WEEKLY SALES

Murfreesboro, 750 Jessica Street, Off Middle Tennessee Blvd.
Open Sunday-Saturday 8 a.m. – 8 p.m.
(Across from Kroger & Sonic on Middle Tennessee Blvd.
615-848-9468
608, 2020

Facebook removes pro-Trump ad

August 6th, 2020|0 Comments

Claiming false information. The ads, titled “On Hold,” were placed in Arizona, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin

fox news photo

By Sally Persons, Brooke Singman | Fox News

A pro-Trump ad was removed from Facebook after claims that it contained false information, Fox News has learned.

America First Action PAC on Tuesday told Fox News that Facebook removed one of its ads, titled “On Hold,” which was placed in Arizona, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on July 24. The ad was flagged by Politifact on July 29, according to the PAC.

“Facebook’s decision to take down this ad shows its anti-conservative bias,” America First Communications Director Kelly Sadler told Fox News. “America First Action has logged an appeal, but the threat of anti-conservative bias, targeting, and censorship remains ahead of Election Day in November and we must be vigilant in holding big tech, like Facebook accountable.”

Sadler, during an interview on Fox Business on Tuesday, added that this “is just more bias from these social media companies.”

“We’re going to file an appeal, but there’s really little we can do about it,” she told host Stuart Varney. “These social media giants are monopolies, and ultimately they make the decision of what runs on their platform.”

Facebook confirmed to Fox News on Tuesday that the ad had, in fact, been fact-checked. A Facebook spokesperson told Fox News that ads that are fact-checked and found to contain false information are not eligible to run as a paid ad on the social media platform.

The spokesman added that the videos can, instead, run as original content on the group’s page.

America First Action, though, said certain versions of the ad were removed in particular states, but the Facebook spokesman said that once the ad was fact-checked as false, all versions would be removed from the platform.

The Facebook spokesperson said that if any version of the ad was still running on the platform, it would be due to a lag in Facebook’s fact-checking system.

The ad in question was titled “On Hold,” and shows a woman calling 9-1-1 and being put on hold. The ad moves to show Democratic nominee former Vice President Joe Biden saying “yes,” with a “defund the police?” banner. The ad is currently marked on Facebook with a label saying: “False Information. Checked by independent fact-checkers.”

Facebook’s fact-checking comes as members of the Trump administration and prominent Republicans have claimed that social media platforms have censored right-leaning viewpoints.

Attorney General William Barr told Fox News in June that social media platforms are “engaged in censorship” and are acting more like “publishers.”

“They originally held themselves out as open forums where the third parties could come and express their views and they built up a tremendous network of eyeballs,” Barr said on “Special Report” in June.

“They had a lot of market power based on that presentation,” the attorney general added. “And now they are acting much more like publishers because they’re censoring particular viewpoints and putting their own content in there to diminish the impact of various people’s views.”

Twitter, earlier this summer, slapped a warning label on one of President Trump’s tweets for the first time, cautioning readers that despite the president’s claims, “fact checkers” say there is “no evidence” that expanded, nationwide mail-in voting would increase fraud risks — and that “experts say mail-in ballots are very rarely linked to voter fraud.”

Within minutes, Trump accused Twitter of “interfering in the 2020 Presidential Election,” that the platform “is completely stifling FREE SPEECH” and vowing: “I, as President, will not allow it to happen!”

Two days later, the president signed an executive order that interprets Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 as not providing statutory liability protections for tech companies that engage in censorship and political conduct. It also cuts federal funding for social media platforms that censor users’ political views.

3007, 2020

Fox News’ Ainsley Earhardt fires back at Pelosi

July 30th, 2020|0 Comments

Speaker Nancy Pelosi refers to AG Barr as a ‘Blob’

Photo: Forbes.com

BY RUSTY WEISS, thepoliticalinsider.com

Ainsley Earhardt, co-host of Fox & Friends, called Nancy Pelosi out after the House Speaker described Attorney General William Barr as a “blob” and “henchman” for President Trump.

Following Barr’s testimony on Capitol Hill Tuesday, a spectacle meant only to make Democrat lawmakers feel good about themselves by “reclaiming their time,” Pelosi attacked the Attorney General for allegedly doing the President’s bidding.

She was particularly distraught over his use of federal law enforcement to quell violence in cities like Portland and Chicago.

“He was like a blob,” she said, sputtering along in an MSNBC interview. “He was like a, just a henchman for the president of the United States, instead of the attorney general of the United States of America.”

Name-calling. The woman who is second in line to the presidency and her best retort is to call Barr a blob.

Double Standard

Earhardt was quick to call out the fact that there is quite the double standard in Pelosi’s disrespectful comments about Barr.

“Nancy Pelosi is saying that he is a henchman and a blob, and there’s a double standard there,” she accused. “What if someone called a woman a blob?”

The Fox & Friends host then turned it over to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) for his thoughts on the House Speaker’s attack.

“It’s terrible,” he replied. “But this is the same individual who said that the President of the United States is an imposter back during impeachment.”

Jordan added, “I don’t take what she says about people in the administration very seriously.”

To that point, America doesn’t really take what she says seriously. Earhardt is right – imagine the uproar had a Republican called a female Democrat a ‘blob’ or any other schoolyard insult.

They’d be forced to apologize from the House floor.

What Barr Really Said

In Barr’s opening statement he spoke of “one standard of justice” and how he has “handled criminal matters that have come to me for a decision in this way.”

He was clear and concise about his independence from the administration.

“The President has not attempted to interfere in these decisions,” he stated. “On the contrary, he has told me from the start that he expects me to exercise my independent judgment to make whatever call I think is right.”

In other words, not a henchman by any means.

Pelosi went on to reiterate her disgusting claims that federal law enforcement officers are the equivalent of “stormtroopers.” “Peaceful protest is who we are and what we do. And do some other people come along and try to disrupt? Yes,” she said. “But you don’t send in people acting like stormtroopers into the scene and evoking even more, even more unease and unrest.”

Imagine that line of thinking in dealing with other crimes. You don’t send police into a bank robbery and put the bank at risk. You don’t send police to a domestic violence situation and cause the assailant to become ‘uneasy.’

It’s clear Pelosi’s mind is ‘like a blob’ – a dark, shapeless and aimless mass of darkness.

3007, 2020

Over 100 Police Agencies Pull Out Of Securing Democratic Convention

July 30th, 2020|0 Comments

Photo: Forbes.com

BY RUSTY WEISS, thepoliticalinsider.com

Over 100 police agencies have backed out of providing security at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Milwaukee next month. WTMJ reports that, according to Milwaukee Police Chief Alfonso Morales, the departments are concerned with new orders that restrict the ability to use tear gas, pepper spray, and other crowd control measures.

Earlier this month, the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission issued a series of directives to Morales, of which one ordered him to work with the commission to change department policy to discontinue the use of the aforementioned chemicals. They threatened him with firing if he did not comply.

The DNC has been reduced to a mostly virtual event, with actual physical attendees ranging in the hundreds.

Still, police anticipate large protests from rioters dragging out racial grievances well after the death of George Floyd in Minnesota in May.

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel is reporting that the agreement with the DNC would have resulted in over 1,000 police officers from various agencies to provide security for the DNC.

Fond du Lac Police Chief William Lamb explained why limiting officers’ use of crowd control measures creates a dangerous situation.

“We believe (that) in removing those tools, the use of chemical irritants or pepper spray, from the available resources that the law enforcement officers would have at their disposal if protests become non-peaceful would severely compromise the safety of the public and also the safety of the law enforcement officers who would be assigned to protect the DNC,” he explained.

Franklin Police Chief Rick Oliva added, “I can not send personnel if they are not properly equipped or will not be allowed to engage in appropriate actions which would ensure their safety.”

Isn’t it Ironic?

The irony here is that any Democrat attendees to the convention will be getting a taste of what their ‘defund the police’ policies are bringing to America.

The Democrat party, from top to bottom, wants to defund police departments, or worse, abolish them.

Even the presumptive Democrat nominee who will be honored at the DNC, Joe Biden, has said he would “absolutely” divert funds from police because some have “become the enemy.”

“Surplus military equipment for law enforcement, they don’t need that!” Biden exclaimed during an interview with Now This in early July. “The last thing you need is an up-armored Humvee coming into a neighborhood, it’s like the military invading.”

“They don’t know anybody. They become the enemy,” he continued. “They’re supposed to be protecting these people.” Donald Trump Jr. has challenged Democrats pushing the ‘defund police’ movement to ditch their own personal security detail first.

Ironically, it appears they don’t have a choice now. At least in terms of the convention. Let’s see how many show up knowing they won’t have the police officers’ to protect them.

3007, 2020

James Woods goes after Jerry Nadler for ‘Antifa is a myth’ comments

July 30th, 2020|0 Comments

BY JACK HADFIELD, the politicalinsider.com

Conservative actor James Woods went after Rep Jerry Nadler in a series of tweets for claiming that antifa rioters are a “myth.” Nadler: Antifa Is A “Myth”

On Sunday, Jerry Nadler told a member of the press that the current violent antifa riots taking place across the country, in cities like Portland, Chicago, and Seattle, are a total “myth that’s being spread only in Washington D.C.”

This is, of course, contrary to the mountains of video and photographic evidence that exists, but that doesn’t seem to bother Mr Nadler at all.

Nadler was then slammed by multiple people, including Senator Tom Cotton.

“Nadler denying antifa is in Portland is kind of like ‘Baghdad Bob’ denying there were American tanks in Baghdad back in the day,” Cotton said.

“I mean, you can just look at the videos posted in recent weeks. People are carrying the flag of antifa and wearing t-shirts and spray painting it on buildings,” he added.

Woods Takes Nadler Down!

Conservative star James Woods also didn’t take too kindly to Nadler’s remarks.

“Stick his chubby ass in the middle of the mob, they’d literally trample him to death,” Woods tweeted. “Honestly this numbskull would lie about the color of the sky.”

Woods then proceeded to mercilessly mock Nadler for denying antifa violence in a series of tweets. Woods posted photos from the riots showing people dressed up as antifa committing violent acts, something that clearly Nadler missed before making his statement on Sunday.

These Statements Only Deserve Mockery

Mockery is exactly what’s needed when dealing with ridiculous statements like the one that Nadler made. They shouldn’t be approached with any serious debate, because of just how ludicrous they are. The concrete evidence that Woods posted, and investigative journalists like Andy Ngo regularly disseminates, prove him totally wrong.

The question is, why exactly is Nadler denying this evidence?

2107, 2020

Major Arrest Rocks Republicans as Ohio House Speaker taken into custody

July 21st, 2020|0 Comments

Ohio’s Speaker of the House of Representatives, Larry Householder taken into custody in $60M Bribery Case

Photo from Cleveland.com

The Republican Party was just rocked by a bombshell arrest when Larry Householder, the conservative Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, was among four people taken into custody on charges involving a $60 million federal bribery case.

Householder was reportedly arrested by the FBI at his farm in Ohio early Tuesday morning, according to Fox News. He was reportedly arrested along with Householder adviser Jeffrey Longstreth, longtime Statehouse lobbyist Neil Clark, former Ohio Republican Party chairman and consultant Matthew Borges and Juan Cespedes, co-founder of The Oxley Group in Columbus.

The Department of Justice has refused to give any details about the arrests so far, saying that it will do so later in the day on Tuesday. FBI spokesman Todd Lindgren would only say that agents were carrying out “law enforcement activity” on Householder’s property, refusing to say anything further on the subject.

Householder is a veteran Republican lawmaker who was Ohio’s House Speaker from 2001-2004 before taking the position again in 2019. When he left office for the first time over a decade ago, he was under federal investigation for alleged money laundering and irregular campaign practices, but no charges were ever filed.

Householder made his return to Ohio politics in 2016, and he won a contentious fight last year to become Ohio’s House Speaker again, according to WLWT5.

Sources have been saying that Householder’s arrest was connected to House Bill 6, the FirstEnergy nuclear bailout bill that was passed by the legislature and signed last year by Governor Mike DeWine. The bill was a controversial one, with detractors saying it was bad for the environment.

“It’s an environmental nightmare,” Rep. David Leland (D – Columbus) said when it was passed last year. “This is over a billion dollars that’s going to go to two nuclear power plants and a coal plant in Indiana so there’s a lot of money at stake here.”

Others, however, supported the bill.

“House Bill 6 saves those plans, lowers tax bills and helps protect the environment,” said Rep. Jamie Callender (R – Concord), the sponsor of the bill.

1607, 2020

Kayleigh McEnmany just took a Buzzsaw to Ilhan Omar and AOC anti-police, crime comments

July 16th, 2020|0 Comments

News Commentary By Rusty Weiss | Featured Contributor, thepoliticalinsider.com

White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany slammed “Squad” Reps. Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez over their recent respective anti-police and crime comments.

Omar, a Minnesota Democrat, said people “don’t want your damn reforms” and compared police departments to cancer in calling for the Minneapolis Police Department to be “completely dismantle(d).”

For her part, Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) did a crime analysis following an uptick in violence and shootings in New York and discovered it couldn’t be due to a lack of respect for the police. And by ‘crime analysis’ we mean she completely made something up in her head.

“Maybe this has to do with the fact that people aren’t paying their rent and are scared to pay their rent, and so they go out and they need to feed their child and they don’t have money, so you maybe have to, they’re put in a position where they feel like they either need to shoplift some bread or go hungry that night,” she said while grasping at the nearest straw.

She prefaced those comments by saying “let me make something super clear,” an indicator she was super-serious about her idiotic claims.

McEnany Pummels AOC

Super-serious or not, McEnany dismissed AOC in all of three words: “That is preposterous.”

An understatement if ever there was one, and really evergreen content for any of the New York socialist’s “deep thoughts.”

McEnany analyzed AOC’s comments regarding the real reason for the uptick in crime – leftist calls to defund the police and being forced to stand down against criminals.

Of particular note, she addressed the Squad leader’s complaints that defunding the NYPD budget by over $1 billion was not nearly enough.

“You have, most egregious of all, really, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez saying, ‘Defund[ing] the police means defund[ing] the police,’” noted McEnany. “She criticized, of course, the announcement of $1.5 billion being taken down from NYPD.”

“And this weekend, you know, when faced with — there were 28 shootings in New York, a 600 percent increase from this time last year — you have Representative Ocasio-Cortez saying this is just because people are trying to get food with their families,” she added. “That is preposterous.”

Not How We Should Be Talking About Our Heroes

McEnany blasted Omar over the “police are cancer” comments as well.

“When you have people out there, like Representative Ilhan Omar, saying, ‘We have to completely ‘dismantle the police’ and police are ‘cancer,’” she lamented, “this is not how we should be talking about our heroes.”

She then took a jab at any liberals who are pushing for defunding the police by addressing the two officers shot and killed in Texas this past weekend.

She recalled that the daughter of one of the slain officers wrote a touching tribute to her father.

“I want Savannah to know: Your dad is a hero,” McEnany said. “His police department should never be defunded because most of our police officers are good, hardworking men and women, and heroes — much like Savannah’s dad.”

AOC and Omar want people like Savannah’s dad to go without resources, unable to do their job, or flat-out eliminated. They are a disgrace to the people they represent as well as the country.

 

207, 2020

Biden Comes Unglued As He Attacks Reporter–

July 2nd, 2020|0 Comments

Calls him a ‘Lying Dog Face’

Photo from VOX

thepoliticalinsider.com

After giving a speech in which he attacked President Donald Trump for his response to the coronavirus pandemic on Tuesday, Joe Biden completely lost it on a reporter, going so far as to call the journalist a “lying dog face.”

During a speech given at a school in his hometown of Wilmington, Delaware, Biden accused President Trump of waiting too long to take action against the COVID-19 pandemic.

“It’s almost July and it seems our wartime president has surrendered, waved the white flag and abandoned the battlefield,” said Biden, 77, according to the New York Post. “We don’t need a cheerleader, Mr. President. We need a president, Mr. President.”

After his speech, the former vice president took questions from reporters for the first time in months, and it didn’t take long for this to go downhill. Biden lashed out on one reporter who dared to ask about his own mental deterioration as someone who is well over the age of 65, going on to ask if he had been tested for cognitive decline.

This did not sit well with Biden, to put it mildly.

“You’re a lying dog face,” a visibly-irritated Biden barked, going on to add that he is “constantly tested.”

“All you gotta do is watch me and I can hardly wait to compare my cognitive capability to the cognitive capability of the man I’m running against,” he continued.

“Lying dog face” seems to be Biden’s go-to insult, as he infamously called a female college student a “lying dog-faced pony soldier” back in February during a campaign event in New Hampshire. The young woman later spoke out to say that she found this experience to be “humiliating.”

Biden appeared defensive about his cognitive abilities as he took questions from reporters, at one point lashing out at Trump for his own mental skills. “He talks about cognitive capability. He doesn’t seem to be cognitively aware of what’s going on,” Biden said of Trump.

“He either reads and/or gets briefed on important issues and he forgets it or he doesn’t think it’s necessary that he needs to know it.”

It seems it might be time for someone to taking Grandpa Joe back to his basement.

1106, 2020

Trump Jr. to ‘Defund Police’ Democrats – Ditch Your Security First

June 11th, 2020|0 Comments

by Rusty Weiss Contributor, thepoliticalinsider.com

Donald Trump Jr. is challenging Democrats pushing the ‘defund police’ movement to ditch their own personal security detail first.

The President’s son, in a social media post, stated that condemnation of police brutality has been universal, but pulling resources from law enforcement is not the answer.

“We all want to stop police brutality, but cutting funding to police departments like so many Dems want to do doesn’t stop abuses, it just makes communities (particularly impoverished communities) less safe,” he wrote.

“Will those same anti-cop Dems call for their security details to be cut?” he asked.

No ‘Damn Reforms’

Democrat lawmakers on Monday proposed legislation that would increase the accountability of police officers and remove immunity from legal action stemming from inappropriate conduct.

Rep. Ilhan Omar has used the George Floyd tragedy to call for the Minneapolis Police Department to be “completely dismantled,” claiming that the entire department is “rotten to the root.”

“We don’t want your damn reforms, we don’t want the slow dying of our communities to continue,” she preached to an angry crowd of protesters. “What we want you to do is to cut the cancer so that it does not continue to spread throughout our bodies.”

By contrast to what Democrats wish you to believe, the overwhelming majority of our police officers are heroes. They’re the ones out on the streets in our community each and every day, protecting law-abiding citizens and peaceful protesters alike.

Bad cops need to be held accountable. Good ones need to be protected and supported.

Dumbest Idea

Former congressman Trey Gowdy and Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) have described the “defund police” movement as both the “dumbest idea I’ve ever heard” and “ridiculous” respectively.

“Who is going to process crime scenes, arrest bad people?” Gowdy asked in an interview earlier this week. “Who is going to enforce any law, child sex abuse, homicide? Who is going to do it if it’s not the police?”

Scott added that dismantling police departments is “not an idea whose time has come,” rather, “it should never come.”

1106, 2020

Law-and-Order African Americans Stand With Trump

June 11th, 2020|0 Comments

President Trump is standing with the 72 percent of African-Americans who are happy with their local police departments.

 

by Daniel Greenfield
frontpagemag.com

Leftists have launched yet another campaign to destroy President Trump, the economy, and the hopes of the African-American community which had been seeing record employment numbers.

If you believe the media, African-Americans are rising up against President Trump because of a police incident in Minneapolis, a Democrat city, run by radical lefties who voted to disband the police, in Minnesota, a Democrat state, which had not voted for a Republican since Nixon, over 1,000 miles away from Washington D.C. And, if you believe the media, the economy is doomed, and every state that opened before the riots has streets filled with piles of the pandemic dead.

The latest Rasmussen tracking poll shows that President Trump’s approval rating among likely black voters is at 41%.That’s up from 40% in the fall of 2018 which had been a high at the time.

How is that possible? Aren’t black people furious after Trump’s call for law and order?

A Monmouth University poll however shows that 72 percent of African-Americans are satisfied with their local police departments. Despite what you’re seeing on television, 21 percent of African-Americans are very satisfied with the local police and another 51 percent are satisfied.

Only 5 percent are very dissatisfied.

Why is the country burning and why are so many politicians, corporations, and organizations falling into line to sate the outrage of that 5 percent? Ask them if you can find them inciting a riot.

By backing law and order, President Trump is standing with the nearly 3 in 4 African-Americans who are happy with their local police departments over the less than 1 in 5 who aren’t.

Why do these numbers about what African-Americans actually believe differ so dramatically from what the media insists on telling us that they believe in order to justify the riots and looting?

41 percent of African-Americans reported that they had an experience where a police officer had helped keep them or their family members safe in a dangerous situation.

That’s significantly higher than the 33 percent of white people and 21 percent of Hispanic people.

Black communities benefit from law enforcement more than other communities do. Many of the stores that were ransacked and looted were owned by African-Americans. And they’re much less likely to be able to rebuild than massive national chains like Target or CVS. The collapse of cash businesses and businesses that provided local credit will devastate these neighborhoods.

While the media has been busy championing the radical protests to defund the police, 167 people were shot in one week in Chicago, 14 people were shot over the previous weekend in Baltimore, and a 12-year-old was shot in St. Louis. No one but the police is going to stop this.

Defunding the police is the project of a small number of wealthy young radicals who have never lived in a world without the police and have no idea what can happen to them without the cops.

Black people who live in poorer areas know exactly what can and does happen every week.

That’s why President Trump’s call for law and order, and his march to a besieged church, may have infuriated white radicals, especially in the media, but is understood differently by many black people. The history of fighting crime in America has undergone its own radical historical revisionism that might be dubbed the 1960 Project as a counterpart to the 1619 Project.

The contemporary state of the police and prisons wasn’t invented by white people, but the result of demands by black community leaders who wanted a crackdown on drugs and crime.

In 1973, 71 percent of African-Americans in New York wanted drug dealers to be sentenced to life in prison without parole. That was back when the NAACP Citizens’ Mobilization Against Crime had asked for more police officers in black neighborhoods and a minimum of 5 years in prison for muggers, 10 years for drug dealers, and 20 years for murderers.

“It is not police brutality that makes people afraid to walk the streets at night,” Vincent Baker, the head of the Citizens’ Mobilization Against Crime, had said.

Meanwhile, black residents were buying guns and forming vigilante groups to protect their own  streets. Ministers and black nationalists stepped into that vacuum to go after drug dealers.

“The silent majority in Harlem would welcome a police order to get tough,” Baker had pleaded. The alternative, he had previously argued, would be vigilante justice. “We don’t need gunslingers, paid or unpaid, in our community. We want law enforcement.”

Crime debates in the 1960s pitted white liberals, who favored looser crime rules, against black community leaders who were ready to call for the vigilante killings of drug dealers. Putting police officers on every block was not a racist conspiracy, it was the demand of neighborhood leaders who wanted to avoid the bad choices between drug gangs and community vigilantes.

President Trump knows this history and lived this history. That’s why he stands for law and order. Law and order isn’t racist. When it collapses, its victims are very often African-American.

“The biggest victims of the rioting are peace-loving citizens in our poorest communities and as their president, I will fight to keep them safe,” President Trump declared. “I will fight to protect you. I am your president of law and order.”

While the media has falsely claimed that he was threatening to repress the black community, Trump was really reminding African-American voters of the difference between him and Biden.

Biden might be happy to watch America burn as long as his radical allies were satisfied, but the black communities and businesses that are burning are likely to be less enthusiastic at the idea.

The media has suggested that President Trump’s call for law and order is somehow radical.

It’s not.

Fighting crime, like supporting the military or free speech, used to be a bipartisan issue before radicalized Democrats defected from what had been a fundamental plank of national policy.

Democrats keep trying to tie Trump’s call for law and order to Nixon. But it’s actually LBJ who declared a war on crime and who federalized law enforcement, tying local police into the DOJ, and supplying them with military equipment, while emphasizing statistics and metrics.

“Our parks are deserted. Our storekeepers weigh the dangers of arming themselves against the dangers of attack. Crime and violence in the suburbs increase even more rapidly than in the central cities,” President Johnson had vowed. “Until every woman in this land can walk the streets of her city at night, unafraid and unharmed, then we have work to do in law enforcement.”

Like the rest of the Great Society, Johnson’s War on Crime failed because it assumed that running local policies through a national expert class would make them more efficient, and, the Great Society’s other great fallacy, that social problems could be solved with social welfare. Instead of defeating crime, the Great Society created the welfare state and made blight permanent, reducing formerly aspirational black communities to a morass of broken homes.

Had LBJ sought to deliberately destroy black communities, he could not have done better.

Johnson’s War on Crime was a response to race riots, but failed to address the reality that the riots, like most race riots in the previous century, had been inspired by first Communist, and then assorted other leftist agitators, of which Antifa is just one of many incarnations.

Where LBJ’s team focused on pandering to black socialists, Trump has reached out to black capitalists. The riots and looting are devastating not the welfare state that the black socialists want, but the small businesses that are at the root of black capitalism. That’s not a coincidence.

Defunding the police is a demand to shift money from law and order to the welfare state.

Black capitalism cannot operate without law and order, while black socialism thrives on misery.

The riots are, in a certain sense, a civil war for the soul of the black community. If the rioters succeed, black communities will sink deeper into gangland decay and the welfare state. They will become more integral to the Democrats even as they lose any hope for a better future.

That’s why law and order African-Americans stand with President Trump.

2805, 2020

Acts of Treason

May 28th, 2020|0 Comments

The crime that dare not speak its name.

This was all Obama. This was all Biden. These people were corrupt. The whole thing was corrupt. And we caught them. We caught them.” – Trump.

Perhaps the most troubling – and dangerous – aspect of the current political conversation is the unwillingness of virtually every elected official and every media pundit to confront what “Obamagate” is obviously about, which is treason. Specifically, treason committed by the Obama White House in attempting to block and then overthrow the Trump presidency. Obamagate is about the failed attempt by President Obama and his appointees to use government intelligence agencies to spy on the Trump campaign and White House, to concoct a phony accusation of collusion with Russia against the president and then to obstruct his administration and overthrow him.

Semantic deceptions are the currency of political conflicts designed to take the public’s eye off the ball. So it’s no mystery as that Republicans, whom Democrats regularly slander as racists, xenophobes, Islamophobes and deplorables should be cautious around a word as volatile and subject to misrepresentation as “treason.” It doesn’t help that the last individual charged with treason was Tokyo Rose, a Japanese propagandist during World War II. In the intervening years, the ties of national loyalty have been so eroded, the idea of patriotism so demeaned by the political left, that the charge of treason was not filed against the Rosenbergs, Aldrich Ames, Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, or many deserving others.

If all parties remain reluctant to name the threat embodied in Obamagate, it’s not only unlikely but also unreasonable to expect justice to be the outcome. Fortunately, at least one political figure is ready to do this. One can assume it was President Trump who provided Rudy Giuliani, with the license to speak frankly. “They wanted to take out the lawfully elected President of the United States,” Giuliani told talk show host John Catsamatidas, “and they wanted to do it by lying, submitting false affidavits, using phony witnesses — in other words, they wanted to do it by illegal means . . . What is overthrowing government by illegal means? It’s a coup; treason.”

This aggressive statement by the president’s lawyer is a sure guarantee that a reckoning is coming in the days ahead. But first there are the semantics. Responding to Giuliani’s accusation, law professor Jonathan Turley wrote: “No, James Comey Did Not Commit Treason.”  According to Turley: “Giuliani is engaging in the same blood sport of using the criminal code to paint critics as not just criminals, but traitors. Where one can dismiss some of these charges as political hyperbole, Giuliani was sure to preface his remarks as coming from ‘an experienced prosecutor.’”

Technically, but in a very limited way, Turley is right. Treason is defined in Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution in these words: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”

There’s a reason the Founders designed so restrictive a definition of treason. They were all guilty of it for rebelling against their king. This led to Benjamin Franklin’s famous quip: “We must all hang together or we shall all hang separately.”

But this legal definition of the crime is only one aspect of the issue, and in the end it is the less important one for understanding the significance of what has happened. There is also the common usage of the words “treason” and “traitor,” which speak to the moral dimensions of the crime. It is these meanings that provide a proper guide to the seriousness and scope of what Obama, Biden, Comey, Brennan, Clapper and the others involved actually did.

This is the Merriam Webster definition of treason: “1: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign’s family. 2: the betrayal of a trust: treachery.”

“To overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance” –is a pretty precise definition of what Obamagate is about.

Although early on, the outlines of this conspiracy were clear to dogged investigators like Congressman Devin Nunes, they have remained obscure to anti-Trump partisans. This is due to the protective wall created for the conspirators by Obama appointees at the Department of Justice, unprincipled Democrats on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, and a corrupt news media that has redefined its mission to be that of a propaganda squad for the conspiracy itself. Consequently, it has taken nearly four years to recover the documentary evidence that might persuade an honest critic of the Trump administration of the crime the anti-Trump camp has committed.

Two recent actions have served to demolish the plotters’ protective wall and bring the true dimensions of Obamagate to light. The first was Trump’s appointment of Rick Grenell as acting Director of National Intelligence. Until then the transcripts of the impeachment hearings had been closed to the public by the Intel Committee chairman, Adam Schiff. This allowed Schiff to leak testimony damaging to the president and suppress testimony exonerating him. The full testimonies by high-ranking foreign policy officials had remained under Schiff’s lock and key for over a year.  Grenell told Schiff that he would unlock the testimonies if Schiff didn’t, which is how they came to light.

What the newly released testimonies showed was that one Obama appointee after another when questioned by Republicans on the committee had said they had no evidence whatsoever that there was any collusion between Trump or the Trump team and the Russians. In other words, from the very beginning of the plot against Trump, the conspirators including President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and the heads of the intelligence agencies knew that the charge of collusion – of treason – which they had concocted to destroy Trump was fraudulent. Despite this, they went ahead with the $35 million Mueller investigation that tied Trump’s hands in dealing with the Russians and spread endless false rumors about his allegiances, and in the end found no evidence to support the character assassinations the investigation spawned.

The second revelation was the result of an FBI declassification of hitherto hidden documents describing a White House meeting on January 5, 2017 – two weeks before the inauguration of the new president. The meeting was attended by the outgoing president and vice president, the heads of the intelligence agencies, the acting Attorney General and Obama’s outgoing National Security adviser Susan Rice. The subjects of the meeting were the targeting of General Michael Flynn – Trump’s incoming National Security Adviser – and the infamous Steele dossier which the Hillary campaign and the DNC had paid a former British spy to compile with information from the Russian secret police. The dossier was designed to discredit Trump and set up the Russia-collusion narrative. The targeting of Flynn involved unmasking an innocuous conversation with the Russian Ambassador which was then used to smear Flynn and get him fired. Shortly after the meeting the fact that Flynn was under investigation was leaked to the Washington Post – a felony punishable by 10 years in jail. This leak opened a floodgate of public accusations – backed by no evidence – that Trump and everyone close to him were agents of the Russians.

The secret war the Obama White House declared on Trump before he was even elected, was a war on America. Several years prior to the 2016 election, Obama had begun using the intelligence agencies to spy on his Republican opponents. This was a direct attack on the most fundamental institution of our democracy – elections. It was a much more destructive interference in the electoral process than anything attempted by the Russians. The subsequent cynical attempts to frame Trump as a traitor and then to impeach him for concocted offenses is without precedent. Because they were attacks on our democracy itself, Obamagate is the worst political crime committed against our country in its entire history. The culprits involved need to be exposed and prosecuted, so that – in the words of President Trump – this never happens to another American occupant of the White House.

2105, 2020

Acts of Treason

May 21st, 2020|0 Comments

The Crime that Dare Not Speak its Name

by David Horowitz, frontpagemag.com

This was all Obama. This was all Biden. These people were corrupt. The whole thing was corrupt. And we caught them. We caught them.” – Trump.

Perhaps the most troubling – and dangerous – aspect of the current political conversation is the unwillingness of virtually every elected official and every media pundit to confront what “Obamagate” is obviously about, which is treason. Specifically, treason committed by the Obama White House in attempting to block and then overthrow the Trump presidency. Obamagate is about the failed attempt by President Obama and his appointees to use government intelligence agencies to spy on the Trump campaign and White House, to concoct a phony accusation of collusion with Russia against the president and then to obstruct his administration and overthrow him.

Semantic deceptions are the currency of political conflicts designed to take the public’s eye off the ball. So it’s no mystery as that Republicans, whom Democrats regularly slander as racists, xenophobes, Islamophobes and deplorables should be cautious around a word as volatile and subject to misrepresentation as “treason.” It doesn’t help that the last individual charged with treason was Tokyo Rose, a Japanese propagandist during World War II. In the intervening years, the ties of national loyalty have been so eroded, the idea of patriotism so demeaned by the political left, that the charge of treason was not filed against the Rosenbergs, Aldrich Ames, Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, or many deserving others.

If all parties remain reluctant to name the threat embodied in Obamagate, it’s not only unlikely but also unreasonable to expect justice to be the outcome. Fortunately, at least one political figure is ready to do this. One can assume it was President Trump who provided Rudy Giuliani, with the license to speak frankly. “They wanted to take out the lawfully elected President of the United States,” Giuliani told talk show host John Catsamatidas, “and they wanted to do it by lying, submitting false affidavits, using phony witnesses — in other words, they wanted to do it by illegal means . . . What is overthrowing government by illegal means? It’s a coup; treason.”

This aggressive statement by the president’s lawyer is a sure guarantee that a reckoning is coming in the days ahead. But first there are the semantics. Responding to Giuliani’s accusation, law professor Jonathan Turley wrote: “No, James Comey Did Not Commit Treason.”  According to Turley: “Giuliani is engaging in the same blood sport of using the criminal code to paint critics as not just criminals, but traitors. Where one can dismiss some of these charges as political hyperbole, Giuliani was sure to preface his remarks as coming from ‘an experienced prosecutor.’”

Technically, but in a very limited way, Turley is right. Treason is defined in Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution in these words: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”

There’s a reason the Founders designed so restrictive a definition of treason. They were all guilty of it for rebelling against their king. This led to Benjamin Franklin’s famous quip: “We must all hang together or we shall all hang separately.”

But this legal definition of the crime is only one aspect of the issue, and in the end it is the less important one for understanding the significance of what has happened. There is also the common usage of the words “treason” and “traitor,” which speak to the moral dimensions of the crime. It is these meanings that provide a proper guide to the seriousness and scope of what Obama, Biden, Comey, Brennan, Clapper and the others involved actually did.

This is the Merriam Webster definition of treason: “1: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign’s family. 2: the betrayal of a trust: treachery.”

“To overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance” –is a pretty precise definition of what Obamagate is about.

Although early on, the outlines of this conspiracy were clear to dogged investigators like Congressman Devin Nunes, they have remained obscure to anti-Trump partisans. This is due to the protective wall created for the conspirators by Obama appointees at the Department of Justice, unprincipled Democrats on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, and a corrupt news media that has redefined its mission to be that of a propaganda squad for the conspiracy itself. Consequently, it has taken nearly four years to recover the documentary evidence that might persuade an honest critic of the Trump administration of the crime the anti-Trump camp has committed.

Two recent actions have served to demolish the plotters’ protective wall and bring the true dimensions of Obamagate to light. The first was Trump’s appointment of Rick Grenell as acting Director of National Intelligence. Until then the transcripts of the impeachment hearings had been closed to the public by the Intel Committee chairman, Adam Schiff. This allowed Schiff to leak testimony damaging to the president and suppress testimony exonerating him. The full testimonies by high-ranking foreign policy officials had remained under Schiff’s lock and key for over a year.  Grenell told Schiff that he would unlock the testimonies if Schiff didn’t, which is how they came to light.

What the newly released testimonies showed was that one Obama appointee after another when questioned by Republicans on the committee had said they had no evidence whatsoever that there was any collusion between Trump or the Trump team and the Russians. In other words, from the very beginning of the plot against Trump, the conspirators including President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and the heads of the intelligence agencies knew that the charge of collusion – of treason – which they had concocted to destroy Trump was fraudulent. Despite this, they went ahead with the $35 million Mueller investigation that tied Trump’s hands in dealing with the Russians and spread endless false rumors about his allegiances, and in the end found no evidence to support the character assassinations the investigation spawned.

The second revelation was the result of an FBI declassification of hitherto hidden documents describing a White House meeting on January 5, 2017 – two weeks before the inauguration of the new president. The meeting was attended by the outgoing president and vice president, the heads of the intelligence agencies, the acting Attorney General and Obama’s outgoing National Security adviser Susan Rice. The subjects of the meeting were the targeting of General Michael Flynn – Trump’s incoming National Security Adviser – and the infamous Steele dossier which the Hillary campaign and the DNC had paid a former British spy to compile with information from the Russian secret police. The dossier was designed to discredit Trump and set up the Russia-collusion narrative. The targeting of Flynn involved unmasking an innocuous conversation with the Russian Ambassador which was then used to smear Flynn and get him fired. Shortly after the meeting the fact that Flynn was under investigation was leaked to the Washington Post – a felony punishable by 10 years in jail. This leak opened a floodgate of public accusations – backed by no evidence – that Trump and everyone close to him were agents of the Russians.

The secret war the Obama White House declared on Trump before he was even elected, was a war on America. Several years prior to the 2016 election, Obama had begun using the intelligence agencies to spy on his Republican opponents. This was a direct attack on the most fundamental institution of our democracy – elections. It was a much more destructive interference in the electoral process than anything attempted by the Russians. The subsequent cynical attempts to frame Trump as a traitor and then to impeach him for concocted offenses is without precedent. Because they were attacks on our democracy itself, Obamagate is the worst political crime committed against our country in its entire history. The culprits involved need to be exposed and prosecuted, so that – in the words of President Trump – this never happens to another American occupant of the White House.

2105, 2020

America’s Gay Hero

May 21st, 2020|0 Comments

The rise and rise of Richard Grenell.

by Bruce Bawer via frontpagemag.com

If you’d told me a couple of decades ago that leading conservative commentators would one day be celebrating an openly gay man as an American hero, I’d never have believed it. But that’s exactly what’s happening now. The man in question, of course, is Richard Grenell, currently serving both as the U.S. Ambassador to Germany and as the Acting Director of National Intelligence, and hence a member of the Cabinet.

It was under intense pressure from Grenell that the House Intelligence Committee, on May 7, released the transcripts of 53 interviews conducted privately in connection with the probe into President Trump’s alleged Russian ties. In those interviews, former members of the Obama Administration – several of whom had publicly insisted, on cable news shows and elsewhere, that there was firm evidence of collusion between Trump and the Kremlin – swore under oath that they were unaware of any such evidence.

And it was Grenell who, four days later, declassified the list of Obama Administration officials who, in the interval between the 2016 election and the Trump inaugural, requested the “unmasking” of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump’s choice for National Security Advisor, so they could listen in on his phone calls. When Grenell made that list public two days later, he immeasurably aided the effort to get to the bottom of the plot against Trump now known as Obamagate.

“It was a brilliant move,” wrote Stephen Kruiser about Grenell’s decision to release the list. “Grenell ain’t playing. It’s a thing of beauty the way he’s handling the Left….Not all heroes wear capes.” On his podcast, Dan Bongino, author of two definitive books about Obamagate – which he has dubbed “Spygate” – called Grenell “terrific.” On Sebastian Gorka’s radio show, Victoria Toensing, also an expert on Obama Administration perfidy, said, “Thank God for Ric Grenell!” Gorka, who briefly served in the Trump White House, replied: “Bless him, he’s working hard to get the truth out!”

No, it doesn’t matter that Richard Grenell is gay. But at the same time it does. Partly because a few people still need to learn that not all gays are pedophile socialist drag queens, but mostly because the fact that a gay man plays a key role in the Trump Administration drives the left absolutely nuts.

Which results in such laughable excuses for journalism as the lengthy profile of Grenell by Erik Kirschbaum that appeared in the Los Angeles Times on February 25. It focused largely on Grenell’s activities in Berlin, where he’s called on German firms to stop commerce with Iran and pushed Angela Merkel’s government to spend more on defense, take back an old Nazi from the U.S., and ban Hezbollah.

The thrust of the story was that Grenell’s tough posture on these and other issues had ruffled German feathers, which Kirschbaum characterized as unwise because “Germans have long held the United States and U.S. Embassy in high regard.” Ha! You could hardly come up with a more bald-faced lie. Anyone remotely familiar with the situation knows that Germany has long been the most anti-American country in Western Europe; a few months ago, a survey showed that only 35% of Germans view the U.S. positively and that “Germans now have more trust in China than in the United States.” Are we supposed to believe that Kirschbaum doesn’t know this?

To reader this entire article, go to: To read this entire article, go to:  https://cms.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/05/americas-gay-hero-bruce-bawer

 

 

705, 2020

Barack Obama is horrified how the tables have turned in a criminal scandal

May 7th, 2020|0 Comments

 


 

americanpatriotdaily.com

 

Barack Obama was sure that his investigation into Trump would guarantee Clinton’s victory.

Now he’s afraid to face the consequences of his actions.

Barack Obama is horrified how the tables have turned in a criminal scandal.

All the polls predicted that Hillary Clinton would win big against Donald Trump.

What frightened them more than the thought of Trump winning was Trump’s strategy of appealing to the blue-collar workers in the heartland of America.

Obama and Clinton were not just trying to win the election, they wanted to completely destroy Trump.

The accusations of being a Russian asset seemed the perfect way to blacken Trump’s name.

The only problem with their plan was that Hillary Clinton’s underhanded dealings caught up with her and Trump won the election.

It broke last week that the FBI knew that the information in the Steele dossier was “likely corrupt” with Russian misinformation, and yet they used it to get a warrant against the Trump campaign anyway.

This was not a problem Obama was expecting to deal with.

Had Clinton won, the FBI’s wiretapping of Trump’s campaign could have easily been covered up by the Democrats.

Trump said on Sunday that people would soon “find out” what he was going to do with General Flynn, who was convicted by Mueller’s investigation, and that the “tables are turned” against the FBI and the people who started the investigation.

According to The Daily Wire:

General Flynn was a highly respected person, and it turned out to be a scam on him, Trump said. The FBI said he didnt lie and Muellers people wanted him to go to jail. Okay? So what am I going to do? Youll find out what Im going to do. Im not going to say what Im going to do, but I will tell you the whole thing turned out to be a scam, and it turned out to be a disgrace to our country, and it was a take-down of a duly elected President.

And these people suffered greatly. General Flynn, I mean what they did to him, and even the FBI said, and they had some, and nobody [is a] bigger fan of the FBI than me at the level of the people that really matter, Trump continued. But the top of the FBI was scum, and what they did to General Flynn, and you know it and everybody knows it, was a disgrace. He was in the service for over 30 years. He ends up being a general and respected, respected, and almost his first day in office, they come in with papers. They want to investigate him. Never happened before and now the tables are turned. Investigate the investigators, I guess.

These were crooked people, Trump added. These are bad people. These are very dangerous people. You know what they are though? Theyre scum. Theyre human scum.

There must be consequences for the people who broke laws to make a political attack on Trump.

Obama should be very worried. He was in charge of the FBI when this scandal happened and there is a huge question of whether he knew of the FBIs corrupt investigation.

705, 2020

Who cares if Joe Biden sexually assaulted Tara Reader?

May 7th, 2020|0 Comments

frontpagemag.com

 

The Washington Post, an enormously influential and widely cited publication, fought the good fight. For five solid weeks, it was able to pretend that Tara Reades sexual-assault allegations against Joe Biden either didnt exist or were so illegitimate as to be unworthy of any serious attention. For five solid weeks, The Post was able to wait and see which way the political winds might ultimately blow, and to give Ms. Reade some time to realize that she was fighting a losing battle and should just go away.

Consider a few remarkable numbers. On September 15, 2018, The Washington Post published its first story about Christine Blasey Fords sexual-assault claims against Brett Kavanaugh. Three weeks later on October 6, 2018 the Senate voted to confirm Kavanaugh. During the 21 days in between, The Post produced approximately 760 news articles and opinion pieces about the Kavanaugh-Ford affair. The vast majority of those stories trashed Kavanaugh and were sympathetic to Ford.

By contrast, Tara Reade went public with her sexual-assault charge against Joe Biden in a podcast interview on March 25, 2020, when she reported that Biden had digitally raped her when she was an employee in his Senate office. During the 21 days after Ms. Reade went public with her story, The Washington Post published a grand total of precisely 4 articles or op-ed pieces about the case. Thats right. The 21-day ratio for Post coverage of the Kavanaugh and Biden stories was 760 to 4 — or, to put it another way, 190 to 1. In fact, the paper did not publish even a single story about Reades claims against Biden until April 12.

And thats despite the fact that in 2018 — while Christine Blasey Ford was accusing Brett Kavanaugh of a past sexual assault — none other than Joe Biden himself had piously pronounced:

For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, youve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what shes talking about is real, whether or not she forgets facts, whether or not its been made worse or better over time. But nobody fails to understand that this is like jumping into a cauldron.

The Posts decision to ignore Reades allegations for so long is even more remarkable when we consider the enormously serious nature of the charge she was making. On January 6, 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that FBI Director Robert Mueller in response to “the voices of survivors, advocates, law enforcement personnel and many others” had just made an “important change” in how the Bureau defined “forcible rape.”Whereas the definition previously had “only included forcible male penile penetration of a female vagina,” the new definition would now be this: “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

But The Washington Post doesnt give a damn about the new rape, the old rape, or any other kind of rape — unless the suspected offender is a conservative. Not until April 28 — five weeks after Tara Reade had gone public with her claims against Biden — did The Post even begin to give her case anything more than the barest passing mention. Whereas the ratio for Post coverage of the Kavanaugh and Biden stories had theretofore been about 190 to 1, beginning on April 28 the new ratio was about 8 to 1 — still a shameful, though not nearly as astronomical, discrepancy.

Why the shift at that point? Because by April 28, it was no longer possible for The Post to pretend that Tara Reade didnt exist. Because by then, other news outlets were reporting that people who knew Reade in the 1990s were now corroborating the fact that she had told them about the assault shortly after it happened. You see, if everyone else is reporting that its raining outside, you look rather imbecilic if you lock yourself in a windowless room and keep claiming that its a sunny day.

In short, The Washington Post didnt begin to give the Reade-Biden story anything more than an occasional obligatory glance, until it was absolutely forced to do so. Thats because The Washington Post is not a newspaper. It is a demonstrably worthless, politicized rag whose sole purpose is to propagandize on behalf of Democrats and left-wing politics. Aside from that, it is a paper of considerable utility for anyone who needs to wrap a fish, ignite some kindling, soak up some grease, line the bottom of a bird cage, or swat a cockroach in the bathroom. Certainly, no one can deny that The Post has its uses.

The Posts Kavanaugh Stories Were Overwhelmingly Anti-Kavanaugh & Anti-Trump.

… Following Ms. Fords initial public statement, The Washington Post raced to print the first of what would become more than 760 stories about Kavanaugh and the allegations against him. Below is a sampling of just a few of those stories. Each listing begins with the date of the article or opinion piece, followed by the title in bold italics, followed by a brief excerpt from the text in order to convey some sense of the storys tone and content…..

Conclusion.

If a particular story — however false, far-fetched, or unverifiable — has the potential to harm President Trump or conservative agenda priorities, The Washington Post will devote unlimited financial and manpower resources to keeping Americans attention firmly fixed upon it for as long as possible.

By contrast, if another story — however plausible or widely corroborated by credible witnesses — has the potential to harm a key political figure to whom the Democratic Party has hitched its star, The Post will do everything within its power to bury, whitewash, soften, or discredit that story.

It isnt even debatable. The Washington Post is not a newspaper. Its a comic book, minus the gravitas.

To read this entire article, go to: https://cms.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/05/who-cares-if-joe-biden-raped-tara-reade-john-perazzo

1604, 2020

David Horowitz: Trump Derangement Pandemic

April 16th, 2020|0 Comments

by: David Horowitz

via: breitbart.com

In this spring season, America’s future is fraught with uncertainties as a result of the pandemic unleashed by communist China’s malicious deceptions about a virus that first appeared in the city of Wuhan.

Will the nation be able to “re-open” as the president desires, or will it descend into a long-lasting depression with millions unemployed? At the same time, a much greater uncertainty haunts the horizon. This uncertainty is a product of the ferocious hate for the president and his supporters ginned up by the political left ever since the 2016 election.

The anti-Trump fervor is so intense that it has divided the nation into two alien camps until there is hardly any longer a national conversation or a united front in the face of the deadly contagion.

For anyone not in thrall to anti-Trump obsessions, the spectacle of Trump hatred is unfathomable. Its not that the criticisms of President Trump are harsh, but that they veer on the lunatic, making communication with those who voice them impossible. It is why the national conversation and a semblance of national unity in the face of threats seem almost hopeless.

A recent New York Times interview with Bernie Sanders impersonator Larry David highlights the problem. “You know, its an amazing thing,” David told the Times, “[Trump] has not one redeeming quality. You could take some of the worst dictators in history, and Im sure that all of them, you could find one decent quality. Stalin could have had one decent quality, we dont know!”

Where to begin? Stalin was a totalitarian dictator who killed 40 million of his own countrymen – in peacetime. How does such a preposterous comparison even occur to a man as intelligent as Larry David? Here are a few of Trumps obvious redeeming qualities: Trump went out of his way to give a presidential pardon to free Alice Johnson a 63-year-old African American grandmother sentenced to life without parole for a non-violent drug charge. Johnson had served 21 years of her sentence when Trump freed her. Barack Obama by contrast turned a deaf ear to her appeals.

Trump also shepherded the passage of the First Step Act, something no other Republican would have done, giving thousands of mainly African American prisoners a second chance. Heres the way far left CNN commentator Van Jones described what Trump had done: “[S]omething beautiful is happening … It is happening right now, people coming together to help the people who have nothing. And it is amazing.”

How does one engage a mentality that claims Trump has no redeeming qualities but that historical monsters like Stalin probably do? The New York Times interviewer didnt even notice, let alone challenge this absurdity.

What is most troubling for the future of our democracy is that the otherwise intelligent people, including those who inhabit its elite opinion institutions, think — or rather dont think — about Trump and his supporters in the same ludicrous way as Larry David.

In an article in the New York Review of Books titled “Vector in Chief,” Finian OToole describes Trump thus: “Trumps narcissism, mendacity, bullying, and malignant incompetence were obvious before the coronavirus crisis and they have been magnified rather than moderated in his surreal response to a catastrophe whose full gravity he failed to accept until March 31, when it had become horribly undeniable.”

False. Trump banned travel from China and declared the virus “a national health emergency” on January 31, two months earlier – actions which caused Democrats like Biden and Pelosi and their lackey press to call him a xenophobe and a racist. OToole references to Trumps March 31 remarks but ignores his earlier declaration on January 31.

OToole then concocts a bizarre argument that Trumps alleged later decision to take the epidemic seriously is merely a self-interested necessity because his supporters are in the category of the most vulnerable to the disease. He writes, “For we must bear in mind that Trumps ‘real people, the ones who make up his electoral base, are disproportionately prone to the chronic illnesses (the ‘underlying conditions) that make Covid-19 more likely to prove fatal.”

So even Trumps good deeds are bad deeds, dictated by his voracious self-interest: People who are sick vote for Trump, while Trump for selfish reasons is forced to protect them.

It gets worse. Since its that time of year, lets throw in some religion: “Trump has acted in relation to Covid-19 like the God who tells the Jews to mark their homes with a sign so that the plagues he is inflicting on Egypt will pass by their doors—with the malign twist that he has instead marked out his own chosen people for special harm.” Get the point? What an evil president we have to lead us.

Fifty-two percent of voters over the age of 45 voted for Trump. In addition to being more prone to illness, these older people have active memories of the disasters of socialism, went to schools that still taught American principles and the American Constitution rather than Rules for Radicals, and also have a healthy understanding of why America needs a strong military rather than the degraded one Obama left as his legacy.

204, 2020

Trump Trolls Rachel Maddow after she claimed he was lying about USNS Comfort being sent to New York

April 2nd, 2020|0 Comments

President Donald Trump just trolled MSNBC host Rachel Maddow with a video clip of her claiming a Navy hospital ship would not be arriving in New York to aid in the coronavirus fight.

The clip featured a buzzer sound every time Maddow said something which ultimately turned out to be bogus.

The liberal MSNBC host told viewers on March 20th that the USNS Comfort would not be helping anywhere in the country “for weeks.

The Comfort arrived in New York Harbor just 10 days later.

Accused Trump of Lying

Maddow told viewers that the Presidents claim any such ship would be docking in New York is “nonsense.”

Its unclear where she was getting her information or if she just wanted to delve into conspiracy theories for the sake of making Trump look bad.

“There is no sign that the Navy hospital ships that the president made such a big deal of, the Comfort and the Mercy, there is no sign that theyll be anywhere on-site, helping out anywhere in the country, for weeks yet,”she argued.

Lies and Conspiracies

Cue the buzzer for that one. Then cue it again …

“The president said, when he announced that those ships would be put into action against the COVID-19 epidemic, he said one of those ships would be operational in New York harbor by next week,”Maddow claimed. “Thats nonsense, it will not be there next week.”

Hope and Solidarity

The USNS Comfort actually arrived in New York Harbor on Monday three weeks ahead of schedule, where it is set to treat non-COVID-19 patients as a means to help relieve the citys hospital capacity.

“This great ship behind me is a 70,000-ton message of hope and solidarity to the incredible people of New York –a place I know very well, a place I love,”the President said when seeing it off on its journey.

“Were here for you, were fighting for you, and we are with you all the way, and we always will be,”he told New Yorkers.

NY Officials Thank the President

Officials in New York had a generally positive reaction to President Trumps efforts in bringing the ship to their shore.

“If there is ever a time that we need to work together, it is today,”Governor Andrew Cuomo said. “The president is right –this is a war, and what does this nation do when its at war? It comes together and it acts as one.”

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, whose downplaying of the severity of the crisis for weeks led to his city being the epicenter of the pandemic in America, thanked Trump.

“My message to the president is, thank you, and we need more help,”he told reporters.

Oh, and that other ship that Maddow said wasnt coming to aid anybody, anywhere for weeks?

204, 2020

Maxine Waters accuses Trump of lying, Ignoring early warnings on Coronavirus

April 2nd, 2020|0 Comments

Rep. Maxine Waters accused President Trump of ignoring early coronavirus warnings and suggested he’s“gotten away with a lot of lying.”

The fact that the first part of that sentence is a complete lie is an irony that apparently escapes the California Democrat.

“The early notifications I’m told were ignored,”Waters said during a weekend interview with MSNBC.

Accuses Trump of Lying

Waters then accused the President of lying regarding his implementation of the Defense Production Act.

“I know that the president has gotten away with a lot of lying about what is going to happen with the Defense Act, and he said that he was going to, first of all, invoke it. He did not,”she claimed.

“He waited until the heat was on him, and then he lied on some of the big businesses that he said he had an agreement with that he really didnt have.”

These are the same people who couldnt stomach the thought of the President invoking various war powers acts for the last three years, now demanding he does just that.

Trump invoked the Defense Production Act on Friday, compelling General Motors to start making ventilators.

Shut His Mouth

Waterscomments are in line with those she made weeks ago when she called the President of the United States a “liar”and suggested he should shut his mouth on the coronavirus crisis.

“Its been said over and over again that you cannot trust this president. Not only is he a liar, he does not believe in anything scientific,”she claimed without evidence. “So the President of the United States cannot be relied upon. Someone said he needs to be quiet, he needs to shut his mouth.”

First, she says he needs to keep his mouth shut, then complains that he hasnt said or done enough.

Maxine Is Lying

Its never a good idea to accuse somebody of lying while simultaneously doing the same thing.

As weve noted, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has repeatedly credited President Trump with saving countless lives through swift action at the very beginning.

Travel restrictions implemented by the administration in late January helped limit the spread of the virus.

What were Waters and her fellow Democrats focused on at that time? The impeachment sham.

Aside from that, she also blamed President Trump for a lack of respirators.

The reality, however, is that it was the Obama-Biden administration that failed to replenish those supplies.

In 2009, the H1N1 swine flu pandemic triggered a massive deployment of respirators and masks.

But the Obama administration never set about replenishing the stockpile, despite warnings from multiple experts and a 2010 report funded by the federal government recommending the repository of masks be restocked for a future pandemic.

“In hindsight, it appears to be shortsighted,”said the senior director of public health preparedness for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials.

204, 2020

Lack of N95 respirator masks found to be fault of Obama administration

April 2nd, 2020|0 Comments

The Obama administration never replenished stocks of N95 respirator masks after the 2009 H1N1 outbreak, leading to the current shortage.

Obama is to Blame for the Shortage!

President Trump has come under fire by Democrats and leftists for supposedly not preparing the country for the coronavirus outbreak.

“Our hospitals are out of gloves, masks, gowns, respirators, protective shoe coverings and basic supplies,”Representative Maxine Waters tweeted on Sunday. “What the hell more is Trump waiting for? Hey stupid, this is the worst case scenario.”

Former Vice President Joe Biden put the blame squarely on the President for supposedly “eliminating”the White House National Security Council Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense that the Obama administration set up “to prepare for future pandemics like COVID-19,”despite the office simply being reorganized,with no effect to the biodefense staff.

In response, the President has pointed out that he “inherited”an underprepared system, and it looks like hes right. The Washington Examinerhighlighted reports from the Los Angeles Timesand Bloomberg News, which attempted to criticise the President, but buried an important piece of information about the mask shortages. It turns out that the Obama administration is at fault for the current lack of N95 masks, not President Trump.

The Mainstream Media Want to Hide the Truth from You

After 100 million masks were used in the H1N1 outbreak in 2009, the Obama administration was strongly recommended to replete the masks, but the advice was not heeded. Charles Johnson, president of the International Safety Equipment Association, said that“our association is unaware of any major effort to restore the stockpile to cover that drawdown.”The outbreak “caused a 2- to 3-year backlog orders for the N95 variety,”Bloomberg News noted, adding that “the stockpile distributed about three-quarters of its inventory and didnt build back the supply.”

In neither story did these supposed journalists link the Obama administration to the shortage of masks at all, but repeatedly bashed the President for his current handling of the coronavirus pandemic. You can expect nothing less from the mainstream media–they want to keep you ignorant of the truth.