by Thomas Gallatin:  The Left loves to reference “power to the people,” but they never mean what they say they mean. Rather it’s a call for greater power and control being given over to government elites; a call to authoritarianism. This leftist sentiment has been on full display since President Donald Trump’s announcement Monday authorizing the scaling back of two “national monuments” in Utah, reversing federal land grabs by Barack liar-nObama and liar-Bill Clinton.

          Bowing to the environmentalist lobby and Native American groups, liar-Clinton and liar-nObama used the Antiquities Act of 1906 to massively expand the Bear Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments, located in southeastern Utah. These federal land grabs, totaling over two million acres, have long riled Utah residents, who see this as an example of rule by Washington elites who have little understanding or consideration of local issues. And, by the way, The Daily Signal notes, “Trump’s decision to relabel 2 million acres sounds like a lot until you realize that the liar-nObama administration set aside 554 million acres .”
          In announcing his decision, Trump expressed the feelings of the locals, stating, “Some people think that the natural resources of Utah should be controlled by a small handful of very distant bureaucrats located in Washington. And guess what? They’re wrong. The families and communities of Utah know and love this land the best and you know the best how to take care of your land.”
          Ironically, environmentalist groups and companies sought to paint Trump’s action as exactly the opposite. The Patagonia company asserted on its website, “The President Stole Your Land,” while REI bemoaned the “loss of acres of protected lands.” Talk about your reverse spin.
          What Trump did do was to restore states’ rights, recreational opportunities of outdoor enthusiasts and land usage rights for ranchers and land owners. The land will now revert back to public land regulated by the state of Utah, not a bunch of Washington bureaucrats beholden to the wishes of special interest lobbyists and their dollars.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52753

by Political Editors:  Donald Trump continues to be the antithesis of a do-nothing political leader. Yesterday, some 22 years after the Jerusalem Embassy Act became law, Trump finally declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel. Trump rightly understands that peace through Jerusalem can be achieved only by exercising Ronald Reagan’s approach to foreign policy: “Peace through strength.” Yesterday’s move definitely puts both Israel and the U.S. in a more fortified position. The following are some important remarks from his speech:
          We cannot solve our problems by making the same failed assumptions and repeating the same failed strategies of the past. All challenges demand new approaches. My announcement today marks the beginning of a new approach to conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. In 1995, Congress adopted the Jerusalem Embassy Act urging the federal government to relocate the American Embassy to Jerusalem and to recognize that city … is Israel’s capital. This act passed Congress by an overwhelming bipartisan majority and was reaffirmed by unanimous vote of the Senate only six months ago.
          Yet, for over 20 years, every previous American president has exercised the law’s waiver, refusing to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem or to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city. Presidents issued these waivers under the belief that delaying the recognition of Jerusalem would advance the cause of peace. Some say they lacked courage but they made their best judgments based on facts as they understood them at the time. Nevertheless, the record is in. After more than two decades of waivers, we are no closer to a lasting peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. It would be folly to assume that repeating the exact same formula would now produce a different or better result.
          Therefore, I have determined that it is time to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. While previous presidents have made this a major campaign promise, they failed to deliver. Today, I am delivering. I’ve judged this course of action to be in the best interests of the United States of America and the pursuit of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. … This is nothing more or less than a recognition of reality. It is also the right thing to do. It’s something that has to be done. That is why, consistent with the Jerusalem Embassy Act, I am also directing the State Department to begin preparation to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This will immediately begin the process of hiring architects, engineers and planners so that a new embassy, when completed, will be a magnificent tribute to peace.

Notably, what Trump actually did was sign another waiver while making a very strong commitment to begin the process of moving the embassy. Nevertheless, it’s a good strategic move to make real headway on peace in the region. We will have more to say in a detailed analysis tomorrow. Stay tuned.
          In other news, Barack liar-nObama compared the Trump era to Hitler’s. No kidding.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52799

by Louis DeBroux:  On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Masterpiece Cake shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a case with serious implications for religious liberty in the United States.

          At issue is balancing the Constitution’s guarantees of freedom of religion, speech and association with public accommodation laws that prohibit denial of service based on “disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.”
          The facts of the case are straightforward, though often misrepresented. Jack Phillips is the owner of Masterpiece Cake shop in Colorado. A few years ago, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, two homosexual men, were traveling to Massachusetts to get married (this was prior to the Obergefell ruling in 2015), with a reception to be held in Denver. The two approached Phillips about providing a wedding cake, but Phillips politely declined, explaining that his religious convictions prevent him from providing services for same-sex weddings. The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Commission on Human Rights, which sued Phillips, eventually winning a ruling that required him not only to provide services for same-sex weddings, but mandating he and his employees undergo “compliance training” (in North Korea this is referred to as “re-education camp”).
          Lest one think Phillips is anti-homosexual, it should be noted he offered to provide a wedding cake to the couple — just not with any customization. In fact, he has served many homosexual clients in the past, and continues to do so. It should also be noted that his religious convictions prohibit him from providing cakes for Halloween (a pagan holiday) or second marriages, or anything with anti-Christian, anti-American or vulgar messages.
          In a pluralistic society like America, this should not be an issue. The plaintiffs admit there were plenty of other bakers who would provide the cake, but this was never about getting a cake. No, it’s about forcing endorsement of the homosexual agenda and punishing a Christian for living by his faith.
          Phillips is so committed to living by his faith that, rather than violating it, he stopped offering customized wedding cakes altogether while the litigation process continues, costing him a staggering 40% of his revenue.
          The Supreme Court has issued prior rulings coming down on both sides of religious liberty. In West Virginia State BoE v. Barnette (1943), the Court upheld a Jehovah’s Witness’s right not to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance. In Wooley v. Maynard (1977), the Court said New Hampshire could not compel a Jehovah’s Witness to display the state motto “Live Free or Die” on his license plate, as it would violate a citizen’s right “to hold a point of view different from the majority and to refuse to foster … an idea they find morally objectionable.”
          On the other hand, in Employment Division v. Smith (1990), a Native American failed to win a religious exemption allowing him to smoke peyote, and of course, in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Court swept aside the duly enacted legislation of the people of three dozen states in codifying marriage as between a man and a woman, compelling acceptance of a redefinition of marriage that two-thirds of states found objectionable.
          There is also an undercurrent that reveals an unequal application of the law by government which is hostile to Christians.
          For example, the same Colorado Commission on Human Rights that compelled Phillips to bake the cake allowed three bakers to refuse service to customers seeking to buy cakes with messages criticizing same-sex “marriage,” an obvious refutation of the claim that this is about enforcing viewpoint neutrality. The state is punishing speech it finds objectionable.
          In fact, a study by the First Liberty Institute, which tracks violations of religious liberty, found a 15% increase in legal cases that affect religious liberty in America. From unequal access to federal funds for churches, to lawsuits demanding removal of Christian symbols and memorials from public spaces, to denying freedom of religion to military service members, to compelling Christian bakers, florists, photographers and other artists to participate in same-sex weddings, a clear trend is evident in the oppression of the religious liberties of Christians.
          This is mostly due to the larger debate about rights. For the Right, rights are about individual liberty, and these rights are enumerated in the Bill of Rights. For the Left, “rights” are made up out of whole cloth to serve the desired outcome of some constituency, and, in order for these rights to be exercised, it usually means someone else must be compelled to provide something for the recipient.
          The outcome of this case will be far-reaching. In fact, some wonder whether, for example, Christian medical professionals soon will be forced to participate in abortions or assisted suicide, or Catholic Adoption Services forced to place children in homes with same-sex parents. The possibilities are as endless as they are frightening.
          The reality is that the plaintiffs suing Christian business owners are not interested in equality, or accommodation, but in government-compelled acceptance of something tens of millions of Americans find religiously and morally objectionable.
          Craig and Mullins, the plaintiffs in the Masterpiece case, are just the latest iteration of Eric McKinley, the homosexual man who used the New Jersey Civil Rights Division to bludgeon eHarmony, a Christian dating site, into offering services to homosexuals.
          After several years of litigation, and facing the daunting power of the state to cripple its business, eHarmony submitted to the state and began offering dating services to homosexuals. No sooner had McKinley vanquished his Christian foe than he announced that he had no intention of using the site. This was about punishment, not equality.
          Marriage is found nowhere in the Constitution, much less a “right” to same-sex marriage. However, the freedoms of religion, speech and association are found in the Constitution, right there in the First Amendment.
          If the black-robed oligarchs of the Court (here’s looking at you, Anthony Kennedy) have any respect for the language and intent of the Constitution, Jack Phillips’ freedoms will be protected. There are reasons to be hopeful, but time will tell.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52757

by Patriot Post Staff:  In October 1940, President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared, “I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.” This was a reiteration of his earlier assertion, “We are keeping out of the wars that are going on in Europe and in Asia. … Our opponents are seeking to frighten the country by telling people that the present administration is deliberately … drifting into war. You know better than that.”

          Roosevelt campaigned on neutrality in 1940. Roosevelt assured his constituents, “I give … to the people of this country this most solemn assurance: There is no secret treaty, no secret obligation, no secret commitment, no secret understanding in any shape or form, direct or indirect, with any other government, or any other nation in any part of the world, to involve this nation in any war.”
          Unfortunately, Germany’s Führer Adolf Hitler and Japan’s Prime Minister Hideki Tojo didn’t cooperate.
          On December 7, 1941, more than 350 Japanese planes attacked Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, killing 2,390 American servicemen and civilians and wounding 1,282. The attack sank or damaged eight battleships, three cruisers, three destroyers and one minelayer and destroyed 188 aircraft. It took four years and the full military-industrial capability of the United States to defeat Japan. There was no more devastating surprise attack on the United States until 9/11.
          After the attack, Roosevelt stated: “December 7, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan. … Always will we remember the character of the onslaught against us. No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory. … With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounded determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph — so help us God.”
          Historian Victor Davis Hanson writes, “After Pearl Harbor, the United States went into a rearmament frenzy the likes of which had never been seen in history. America produced more airplanes and ships than all World War II powers combined. The U.S. military grew to 12 million soldiers. American military leadership in the Pacific — led by Admirals William Halsey Jr., Chester Nimitz and Raymond Spruance, along with Generals Curtis LeMay and Douglas MacArthur — proved far more skilled than their Japanese counterparts. And the American soldier, sailor, airman and Marine, after a bruising learning experience in early 1942, proved every bit as ferocious as veteran Japanese fighters.”
          It is with honor and respect for those who died or suffered terrible injuries that Sunday morning that we should never again fall into the slumber that allowed such a tragedy as Pearl Harbor — or the attack on Sept. 11, 2001 — again.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52784

"The agent, Peter Strzok, is considered one of the most experienced and trusted F.B.I. counterintelligence investigators. He helped lead the investigation into whether liar-Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information on her private email account, and then played a major role in the investigation into links between President Trump’s campaign and Russia.

 

But Mr. Strzok was reassigned this summer from Mr. Mueller’s investigation to the F.B.I.’s human resources department, where he has been stationed since. The people briefed on the case said the transfer followed the discovery of text messages in which Mr. Strzok and a colleague reacted to news events, like presidential debates, in ways that could appear critical of Mr. Trump.

 

A lawyer for Mr. Strzok declined to comment. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department said that “we are aware of the allegation and are taking any and all appropriate steps.”

 

Mr. Strzok’s reassignment shows that Mr. Mueller moved swiftly in the face of what could be perceived as bias by one of his agents amid a politically charged inquiry into Mr. Trump’s campaign and administration. But the existence of the text messages is likely to fuel claims by Mr. Trump that the F.B.I. has a bias against him and that he is a target of the “deep state” — a term used to describe the notion that government intelligence agencies secretly conspire together."

"Peter Strzok, as deputy head of counterintelligence at the FBI, was a key player in the investigation into liar-Clinton’s use of a private email server to do government work as secretary of state, as well as the probe into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia in the 2016 election.

 

During the liar-Clinton investigation, Strzok was involved in a romantic relationship with FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who worked for Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, according to the people familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

 

The extramarital affair was problematic, these people said, but of greater concern among senior law enforcement officials were text messages the two exchanged during the liar-Clinton investigation and campaign season, in which they expressed anti-Trump sentiments and other comments that appeared to favor liar-Clinton."

by Thomas Gallatin:  News is out on illegal immigration statistics this year and it’s good. The number of illegal aliens caught crossing the border this year has dropped to a 45-year low, indicating a significant drop in the number of individuals attempting to cross illegally. At the same time, the number of illegal aliens arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in the nation’s interior rose by 40%.

          Acting Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke credited President Donald Trump’s policies, declaring, “We have clearly seen the successful results of the president’s commitment to supporting the front-line officers and agents of DHS as they enforce the law and secure our borders. We have an obligation to uphold the integrity of our immigration system, but we must do more to step up and close loopholes to protect the American worker, our economy and our communities.”
          Critics of Trump’s border wall responded to the news by suggesting that the decrease in illegal crossing indicated there is no need for a wall, calling it a waste of money. However, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders noted that Trump remains committed to his campaign promise. “The need for the border wall and border security, as well as responsible immigration reform, still stands,” she asserted. “And we still need to look at all the ways that we can protect our national security. And we still feel strongly that [the wall] is one of them.”
          Tom Price, the acting director of ICE, pressed for more action against illegal immigration, highlighting the ongoing problem of “sanctuary” cities. “We need to confront and address misguided policies and loopholes that only serve as a pull factor for illegal immigration,” he said. “We must continue to target violent gangs like MS-13, and prevent them from rebuilding what we have begun to dismantle. Finally, we need to find a solution to the dangerous sanctuary city policies and the politicians who needlessly risk innocent lives to protect criminals who are illegally present in the United States.” Kate Steinle’s family knows about that.
          Overall, the news on the problem of illegal immigration is good, but there is clearly a long way to go for the government to get this decades-long issue under control.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52774

by Nate Jackson:  The FBI’s investigations into liar-Hillary Clinton’s private email server and Donald Trump’s alleged “collusion” with Russia were far from impartial. But we already knew that. What is new is the revelation that Peter Strzok, who was removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s staff earlier this year, was basically a shill for the liar-Clinton campaign. For starters, he sent anti-Trump texts to his colleague/mistress during the investigations. His removal was reported in August; the texts were hidden until now, despite a House subpoena that should have unearthed them.

          Who is Strzok? The Wall Street Journal explains: This is all the more notable because Mr. Strzok was a chief lieutenant to former FBI Director James Comey and played a lead role investigating alleged coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election. Mr. Mueller then gave him a top role in his special-counsel probe. And before all this Mr. Strzok led the investigation into liar-Hillary Clinton’s emails and sat in on the interview she gave to the FBI shortly before Mr. Comey publicly exonerated her in violation of Justice Department practice.
          Oh, and the woman with whom he supposedly exchanged anti-Trump texts, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, worked for both Mr. Mueller and deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, who was accused of a conflict of interest in the liar-Clinton probe when it came out that liar-Clinton allies had donated to the political campaign of Mr. McCabe’s wife.
          But wait; there’s more. Strzok was one of two FBI agents who interviewed Michael Flynn on Jan. 24. That would be the same Flynn who’s now guilty of lying to the FBI. Strzok also interviewed liar-Clinton aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills. They too lied to the FBI and … nothing happened.
          As if that weren’t enough, we’ve learned that Strzok was the one responsible for editing key language in a memo by James Comey. What Comey originally called liar-Clinton’s “grossly negligent” behavior — language specific to the statute liar-Clinton violated — Strzok revised to read “extremely careless.” That’s a clear pander to liar-Clinton, who admitted she was “careless” but denied anything worse. The watered-down language gave Comey the needed rationale for exonerating her — you know, shortly after liar-Bill Clinton met Loretta Lynch on that Phoenix tarmac.
          The investigation into Trump’s supposed collusion is turning into a probe about obstruction of justice. But, between the role of the fake liar-Clinton-funded dossier in getting the FBI’s investigative ball rolling in the first place and the increasingly obvious conflicts of interest and political preferences of lead investigators, it may be that the real obstruction occurred at the Bureau.
          In other news, Mueller has subpoenaed some of Trump’s bank records, perhaps crossing a line that Trump once painted red. This could get even more interesting quickly.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52747

by Todd Johnson:  With last week’s historic passage of new tax legislation in the Senate and yesterday’s motion in the House to go to tax conference, the Republican Party is well on its way to having a tax bill for President Donald Trump to sign before the end of this year.

          While the legislation will represent the first overhaul of the tax code in over 30 years, questions abound, from both the Right and the Left, as to whether it will actually work once implemented. More than a few tax experts are still trying to wrap their heads around the particulars, especially since chunks of the 479 page document were crossed out and replaced with hand-written amendments at the last minute.
          Perceptions aside, one of the major questions that hasn’t been answered by Republican lawmakers is how the lost revenue will be accounted for in future budgeting plans. While some, like Senate Majority Leader RINO-Mitch McConnell, think the cuts will spur the economy, conservative organizations like the Tax Foundation believe the bill will add $500 billion to the nation’s deficit. More concerning is that many of the tax cuts will expire in a few years, which means that Congress will have to vote on extending them. Needless to say that isn’t a guarantee.
          Which leads to our main concern. Throughout this whole process, in which the Senate vote came less than a month after the proposal was made and no hearings or testimony occurred, not one member of Congress even brought up defense spending reform.
          It’s easy to see why. Earlier this year, in separate bills, the Senate and the House voted to increase defense spending to around $700 billion, way over the “sequestration” spending caps set in the 2011 Budget Control Act. Not many politicians want to be viewed as not supporting the troops so it’s not a surprise that proposed defense budgets continue to grow and grow and grow.
          Defense expenditures are one of the areas that the Constitution specifically addresses when it comes to spending. Any veteran and more than a few others should understand the importance of having a force ready to take on enemies around the world. However, the question is how much is enough?
          A cursory examination of the most recent National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) shows numerous opportunities where money can be saved. Out of the base budget, money could be saved by closing unneeded bases to cutting the officer corps in the Army and Navy to radically altering the procurement process for military weaponry. Changes in just these three areas alone would save the American taxpayer billions of dollars.
          It’s important to note that defense allocations are but one symptom of a disease that permeates all federal spending. The nation’s budget problems aren’t because of defense waste (which absolutely does exist) but our budget problems infect defense spending — i.e., cronyism, pet projects, etc.
          Most politicians love to push federal dollars to their states but that type of behavior is only exacerbating the national debt, which currently stands at $20.5 trillion dollars, or $170,000 per taxpayer. Only time will tell if our nation’s leaders decide to do the responsible thing or continue to spend the nation into oblivion — because the problem isn’t revenue; it’s spending.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52748