ACTION

How many times do Democrats get to cry wolf before a rational body politic tells them to go fly a kite? Instead of retreating with tails between their legs over their failed Russia hoax, they’re already at it again.

Did any Democrats leading the false charge that President Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election ever apologize for putting the country through this nightmare? Did any of their media water carriers ever backpedal from their anti-Trump sensationalism?

Of course not, because in their minds Trump is so evil and his presidency so bad for the country that even ignoble efforts to remove him are morally warranted. What’s wrong with deceit and abuse of process if it will rid the country of the orange scourge?

Alert people should now recognize that Democrats are still willing to go to almost any lengths to undo the 2016 election — or preempt Trump’s 2020 reelection. Their raw contempt for Trump and his supporters knows no bounds, and their just-launched “impeachment inquiry” is further evidence of it.

I note in my soon-to-be-released new book, “Guilty By Reason of Insanity: Why the Democrats Must Not Win,” that there is no real fissure in the Democratic Party between the old guard and the young radicals, the latter of whom are led by the “Squad.” Sure, there is sometimes spirited debate between the established powers and Rep. commie-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s socialist quartet, but in the end, the entire party has embraced a thoroughly extremist leftist agenda.

Even if House Speaker liar-Nancy Pelosi would have us believe that she and her veteran Democratic colleagues are more measured, there is no doubt where her party is headed. Even if in her heart of hearts, she thinks the Young Turks are going too far too fast, which I strongly doubt, the Democratic Party base is not about to allow her to vacillate, much less to moderate.

So it is that liar-Pelosi, despite having long resisted Rep. scumbag liar-Jerry Nadler’s and other Democratic congressional militants’ efforts to initiate impeachment proceedings, has snapped to attention over these new hyped-up allegations concerning Ukraine and opened an impeachment inquiry herself.

Just like the Russia hoax, this one already involves more damning evidence against Democrats than Trump. Democrats, in a monumental act of projection, tried for three years to interfere with an election by falsely claiming Trump interfered with that same election. Now they’re alleging that Trump abused his presidential power with Ukraine by trying to expose loose lips liar-Joe Biden’s possible abuse of power with Ukraine. In addition to loose lips liar-Biden’s alleged misconduct, three Democratic senators wrote a letter to Ukraine’s prosecutor general in May 2018 urging him to cooperate with the Mueller investigation. This is plot thickening on steroids.

liar-Pelosi acted precipitously, before Trump released notes from his call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and before release of the whistleblower complaint against Trump, both of which are turning out to be nothing — veggie burgers with no fries. Then again, with the liberal media in their pocket (or vice versa), Democrats have little to fear from performing such stunts.

Some commentators argue that though Democrats know they don’t have the votes to convict Trump in the Senate, they are pursuing this “inquiry” because their agenda isn’t resonating with the people. Corruption charges will distract from their policy bankruptcy and might cripple Trump enough to defeat him in 2020. Others say their angle is more subtle — to snooker Trump and his officials into committing a process crime by defying court orders to produce documents, or perhaps lying to Congress or the FBI.

Of course, liberal commentators dispute that Democrats are trying to distract from their preposterous agenda, because in their view, the Democrats’ insane environmental and fiscal proposals and their ruthless obsession over identity politics are winning ideas. Thus, they don’t need to fabricate phony corruption charges. These allegations are legitimate. Though there was manifestly no quid pro quo in Trump’s comments to Zelensky, the Trump haters divine evil intent and malice aforethought with every Trump stream-of-consciousness utterance.

That they were all embarrassingly wrong for three years over Russiagate gives them no pause. They are incorrigible and shameless.

Some Trump supporters are concerned about this, fearing that Democratic relentlessness will finally bear fruit. I honestly don’t think so. Once again, the Trump haters, so consumed with venom that they’ve lost objectivity, have overplayed their hands. This impeachment fantasy is going nowhere. Democratic excessiveness is part of what led to Trump’s rise in the first place, and there’s good reason to believe it will aid in his reelection. People have had enough of this insanity. By becoming more extreme and unreasonable, the left is only solidifying and amplifying Trump support. So bring it on.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/65739?mailing_id=4554&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4554&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

At the time, Mark Landler of The New York Times argued that Trump’s decision threatened to damage America’s fragile trans-Atlantic relationship. He added, “Mr. Trump’s move could embolden hard-line forces in Iran, raising the threat of Iranian retaliation against Israel or the United States, fueling an arms race in the Middle East and fanning sectarian conflicts from Syria to Yemen.”

President Trump didn’t see it that way.

During a formal White House announcement in 2018 of the U.S. decision to pull out of the deal, the president said, “This was a horrible one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made,” adding, “It didn’t bring calm, it didn’t bring peace, and it never will.”

Known as the Joint Comprehension Plan of Action, or simply the “Iran Deal,” the 2015 agreement brought together the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the U.S., Great Britain, France, Russia, and China) as well as Germany and the European Union. In theory, the JCPOA was designed to ease economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for allowing its government to pursue a limited nuclear program. Although the U.S. is no longer part of the deal, the other member states held firm to the agreement.

The naysayers’ dire warnings of chaos and warfare breaking out across Europe never panned out, although when news broke that Saudi oil facilities had been  attacked by drones on Sept. 14, many wondered whether Trump’s critics were right. But Iran hasn’t made a move since, and for now it seems that its attack on the Saudi oil supply was more an attempt at goading the U.S. into a military response than causing any serious threat to the region.

To his credit, Trump has avoided war despite pressure from within. The exit of National Security Advisor John Bolton may have been the result of Bolton’s “war hawk” reputation clashing with Trump’s more nuanced approach.

And it’s Trump’s approach that seems to be paying off.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board writes, “Iran will also now face even greater pressure to renegotiate. So far its leaders have refused, saying they will not do so under the pressure of sanctions. They are also violating the terms of the nuclear deal, stockpiling excessive enriched uranium. Iran could break out of the accord even further by enriching to weapons-grade levels. Or it could ratchet up its terror campaign with more attacks on Arab states, oil supplies, or U.S. and allied forces in the region.”

But just this week, there have been two important developments.

One is that the U.S. is clearly signaling its readiness to respond if Iran escalates the situation with more attacks. President Trump’s assertion that the U.S. was “locked and loaded” has been followed up by a Pentagon  announcement that the U.S. will send a Patriot missile battery, radars, and 200 support personnel to Saudi Arabia.

Equally important was the joint statement earlier this week by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and French President Macron that blamed Iran for the attack and pushed the regime to “accept negotiation on a long-term framework for its nuclear programme as well as on issues related to regional security, including its missiles programme and other means of delivery.”

In other words, those critics who claimed that Trump was alienating America’s allies were wrong. Thanks to the president, some of them now seem to realize that the so-called Iran deal was a bad deal, and that any new version of the JCPOA must include President Trump’s broader concerns about Iran’s missile program and its desire to exert power in the region.

With pressure coming from all directions, Iran is now showing signs of concession due to the painful sanctions implemented by the Trump administration, as well as additional penalties enacted after the incident in Saudi Arabia.

At the United Nations this week, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani hinted that Iran may be willing to make a new deal if sanctions are lifted. However, Reuters  reported that the rogue regime’s Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif, was unwilling to change the original provisions of the JCPOA.

And so it goes.

Iran’s leadership is unpredictable, and that’s why President Trump’s decision to pull out of the Iran Deal was the right one. Too bad it took our allies so long to catch on to the big idea: Deals that benefit and embolden the enemy are not deals worth making.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/65760?mailing_id=4554&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4554&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

How much credibility should we give to a 16-year-old when considering her qualifications to lecture adults about science and an end-of-the-world scenario?

Greta Thunberg has been dubbed by the media as a “climate change activist” and a teen “eco-warrior.” She was at the United Nations in New York last Monday to appear before diplomats and others at a “climate action summit.” Only the UN has less credibility than a teenager.

Thunberg is on a world tour promoting the latest end-of-the-planet scenario. By the way, shouldn’t she be in school? Reporters won’t ask because most appear to buy into her secular doctrine that the apocalypse is just around the corner.

Thunberg claims “people are dying” because the Earth is getting hotter. She warns that adults had better wake up or they will burn in ecological hell or perhaps even the real thing. Her theological qualifications have yet to be examined.

Think back to when you were 16 and believed you knew it all. At 18, an adult called me “precocious” (he didn’t mean it as a compliment). I had to look up the meaning in a dictionary. It was a humbling experience.

As their adolescent brains continue to develop, most teenagers know only what their teachers and textbooks tell them and maybe their parents, if they still listen to them. Science textbooks mostly embrace the climate change scenario, so why wouldn’t kids believe what they read and what they’re taught?

Thunberg was preparing to speak to the assembled adults at the UN when President Trump walked in ahead of her. The man knows showmanship. The expression on Thunberg’s face was priceless. If spitting fire contributed to “global warming,” we’d have been in real trouble.

It appears the girl is being held in intellectual captivity. She might benefit from consulting a list of “50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalytpic Predictions” compiled by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI.org), the nonprofit libertarian think tank based in Washington, D.C.

Just a few examples:

In 1967, the Los Angeles Times carried a story headlined “Dire Famine Forecast by 1975.” The story said it might “already be too late.”

On August 10, 1969, The New York Times quoted a 37-year-old scientist predicting a new ice age and that “everyone will disappear in a cloud of blue steam by 1989.”

An April 16, 1970 story in the Boston Globe quoted Dr. Paul R. Erlich of the University of California, Riverside, predicting America will be “subject to water rationing by 1974 and food rationing by 1980.” Erlich said the oceans would be as dead as Lake Erie in less than a decade.

On July 9, 1971, The Washington Post, which, like most other media, now claims climate change and a warming planet is “settled science,” thought differently then. It quoted Dr. S. I. Rasool of NASA and Columbia University. Rasool predicted a coming “new ice age.” He was described as a “leading atmospheric scientist,” so he should be believed, right? He predicted we had only about “50 or 60 years” to save ourselves from freezing to death.

On her way back to Sweden, Ms. Thunberg should take along a copy of the CEI summary. She just may discover that some older people might know more than she does about most things and that those who preceded her in these “Chicken Little” hysterics were as wrong then as she is now.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/65706?mailing_id=4552&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4552&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

This is definitely good news for American farmers who have felt the brunt of tariffs in the long-running trade war with China. The Wall Street Journal, which has long voiced strong criticism of Trump’s tariff strategy, says, “The Japan deal be the President’s biggest trade victory in his first term.” Furthermore, it increases pressure on China to negotiate an end to the trade war.

While the Journal disappointedly observes that the trade agreement does not include any deal on motor vehicles, the White House statement does note that more may be coming in the future as “the United States will engage in further negotiations in the interest of achieving a final, comprehensive trade deal.”   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/65726?mailing_id=4552&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4552&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

At first glance, there is one statistic that is particularly damning for opponents of gun control; namely, that most of the Top 10 states for highest rates of gun deaths are conservative, pro-Second Amendment “red” states. In other words, the states most determined to protect their gun rights are the states most likely to suffer from high mortality rates due to “gun violence.”

Furthermore, gun-control advocates claim that in “blue” cities/states like Chicago, where death rates from firearms are high, neighboring states like Indiana and Wisconsin (with more lenient gun laws) are to blame, allowing criminals to easily obtain firearms that are then transported across state lines.

As you might have already guessed, there’s more to the story.

Logically, it makes no sense to blame Indiana and Wisconsin for Chicago’s high rate of violent crime. First, fewer guns used in Chicago crimes originate from Indiana and Wisconsin (less than 30%) than originate from Chicago (40%). And logic would dictate (if the pro-gun-control argument is to be believed) that the rate of violent crime would be highest where guns are most easily accessible, and would drop with distance from the epicenter. Conversely, crime would certainly should plummet in a place like Chicago, where guns are largely prohibited and strictly regulated.

Statistically, the argument is also too simplistic. Yes, the highest rates of gun deaths are in “red” states with more lenient gun laws, but that doesn’t tell the whole story. For example, in the state with the highest rate of gun deaths per capita, Alaska, suicide accounted for 80% of those deaths. In the state with the second-highest rate, Alabama, suicides accounted for 52% of gun deaths. Nationally, suicide accounts for nearly two-thirds of all gun deaths. Universal background checks would not do much to prevent someone from committing suicide who is determined to do so.

There is also the fact that, since 1968, federal law has declared anyone who “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution” is barred from possessing or acquiring firearms.

So what we should really be focused on is reducing the number of homicides in which guns are used. The question is, where are these homicides occurring?

According to an analysis of the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) statistics, 54% of all U.S. counties had ZERO homicides in 2014 (latest data available), and 70% of the counties had no more than one homicide. In fact, 68% of all homicides occurred in just 5% of U.S. counties, with over 50% of all homicides occurring in 2% of the counties.

So, in these Republican “red” states, the vast majority of homicides are concentrated in places like Atlanta, Birmingham, Memphis, New Orleans, Baton Rouge, etc. All of these cities have been controlled by Democrats for decades, and most have stringent gun laws. In fact, the U.S. cities that have far and away the highest murder rates are all Democrat-controlled — St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit, New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Kansas City, Cleveland, Memphis, Newark, Chicago, etc.

Louisiana is a perfect example. It has the cities with the fourth- and fifth-highest murder rates in the country, with New Orleans (39.5 murders per 100,000) and Baton Rouge (38.3 murders per 100,000). Yet the average for the entire state plummets to 12.4 murders per 100,000, meaning that outside of those two cities, the state is actually pretty safe.

The murders tend to be highly concentrated even within counties. For example, the vast majority of murders in Los Angeles County are in the southeastern part of the county, with virtually none in the northwestern section. In Washington, DC, virtually all murders occur in the eastern part of the city.

The caricature of gun owners in general, and NRA members in particular, as gun-totin’, backwoods hillbillies looking for a reason to shoot someone is nothing more than intellectually lazy character assassination. One has only to look at concealed-carry weapons (CCW) permit holders to realize that.

CCW permit holders are even more law abiding than sworn law-enforcement officers. Criminal-justice statistics show that CCW permit holders commit crimes at roughly 1/8th the rate of law-enforcement officers, who themselves commit crimes at a fraction of the general population. CCW holders and NRA members are CCW holders and NRA members precisely because they have a deep respect for Rule of Law, the Constitution, and societal safety and order. Their driving desire in carrying a weapon is to protect their own lives, the lives of their families, and innocent people around them from violent criminals. Most hope to never have to draw their weapon but are ready if they must.

Yes, it’s easier to engage in the character assassination of gun owners than it is to deal with the reality that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed in the urban poverty plantations cultivated by Democrats for decades.

But that won’t save any lives.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/65710?mailing_id=4552&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4552&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Fox News reports, “commie-Sanders’ plan, if enacted into law, would place a 1 percent tax on net worth over $32 million, a 2 percent tax on net worth between $50 million and $250 million, and a 3 percent tax on net worth between $250 million and $500 million. The proposed commie-Sanders tax would increase to 4 percent net worth from $500 million to $1 billion, 5 percent for net worth from $1 billion to $2.5 billion, and ultimately reach 8 percent for wealth over $10 billion.”

Using tired old leftist class-warfare rhetoric, commie-Sanders asserts, “Under this plan, the wealth of billionaires would be cut in half over 15 years, which would substantially break up the concentration of wealth and power of this small, privileged class.”

But commie-Sanders isn’t the only one singing this Marxist tune. Earlier this year, one-percenter Elizabeth dinky-Warren unveiled her own tax-the-rich-to-pay-for-socialism scheme. It would levee a 2% annual tax on everything above $50 million and a 3% tax on net worth above $1 billion.

commie-Sanders’s plan to confiscate wealth from billionaires would still fall well short of the money needed to fund all his socialist policy proposals. For example, his Medicare for All plan alone would cost an estimated $32 trillion over the next 10 years, while his billionaire tax would net just $4.35 trillion over the same period of time. So, who ends up making up the near $28 trillion difference?

Both commie-Sanders and dinky-Warren claim that their tax proposals would only impact 180,000 and 70,000 households respectively. Clearly, neither commie-Sanders nor dinky-Warren recognize the trickle-down effect that raising taxes on the wealthy has upon the economy at large. Like a pebble dropped into a pool, the ripples spread across the entire surface. The simple fact of the matter is that everyone would be impacted by such a grotesque government money grab.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/65699?mailing_id=4549&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4549&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

This complete breakdown in civility toward members of the civil service is a recent phenomenon, and it’s growing worse. Public ire toward government has reached a point where people are growing more comfortable with taking out that frustration on the men and women who work for the same government agencies that make people’s blood boil. The old adage, “I’m just doing my job,” no longer buys one a pass.

In any society where disdain for its government reaches such a point of open hostility, woe be the elected official who refuses to heed the signs. But the signs are not entirely universal. Like anything related to politics in this country these days, there is very little overlap between Republicans and Democrats on the issue. In short, Americans can agree that they hate government, but they cannot agree on why.

As one might imagine, 72% of self-identified Democrats look unfavorably on agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), according to a 2018 Pew Research Center poll. An identical percentage of Republicans look favorably on ICE. Among Republicans, 65% believe the Border Patrol is too lenient on enforcement, while 40% of Democrats believe it is too harsh.

And on it goes. Both IRS and FBI enjoy greater support among Democrats than Republicans, who have been stung by both organizations for their roles in targeting conservatives and for potentially involvement in the  attempted coup to oust President Donald Trump from office.

Conservative and independent citizens, at the behest of our Forefathers, have always held a healthy distrust of government. That distrust is essential to the survival of Liberty, because, as Thomas Jefferson warned, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”

What we see now, though, is not healthy for Liberty or our republic. And unfortunately, the rising level of distrust and lack of respect for government institutions is unlikely to lead to a libertarian renaissance of smaller, more responsive government.

If only the disdain for certain government agencies or policies led to a more concerted effort at reform. But that is unlikely to happen in this hyper-partisan atmosphere where political affiliation outweighs allegiance to the Republic.

Take federal spending for instance. For decades we have watched the minority party in Washington savage the majority for its spendthrift ways. But this rancor only lasts until the next election changes party control. Do spending patterns change? Nope. The only thing different is who’s doling out the perks to keep their party in power.

This is why Democrats continue to run on more government, more centralization of power, and more regulation — even in the face of the growing anti-government trend among the public. They know that dangling “free” college, “free” healthcare, and “free” money in front of people will ultimately get their votes, so long as Democrats successfully hide its true cost. This is why Congress can be the least popular institution in the country with 10% approval, but still enjoy a nearly 90% reelection rate every two years. “Throw the bums out. Just not my bum.”

Our Founders established a constitutionally limited government based upon Rule of Law. It’s understandable, therefore, to see conservative and independent perception of unconstitutional government interference decline in tandem with the rise of unconstitutional interference in our lives. Likewise, it’s concerning how successfully leftists have promoted rule of man, including policies that will increase the very number of government workers few Americans want running their lives.

After all, there’s a reason Ronald Reagan famously said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/65668?mailing_id=4547&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4547&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body