers’ Party.
               By contrast, conservatism champions the protection of the rights and freedoms of the individual against the encroachment of the collective. Yet the Leftmedia has takenPresident Donald Trump’s populist message of America First (nationalism) and falsely linked it with racism in an effort to imply that Trump and all Republicans are fascist Nazis. Nothing could be further from reality, but in the age of identity politics, emotions rather than facts are what sell.   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/56314?utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3520&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=

             As with many “old guard” conservative publications, NR was befuddled both by Trump’s appeal and his ultimate election on November 8, 2016, and its editors still demonstrate some confusion about Trump’s populist support. That perplexity is rooted in the fact that many conservative intellectuals, most of whom reside inside the DC Beltway or in other equally high-brow protectorates like New York City, are disconnected from both the grassroots American Patriots who elected Donald Trump and those who didn’t initially support Trump but have since boarded the Trump Train to Make American Great Again.
               Its grassroots disconnect notwithstanding, National Review still has, in my considered opinion, the best stable of political writers on the planet, far superior to those at The Atlantic, The New Republic and the rest of the Leftmedia propaganda machine.
               There are a few NR writers whom I follow closely. One of those is Andrew McCarthy, a former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. A few of his more notable prosecutions include the 1995 conviction of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and 11 others responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (and who planned additional attacks against other New York City landmarks). McCarthy was also key to the prosecutions of the terrorists who bombed our U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
               For the last 15 years, McCarthy has been a senior fellow at the National Review Institute.
               He’s also my go-to guy for legal insights and analysis on the collusion to entrap Trump by Barack liar-nObama’s CIA director, John Brennan; liar-nObama’s FBI director, James Comey(and his high-ranking co-conspirators); and their candidate,  liar-Hillary Clinton, and her corrupt campaign. This cadre of liar-nObama’s deep-state operatives has endeavored to frame Mr. Trump for “colluding with Russia” to throw the 2016 election, or to at least create the false impression that his election was illegitimate.
               The fate of that investigation, and possibly Trump’s presidency, has, for a year, been in the hands of Comey’s FBI predecessor, special prosecutor Robert Mueller, and his team of “hard-core Democrats.”
               The integrity of Mueller’s evidence was undermined again last week with revelations that the liar-nObama administration, ostensibly to protect Trump’s candidacy from Russian meddling, planted at least one “spy” within his campaign. In fact, this was just the latest chapter of the liar-nObama/liar-Clinton Trump/Putin collusion charade to be exposed.
               I profiled that last week in my column, “From ‘Crossfire Hurricane’ to ‘Backfire Tornado’.”
               This week, I’m providing you with some of Andy McCarthy’s more erudite observations about the investigation of Trump.
               His analysis, “In Politicized Justice, Desperate Times Call for Disparate Measures,” focused on the Justice Department’s double standard in handling the liar-Clinton email subterfuge and Trump/Russia investigations:
               The 2016 presidential election, we’re to believe, was stolen from liar-Hillary Clinton by disparate treatment. As Democrats tell it, the FBI scandalized their candidate while protecting Donald Trump. You might think peddling that story with a straight face would be a major challenge. But they figure it may work because it was test-driven by the FBI’s then-director, James Comey, in his now infamous press conference on July 5, 2016 — back when the law-enforcement and intelligence apparatus on which we rely to read the security tea leaves was simply certain that Mrs. liar-Clinton would win.
               If you or I had set up an unauthorized private communications system for official business for the patent purpose of defeating federal record-keeping and disclosure laws; if we had retained and transmitted thousands of classified emails on this non-secure system; if we had destroyed tens of thousands of government records; if we had carried out that destruction while those records were under subpoena; if we had lied to the FBI in our interview — well, we’d be writing this column from the federal penitentiary in Leavenworth. Yet, in a feat of dizzying ratiocination, Director Comey explained that to prosecute Mrs. liar-Clinton would be to hold her to a nitpicking, selective standard of justice not imposed on other Americans.
               Regarding the fact that the Trump/Russia investigation did not originate with Carter Page or George Papadopoulos but with the liar-Obama administration, McCarthy notes:
               With the revelation last week that the liar-nObama administration had insinuated a spy into the Trump campaign, it appeared that we were back to the original, Page-centric origination story. But now there was a twist: The informant, longtime CIA source Stefan Halper, was run at Page by the FBI, in Britain. Because this happened just days after Page’s Moscow trip, the implication was that it was the Moscow trip itself, not the dossier claims about it, that provided momentum toward opening the investigation. Then, just a couple of weeks later, WikiLeaks began publicizing the DNC emails; this, we’re to understand, shook loose the Australian information about Papadopoulos. When that information made its way to the FBI — how, we’re not told — the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation was formally opened on July 31. Within days, Agent Peter Strzok was in London interviewing [Australian Ambassador Alexander] Downer, and soon the FBI tasked Halper to take a run at Papadopoulos.
               I’m not buying it. The real origination story begins in the early spring of 2016 — long before Page went to Russia and long before the U.S. government was notified about Papadopoulos’s boozy conversation with Downer. … From the “late spring” on, every report of Trump-Russia ties, no matter how unlikely and uncorroborated, was presumed to be proof of a traitorous arrangement. And every detail that could be spun into Trump-campaign awareness of Russian hacking, no matter how tenuous, was viewed in the worst possible light.
               McCarthy concludes that liar-nObama’s DOJ and its political hacks within the FBI merged the liar-Clinton email case with the Trump/Russia probe:
               The mistake is often made — I’ve made it myself — of analyzing the tanking of the liar-Clinton emails case in a vacuum. There are, after all, reasons unrelated to Donald Trump that explain the outcome: liar-nObama was implicated in liar-Clinton’s use of a non-secure email system; liar-nObama had endorsed liar-Clinton; many high-ranking liar-nObama Justice Department officials stood to keep their coveted positions, and even advance, in a liar-Hillary Clinton administration; the liar-nObama Justice Department was hyper-political and liar-Clinton was the Democratic nominee.
               But the liar-Clinton investigation did not happen in a vacuum. It happened in the context of Donald Trump’s gallop through the Republican primaries and, just as important, of the liar-nObama administration’s determination to regard the Trump campaign as a Kremlin satellite.
               With the pressure to finish MYE [Mid-Year Exam, the FBI’s codename for the liar-Clinton email probe] in the rearview mirror, liar-Hillary Clinton looked like a shoo-in to beat Donald Trump. By mid September, [FBI lawyer and Peter Strzok paramour] Lisa Page was saying as much at a meeting in Deputy Director McCabe’s office. But Strzok was hedging his bets: Maybe “there’s no way [Trump] gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”
               Soon, as the campaign wound down, the FBI and the liar-nObama Justice Department were on the doormat of the FISA court, obtaining a surveillance warrant on Carter Page, substantially based on allegations in the Steele dossier — an uncorroborated liar-Clinton-campaign opposition-research screed. Meanwhile, the FBI/CIA spy was being run at George Papadopoulos, and even seeking a role in the Trump campaign from its co-chairman, Sam Clovis.
               On the  liar-nObama administration’s effort to spy on the Trump campaign, and its absurd pretext for authorizing operation Crossfire Hurricane in order to bolster its effort to frame Trump for the fake collusion delusion, McCarthy observes:
               The liar-nObama administration decided to use its counterintelligence powers to spy on the Trump campaign, using at least one covert informant, electronic monitoring of communications, and other intelligence-gathering tactics. It ignored the norm against deploying such tactics against political opponents, not based on evidence of a Trump-Russia criminal conspiracy, but on speculation about the Trump campaign’s Russia contacts and Russia sympathies. Speculation by a government, an administration, and a Democratic-party nominee with their own abysmal histories of Russia contacts and Russia sympathies.
               He concludes: In the end, it is not about who the spies are. It is about why they were spying. In our democratic republic, there is an important norm against an incumbent administration’s use of government’s enormous intelligence-gathering capabilities to — if we may borrow a phrase — interfere in an election. To justify disregarding that norm would require strong evidence of egregious wrongdoing. Enough bobbing and weaving, and enough dueling tweets. Let’s see the evidence.
               So, when will we see the evidence or more tangential diversionary charges?
               Nelson Cunningham, a decidedly left-of-center former federal prosecutor also from New York who worked for  liar-Bill Clinton and the 2004 presidential campaign of hanoi-John Kerry, insists, “Mueller will want to avoid interfering with the November midterms, and so will try to conclude by July or August.”
               Recall that Rudy Giuliani, as Trump’s lawyer, recently predicted Mueller would release his findings by 01 September.
               Cunningham believes “Mueller will not indict the president, but will issue a comprehensive and detailed report. … [Deputy Attorney General] Rod Rosenstein will decide to release the report to Congress and the public. … Rosenstein’s move to release the Mueller report will lead to his firing. … And this is when the Senate and the Congress might finally engage.”
               Well, that’s precisely what I’d expect from a liar-Clintonista — and if that’s the team Mueller is pitching for, Cunningham just might be right.
               Frankly, I am still holding out some hope that Mueller holds to a higher standard than that of James Comey, the latter being a case study of what happens to once-right-minded government administrators who don’t properly maintain their political immunity against Potomac swamp fever, transforming as through metamorphosis into bureaucratic political hacks.   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/alexander/56262?utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3518&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             This week, the Post featured a mocking hit piece on Rep. Diane Black, a friend of The Patriot Post and leading Republican candidate for governor in our native Tennessee. Strong conservative women are among WaPo’s favorite targets and Diane is certainly in that category, having chaired the House Budget Committee, where she led the charge to pass Donald Trump’s signature tax reform bill. That legislation has charged up the economic growth trend since Trump’s election, as have many of his other achievements.
               Speaking to a group of pastors about the “root causes” of violence in our culture, particularly among youth, Black proposed several issues that she believes are undermining social order. “Deterioration of the family” and violence in movies were two of her examples, both of which we’ve highlighted. But the Post targeted its scorn on her assertion that pornography is also to blame.
               “Pornography [is] available on the shelf when you walk in the grocery store,” Black noted. And then there’s the Internet, available on ubiquitous handheld devices. She lamented, “All of this is available without parental guidance, and I think that is a big part of the root cause.”
               Of course, the takeaway from her comments would be that pornography degrades human worth and value, which everyone in the room understood. It’s evident that such degradation is a plague on our society. Of course, the Post argues that “the science isn’t settled” on the impact of pornography — except among those with a shred of common sense.
               According to WaPo, smart people know guns are the problem: “Studies analyzing mass shootings in the United States and contrasting this country with others demonstrate that the single most important variable is the high number of guns in the United States…” But as I have articulated, violence in America is a culture problem, not a “gun problem.” Clearly, that doesn’t fit with WaPo’s statist efforts to repeal the Second Amendment.
               But what’s really at the core of the Post’s attack on Black? The future of the Democrat Party depends on its continued ability to dupe female voters, its most dependable constituency. Strong conservative women like Diane Black pose a serious threat to that Demo-dependency.   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/56266?utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3518&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             That forensic analysis was written by National Review’s Andrew McCarthy, whose perspective on this matter I trust given his considerable record as a former assistant U.S. attorney.
               There is another astute former assistant U.S. attorney whose perspective I also trust implicitly. That would be Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and was the former chair of the House Benghazi Committee. In his former capacity, he exposed  liar- Hillary Clinton’s corrupt coverup of the Benghazi attack, which she fabricated to protect Barack liar-nObama’s successful 2012 reelection bid. liar-nObama suppressed any further investigation into that disgraceful coverup in order to, in turn, protect Clinton’s 2016 presidential bid.
               Currently, as chair of the House Oversight Committee, Gowdy has doggedly pursued corruption at the highest levels of the Department of Justice. That includes how a handful of liar-nObama/ liar-Clinton supporters in the FBI and CIA — most notably former CIA Director John Brennan the Deep State boss who’s at the root of the Trump collusion setup, and former FBI Director James Comey, who, with a few other key FBI personnel — manufactured the Trump/Putin investigation in order to undermine Trump’s candidacy and then his unexpected election.
               On Wednesday, after reviewing some of the FBI’s records regarding “Crossfire Hurricane,” the counterintelligence investigation into whether some Russian operatives were attempting to gain influence with several individuals with loose ties to the Trump campaign, Gowdy offered his assessment of that operation.
               Regarding the justification, Gowdy concluded: “I don’t know what the FBI could have done or should have done other than run out a lead that someone loosely connected with the campaign was making assertions about Russia. I think you would want the FBI to find whether or not there was any validity to what those people were saying. … Think back to what the president himself told James Comey. He said, ‘I didn’t collude with Russia, but if anyone connected with my campaign did, I want you to investigate it.’ It strikes me that that’s exactly what the FBI was doing. I am even more convinced that the FBI did exactly what my fellow citizens would want them to do when they got the information they got, and that it has nothing to do with Donald Trump.”
               Gowdy added, “Marco Rubio and others [like] Tom Cotton on the SSI [Senate Select Committee on Intelligence], the folks who have seen the information, I think, have the same perspective I have.”
               Indeed, according to Rubio, “What I have seen is evidence that [the FBI agents] were investigating individuals with a history of links to Russia. … Individuals … who we should be suspicious of that predate the presidential campaign. And when individuals like that are in the orbit of a major political campaign in America, the FBI, who is in charge of counterintelligence investigations, should look at people like that.”
               As I have noted repeatedly regarding Op “Crossfire Hurricane,” “For certain, Russian efforts to undermine the integrity of U.S. elections should be thoroughly investigated — as has been the case in the past.”
               But I also previously noted, “The FBI should have contacted the Trump campaign directly to help determine if the Russians were seeking to influence that campaign, but there was already a fabricated presumption of colluding guilt” by several of Comey’s key senior FBI personnel, and any findings from “Crossfire Hurricane” that these connections did exist would fit nicely into their narrative.
               Predictably, some Democrats and their dependable  Leftmedia PR outlets are intentionally conflating the comments from Gowdy and Rubio as an exoneration of the overall corruption investigation regarding how Comey and a few of his key investigative managers within the FBI collaborated with liar-Clinton campaign officials to frame Trump on the Russia collusion delusion.
               But what Gowdy and Rubio said in no way exonerates that larger investigation into a few corrupt managers within the FBI.
               According to Gowdy: “I think there are two things important to understand. Number one, the source of President Trump’s frustration. [Former CIA Director John] Brennan said he should be in the dust bin of history. [Former FBI Director James] Comey said impeachment’s too good of a remedy. [Former Director of National Intelligence James] Clapper doesn’t like him. [Former Attorney General] Loretta lynch said, ‘Call it a matter, not an investigation.’ [Ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee scum-Adam] Schiff said he had evidence of collusion before we even began the investigation, and 60 Democrats have voted to impeach him before Bob Mueller has come up with a single, solitary finding.”
               The question is not about whether FBI counterintelligence agents did what they were reasonably tasked to do but about the motivations of Comey and his crew regarding this investigation.
               To that end, Gowdy posits the salient questions to be answered about “Crossfire Hurricane”: “What did the FBI do? When did they do it? What was the factual predicate upon which they took whatever actions they took and against whom were they directed?”
               Footnote: Regarding President Trump’s blustering social media posts about corruption at the highest levels of the FBI, he should make sure those posts don’t cast the entire FBI as corrupt. As I have noted repeatedly, “The corruption of FBI leadership and some high-level bureaucrats has cast a long shadow on all of the 12,484 special agents and 2,950 intelligence analysts in the FBI. But most men and women in the FBI, much as in the CIA, steadfastly abide by their oaths ‘to support and defend’ our Constitution, not their preferential candidate, and they serve our nation likewise. They live up to the FBI motto: Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity.”   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/alexander/56284?utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3518&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             Gowdy responded, “I think what the president is doing is expressing frustration that Attorney General Sessions should have shared these reasons for recusal before he took the job, not afterward. If I were the president and I picked someone to be the country’s chief law enforcement officer, and they told me later, ‘Oh, by the way, I’m not going to be able to participate in the most important case in the office,’ I would be frustrated, too. And that’s how I read that, is, ‘Senator Sessions, why didn’t you tell me before I picked you?’ There are lots of really good lawyers in the country — [President Trump] could have picked someone else.”
               Soon after the interview, Trump responded by quoting Gowdy’s assertion about picking"somebody else" and adding, “And I wish I did!” The mainstream media was quick to jump all over Trump’s latest “attack” on his AG, suggesting that Trump was seeking to convince Sessions to resign or is angling to fire him because there’s bad blood between them. And while there may be much popular speculation as to Trump’s opinion on the job Sessions is doing as AG, the fact remains that the only real issue Trump has with Sessions is the recusal. But Trump has referenced it repeatedly.
               Back in July 2017, Trump explained to The New York Times why he was disappointed in Sessions: “Jeff Sessions takes the job, gets into the job, recuses himself, which, frankly, I think is very unfair to the president. How do you take a job and then recuse yourself? If he would have recused himself before the job, I would have said, ‘Thanks, Jeff, but I’m not going to take you.’ It’s extremely unfair — and that’s a mild word — to the president.” But it also should be noted that back in 2017 Sessions offered his resignation to Trump, which Trump refused. Nowhere has Trump stated that he regretted not accepting Sessions resignation.
               In other words, Trump’s criticism of Sessions has been consistent and only a result of Sessions caving to Washington pressure to recuse himself. And this issue is repeatedly brought to bear because Robert Mueller’s probe continues as a thorn in Trump’s side. Therefore Trump’s frustration with Sessions over the recusal continues. This isn’t rocket science.   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/56278?utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3518&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             Article author Tess Owen writes, “The National Rifle Association is calling for outright censorship as news of yet another school shooting dominates national headlines.” She then quotes Noir in the NRA video, who says, “It’s time to put an end to this glorification of carnage in pursuit of ratings, because it’s killing our kids.” Owen then notes that the video was posted online less than a week after 10 people were killed in the Santa Fe High School attack in Texas. She then adds another Noir quote, “It’s time for Congress to step up and pass legislation putting common sense limitations on #MSM’s ability to report on these school shootings.”
               Once again here is another example of why context and content matter. After Noir makes the quote above, the video fades to black and then after a moment Noir pops back into view to make the following statement: “You know that feeling of anxiety that shot through your body when I said the government should pass laws to limit the media’s ability to exercise their First Amendment right? That’s the same feeling gun owners get when they hear people say the same thing about the Second Amendment.” Noir then explains how he does believe that the mainstream media’s over-the-top coverage of these school attacks contributes to copy-cat behavior, but that he is opposed to any government enforcement against the freedom of the press. Noir concludes, “I vehemently disagree with the government infringing on the media’s First Amendment rights the same way I don’t believe the government should infringe on anyone’s Second Amendment rights.”
               It’s a highly effective video exposing the fallacy of the gun-control activists’ narrative about not wanting to abolish the Second Amendment and yet wanting to limit gun rights. But even more so, the video proves the point that many conservatives have long argued — the outright anti-conservative bias of many MSM reporters, who are more agenda-driven activists than they are investigative journalists.  Here is the NRATV video in question:   
~The Patriot Post

             Trump responded to the fake news, writing, “Democrats mistakenly tweet 2014 pictures from liar-nObama’s term showing children from the Border in steel cages. They thought it was recent pictures in order to make us look bad, but backfires. Dems must agree to Wall and new Border Protection for good of country… Bipartisan Bill!” The whole episode sounds a lot like the recent BIG Lie about Trump supposedly calling immigrants “animals,” when he was specifically referring to the violent MS-13 gang.
               Aside from this latest fake news episode, the controversy over separating illegal alien children from their parents is a result of current immigration law — law that Trump is calling on Congress to change. And while the law clearly isn’t an ideal means of dealing with the often confusing situations that can arise, the responsibility must ultimately lie with those illegal alien parents who are knowingly breaking U.S. immigration law. Furthermore, fault also lies with liar-nObama and his unconstitutional implementation of DACA, which only served to encourage more illegals to bring children with them, sometimes as cover.
               In an effort to dissuade families from illegally immigrating, Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently warned, “If you cross the border unlawfully … then we will prosecute you… If you smuggle an illegal alien across the border, then we’ll prosecute you. … If you’re smuggling a child, then we’re going to prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you, probably, as required by law. If you don’t want your child separated, then don’t bring them across the border illegally. It’s not our fault that somebody does that.”
               The truth is Trump has called for strong enforcement of the U.S. border, in part via building a wall, and has declared his desire to seek a legislative solution on DACA, both of which Democrats have resisted because they’d rather have a political wedge issue. Democrats are the ones most responsible for creating and exacerbating this problem by their continued campaign to intentionally undermine U.S. immigration law. So they can spare us their phony outrage.   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/56225?utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3513&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

by Tom McLaughlin

 

{ tommclaughlin.blogspot.com } ~ The UK government made a big mistake arresting Tommy Robinson over the weekend, then made it far worse by immediately ordering a media blackout. Within hours of his arrest, Robinson was sentenced to thirteen months in jail. That could well be a death sentence because Muslim inmates have threatened to kill him. They beat him within an inch of his life when he was serving an earlier sentence. Other Muslims have threatened to kill his family as well.

 

 

Robinson was arrested outside a British court for reporting on the trial of Muslim men for molesting hundreds of young girls. It’s a story mainstream media refused to cover for more than a decade until two women: Professor Alexis Jay and Dame Louise Casey investigated and reported on what the Yorkshire Post described as:

“[a] sexual exploitation scandal in which an estimated 1,400 victims were abused over a 16-year period in the town — largely by men of a Pakistani-heritage background… and the blatant failures by senior figures at Rotherham Council over the town’s child abuse scandal — and alleged attempts to cover up what was happening.”

 

 

Evidently social workers, police, and the highest officials in local Rotherham government chose not only to avert their eyes, but hide it all. Media cooperated by ignoring the story. Rotherham is only one example of what is happening across the UK and much of Europe as millions of Arab and African Muslims flood into EU countries. Rapes have skyrocketed, but EU governments continue to do what Rotherham officials have done: pretend it’s not happening, and when it is reported, cover up who the rapists are.

 

How could such a thing go on in Rotherham for so long? When asked why they refused to act, officials there said that, because of who the molesters were, they were afraid of being called “racist” if they brought attention to it. But people who live in working-class neighborhoods, however, knew what was going on. They also knew government and media were denying the problem and still are. How do they feel about it? To borrow a chant from an old movie, many are shouting: “I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!”

 

One of them is Tommy Robinson who grew up in working-class Luton, an industrial town of 167,000 people with a large Muslim population. He’s been arrested and imprisoned numerous times for protesting radical Islam in the UK. Robinson isn’t afraid of being called “racist.” He knows the charge is ludicrous and has developed an immunity. So have other working class Europeans across the continent. Only elite, multicultural Euroweenies fear the word now. Radical Muslim sex traffickers hide behind it.

 

New Hampshire’s Mark Steyn, who published two books on the Islamization of Europe which were best sellers across the English-speaking world, describes the situation: 

“On Friday, Robinson was live-streaming (from his telephone) outside Leeds Crown Court where last week's Grooming Gang of the Week were on trial for ‘grooming' — the useless euphemism for industrial-scale child gang rape and sex slavery by large numbers of Muslim men with the active connivance of every organ of the state: social workers, police, politicians. Oh, and also the media.”

 

 

Steyn calls the proceedings in Leeds a “Grooming Gang of the Week” trial because there were several such sex slavery rings operating with impunity around the UK until Professor Alexis Jay and Dame Louise Casey exposed the coverup in Rotherham. Now the British government is trying to silence Robinson for covering trials using streaming video on his iPhone, but it’s already backfiring. On Tuesday, the Drudge Report published a link to azerohedge.com story: “Britons Rage Over Robinson Arrest As Mass Protests Break Out Worldwide.”

 

 

European government and media elites are learning that they cannot brush off ordinary citizens as the equivalent of liar-Hillary’s “Deplorables” or liar-nObama’s “Bitter Clingers.” They’ll continue to do so at their peril because muzzling free speech, jailing dissidents for “hate speech” and “breach of the peace” aren’t working. Such practices only shine a brighter light on results of failed, multicultural, European immigration policies.


Our founding fathers understood that one of the functions of our First Amendment right to freedom of speech is that of a safety valve. As people express dissatisfaction with government, debate ensues. There’s discussion. Policy changes can be proposed. That’s how democracy is supposed to work. Closing off public anger entirely the way multicultural elites have in the UK is dangerous.

 

Robinson never claimed all Muslim men are rapists. Neither did Donald Trump claim that all Mexican illegals were rapists, but media continue to claim they did. Trump would not be silenced and gained the White House. Neither will Robinson, but now he’s in danger of being killed by Muslim gangs in prison. If that happens, expect hell to break loose across Europe.

 

http://tommclaughlin.blogspot.com/2018/05/disappearing-tommy-robinson.html