It’s really a grand irony in the aftermath of President Trump’s election. Since time immemorial, the left has caricatured the right as a bunch of fringe, fascist loons toeing the line between caustic political rhetoric and outright political violence. But wait, now look what’s happening. It’s the Democrats who are embodying the very epithets they’ve
It’s really a grand irony in the aftermath of President Trump’s election.
Since time immemorial, the left has caricatured the right as a bunch of fringe, fascist loons toeing the line between caustic political rhetoric and outright political violence.
But wait, now look what’s happening. It’s the Democrats who are embodying the very epithets they’ve hurled at Republicans.
Nebraska Democrat Party co-chair Phil Montag was fired this week for voicing what so many Democrats have said or implied in recent days: that he wishes Rep.
Steve Scalise had died from his gunshot wounds. Sick.
It’s the Democrats who are poisoning the well with disgusting innuendo, threats and conspiracy theories.
Here’s more from Washington Examiner…
An official with the Nebraska Democratic Party was fired Thursday after an audio recording surfaced of him saying he was glad House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., was shot last week.
“His whole job is to get people, convince Republicans to fucking kick people off fucking healthcare,” said Phil Montag, a technology chairman with the state Democratic Party. “I hate this motherfucker. I’m glad he got shot.”
“I wish he was fucking dead,” Montag continued.
Nebraska Democratic Party Chairwoman Jane Kleeb, who confirmed the voice on the recording was Montag’s, said he was fired.
“We obviously condemn any kind of violence, whether it’s comments on Facebook or comments in a meeting,” Kleeb told Nebraska’s Fox 42 KPTM. “Our country is better than the political rhetoric that is out there from both the far right and the far left.”
Scalise suffered a gunshot wound to his left hip after a gunman opened fire on a group of Republican lawmakers, lobbyists and congressional staffers practicing for the annual congressional charity baseball game.
Wikileaks’ Julian Assange is making a pretty stunning prediction: the Democrats are on a trajectory that will spell their own demise if they do not reverse course soon.
That course, he explains, is the “we lost the election because of Russia” conspiracy theory. It’s a logical prediction.
If the Democrats keep building this hoax with collision from the leftist media, it will eventually become a house of cards that will fall down on top of them.
And the American voters will finally be left with one undeniable conclusion: Democrats lost and continue to lose because few voters really like them.
Here’s more from Washington Examiner…
WikiLeakers founder Julian Assange on Saturday predicted the demise of the Democratic Party.
In a post online, shared by his Twitter account, Assange argued that the party has been “consumed” by “hysteria about Russia,” something he called a “political dead end.” It is upon this “narrative” that the “party’s elite” attempts to keep a hold on power, he said.
“Without the ‘We didn’t lose, Russia won’ narrative the party’s elite and those who exist under its patronage would be purged for being electorally incompetent and ideologically passe,” Assange said.
Assange’s group, WikiLeaks, is responsible for the publication of stolen documents from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign during the 2016 campaign, which has been attributed to hurting Clinton’s chances. Furthermore, though WikiLeaks denies it, the U.S. intelligence community reported in January with “high confidence” that both WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2.0, among others, were being used by Russian intelligence “to release US victim data obtained in cyberoperations publicly” in order to help undermine the 2016 presidential election in favor of President Trump.
Despite this, Assange said that the “Trump-Russian collusion narrative” being investigated by a number of probes and consistently reported on by the media is unfounded, and “we are left with the Democratic establishment blaming the public for not liking the truth about what Hillary Clinton said to Goldman Sachs and blaming their own base for not liking what they said in their own emails about fixing the DNC primaries.”
Filling out a list of six reasons why the Democratic Party is “doomed,” Assange said the party “needs the support of the security sector and media barons to push this diversionary conspiracy agenda,” but that this strategy is unsustainable. Both the CIA and the FBI, he explained, will be turned against them when they “merge” with the Trump administration.
In what would seem an obvious question, a key court case has made its way through the corridors of the judiciary branch finally to the Supreme Court.
It concerns a Serbian refugee who came to the U.S. and was finally granted citizenship, but afterward it was learned she had lied on her application.
Two federal courts and finally the Supreme Court all agreed: if you lie to federal officials about your reason for immigrating, it is perfectly legal to strip you of your citizenship.
So there you have it, folks. Not everything coming out of DC is all bad. Once in a while things go as they should.
Here’s more from Breitbart…
The Supreme Court on Thursday held that federal law authorizes courts to strip immigrant citizens of their U.S. citizenship if they obtained it as a result of making false statements to the federal government.
Federal law found at 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a) makes it a crime to “knowingly procur[e], contrary to law, the naturalization of any person” to become a U.S. citizen. (“Naturalization” is the legal term for becoming a citizen.) Moreover, a second federal statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1451(e) adds that a foreigner who obtains U.S. citizenship through such a violation will lose that newly granted citizenship.
Divna Maslenjak is a Serb who, along with her husband and two children, sought refugee status in 1998 to flee Bosnia. As part of seeking protected status, she swore under oath that the family feared persecution because her husband evaded military service. They were admitted to the United States in 2000 as refugees.
In 2006, she applied for U.S. citizenship. One question on her application asked if she had ever given “false or misleading information” while applying for immigration benefits. Another asked if she had “lied … to gain entry or admission” in this country. She answered “no” to both and became an American citizen in 2007.
Those answers were false. Her husband had served in the Bosnian Serb Army. A third federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1015(a), criminalizes making a false sworn statement during naturalization. The U.S. government argued that her statement violating § 1015(a) also counts as a violation of § 1425(a), which meant she must lose her citizenship under § 1451(e).
A judge on the federal district court accepted that argument and stripped Maslenjak of her citizenship. The Sixth Circuit appeals court affirmed.
In a major surprise decision, a San Francisco judge ordered all but one of the charges dropped against the filmmakers of the inside sting videos of Planned Parenthood in the last couple years.
The filmmakers, David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt, were facing fifteen felony charges leveled against them by the California Attorney General.
Then in the course of the proceedings it was discovered that the CA AG was a major recipient of Planned Parenthood money and therefore was only pursuing charges on behalf of his special interest client.
That’s when the judge declared 14 of those charges ‘legally insufficient’, which is a fancy way of saying they were a bunch of bovine excrement.
Now if Congress would get off the fence and defund Planned Parenthood outright, that’d be just peachy, thanks.
Here’s more from Redstate…
As most of you know, in the wake of the sting videos documenting Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers flogging the organs and other body parts of babies they had murdered on a gray-market to medical “research” companies, the producers of the video, David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt, were hit by two major felony indictments bought and paid for by the abortion industry. They were indicted in Houston, TX, and in San Francisco, CA. In both cases, members of the prosecution teams who sought the indictments were actively involved in the abortion industry and had accepted money from the abortion industry. Last June, the Texas charges were dropped as the Planned Parenthood asset who led the charge was turned out of office.
This left Daleiden and Merritt facing fifteen felony charges in a state where the attorney general was a major recipient of Planned Parenthood dollars. If you read the indictment, you will find that they were charged with video-recording non-private conversations in a non-private space. In short, California’s AG, Xavier Becerra sought to criminalize journalism if it hurt his puppetmasters.
Once Becerra issued a press release, the fight entered the realm of law. Yesterday, a judge in San Francisco acted in a most surprising way. He actually acted as though the US Constitution and the rule of law existed:
The San Francisco Superior Court on Wednesday dismissed 14 of 15 criminal counts but the pair are still charged with one count of conspiracy to invade privacy. However the court dismissed the charges with leave to amend — meaning Becerra could re-file the charges with additional supposed evidence against the pair.
The court ruled that counts 1-14 were legally insufficient. The state has the opportunity to amend if it can plead a more legally sufficient and specific complaint. The California’s Attorney General filed 15 criminal counts against Merritt, with counts 1-14 for each of the alleged interviews and count 15 for an alleged conspiracy. San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Christopher Hite gave the state attorney general’s office until mid-July to file a revised complaint.
Daleiden and Merritt aren’t home free yet. Becerra could, and probably will, refile the indictment but, unless he comes up with a lot more than charging them with video-recording a conversation in a crowded restaurant and claiming they conversation was private, the outcome will probably be the same. What Becerra is doing is using the power of his office to harass Daleiden and Merritt, to paralyze their ability to act, and to inflict massive legal costs upon them in order to prevent other pro-life people from embarrassing abortionists in the future.
A few weeks ago there was no small amount of speculation about the possibility that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy would announce his retirement this year.
And now that speculation has reached a fevered pitch as the court is near the beginning of its summer recess.
Rumors floating around DC are that he’ll use the break to make an announcement, possibly as early as next week.
If this should happen, virtually all news of scandals, investigations and the like will vanish.
And this could become the biggest fight of them all.
Here’s more from the AP…
The Supreme Court enters its final week of work before a long summer hiatus with action expected on the Trump administration’s travel ban and a decision due in a separation of church and state case that arises from a Missouri church playground.
The biggest news of all, though, would be if Justice Anthony Kennedy were to use the court’s last public session on Monday to announce his retirement.
To be sure, Kennedy has given no public sign that he will retire this year and give President Donald Trump his second high court pick in the first months of his administration. Kennedy’s departure would allow conservatives to take firm control of the court.
But Kennedy turns 81 next month and has been on the court for nearly 30 years. Several of his former law clerks have said they think he is contemplating stepping down in the next year or so. Kennedy and his clerks were gathering over the weekend for a reunion that was pushed up a year and helped spark talk he might be leaving the court.
“Soon we’ll know if rumors of Kennedy’s retirement are accurate,” one former Kennedy clerk, George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr, said on Twitter Friday.
During former FBI Director James Comey’s blockbuster testimony before the Senate a couple weeks ago, arguably the most substantive comments was his revelation that Obama’s then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch had pressured him to downgrade the investigation into Hillary’s private email server.
That comment has opened a rather large can of worms which could possibly pale any other ongoing investigation in comparison.
The gist is clearly this: a sitting Attorney General attempted to influence an ongoing investigation in order to positively impact the election results for one of the presidential candidates.
If the targets of Senate investigation turn toward Obama and company, President Trump may finally find a reprieve.
This could get interesting.
Here’s more from Washington Times…
The Senate Judiciary Committee has opened a probe into former Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s efforts to shape the FBI’s investigation into 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, the committee’s chairman announced Friday.
In a letter to Ms. Lynch, the committee asks her to detail the depths of her involvement in the FBI’s investigation, including whether she ever assured Clinton confidantes that the probe wouldn’t “push too deeply into the matter.”
Fired FBI Director James B. Comey has said publicly that Ms. Lynch tried to shape the way he talked about the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails, and he also hinted at other behavior “which I cannot talk about yet” that made him worried about Ms. Lynch’s ability to make impartial decisions.
Mr. Comey said that was one reason why he took it upon himself to buck Justice Department tradition and reveal his findings about Mrs. Clinton last year.
Sen. Charles E. Grassley, chairman of the committee, said the investigation is bipartisan. The letter to Ms. Lynch is signed by ranking Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and also by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Sheldon Whitehouse, the chairman and ranking member of the key investigative subcommittee.
At first glance, a headline like this likely engenders a bit of outrage, that is until one recognizes why President Trump would ever offer support for Nancy Pelosi.
But in explaining his logic, he quipped, “It would be a very, very sad day for Republicans’ if Nancy Pelosi steps down.”
That’s a fact because under Pelosi, Democrats continue to have a dismal record of failure and continue to embolden Republicans, rallying them behind Trump.
Without a failed leader like Pelosi — demonstrated most recently in the Georgia special election — the GOP would have a tougher road ahead of them.
Here’s more from CNBC…
In an appearance on “Fox & Friends” that aired on Friday, Trump said he would like Pelosi to stay right where she is because she has an “extraordinary record against her.”
“It would be a very, very sad day for Republicans if she steps down. I would be very disappointed if she did,” Trump said.
The comment came after some Democrats on Thursday called for Pelosi to step down in the wake of special election losses this year, including a high-profile race in Georgia on Tuesday.
Republican Karen Handel beat Democrat Jon Ossoff in the race for the Georgia seat vacated by Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, dashing Democratic hopes to pull off an upset in the runup to the 2018 midterm elections.
The two campaigns and outside groups supporting and opposing the candidates shelled out at least $36 million, including more than $22 million from Ossoff’s campaign.
Pelosi, speaking to reporters on Thursday, said she’s confident she has the support in her caucus.
We’re not the sort of organization that makes a practice of celebrating death.
But in the War on Terror, make no mistake: it’s kill or be killed as radical Islamic terrorists will not stop until all ‘infidels’ are dead or converted.
So it comes as encouraging news when a leader among ISIS fighters is no longer among us to spread his filth and violence.
Thanks to an anonymous Canadian special forces sniper (whose name is being withheld for security reasons), the record for longest kill shot was smashed recently when the sniper interrupted an ISIS attack on pro-US Iraqi forces with the hit from 2.14 miles away.
The shot was verified by video and took an amazing 10 seconds to reach its target.
Wow, impressive, sir, impressive.
Here’s more from Breitbart…
A Canadian soldier has broken the world record for the longest sniper kill in history, taking out an Islamic State militant from over two miles away.
The sniper, who serves as a gun specialist in the elite Joint Task Force 2 operation in Iraq, achieved the feat by shooting an assailant from a high rise building over a distance of 3,450 meters, approximately 2.14 miles. It took around 10 seconds to reach its target and was later verified by both video footage.
“The shot in question actually disrupted an Islamic State attack on Iraqi security forces,” an anonymous military source told the Canadian Globe and Mail. “Instead of dropping a bomb that could potentially kill civilians in the area, it is a very precise application of force and because it was so far way, the bad guys didn’t have a clue what was happening.”
British sniper Craig Harrison previously held the world record, acquired when, in 2009, he killed two Taliban insurgents with a 338 Lapua Magnum rifle from a range of 2,475 meters. Before him, the record was also held by a Canadian, Corporal Rob Furlong, who in 2002 successfully neutralized a target from 2,430 meters using a McMillan Tac-50.
“Hard data on this. It isn’t an opinion. It isn’t an approximation. There is a second location with eyes on with all the right equipment to capture exactly what the shot was,” another military source said, who also spoke under anonymity due to the classified nature of Joint Task Force 2 (JTF2) operations.
JTF2 remains an elite special operations force of the Canadian Armed Forces, who primarily focus on counterterrorism, sniper operations, and personnel recovery. Due to the classified nature of their work, the Canadian government rarely comments on their operations.
We are allegedly supposed to be about the work of ‘making America great again’. Except liberal federal programs are forcing the country to drag its feet out of the past and into a future where America is truly first.
Among the worst of those programs — according to a report from the Department of Homeland Security — is one that rewards corporations with tax incentives for hiring foreign college students if they graduate from an American university.
And the program doesn’t even require that they interview American graduates…at all.
The benefit for these corporations is obvious: they get to hire new employees at substantially lower wages AND they get federal tax cuts on top of that.
Talk about corporate welfare. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate among American workers is still dismally high.
Here’s more from Breitbart…
The federal government quietly helped and rewarded companies and universities which hired roughly 330,000 cheap foreign graduates in 2016 instead of hiring American graduates, many of whom are deep in debt.
The little-known “Optional Practical Training” program has grown from 91,140 new foreign job-seekers in 2009 to 329,158 new job-seekers in 2016, according to data provided by the Department of Homeland Security. That is almost a four-fold increase in seven years — and the program is growing even larger in 2017.
There is no cap on the OPT program, which quietly and semi-automatically gives work permits lasting up to three years when requested by foreign students who graduate from U.S. universities and colleges. Companies are not required to even interview Americans before hiring OPT graduates — and they get tax breaks for hiring foreigners over Americans.
“The government is enticing employers to hire foreigners instead of Americans … it is ridiculous,” said Mark Krikorian, director of the D.C.-based Center for Immigration Studies. Even the middle-class Americans who have downplayed the impact of cheap-labor immigration on blue-collar Americans should be alarmed by the government’s discrimination against their own college-graduate children, he added.
In 2014, the OPT program provided work permits to 249,998 foreign graduates, according to the data provided to Breitbart News by the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the program. Two years later, the number of new foreign graduates entering the program had risen by 32 percent up to 329,158.
The program provides a one-year work permit to all graduates. It also provides an extra one-year permit to graduates who work in a so-called high-tech “STEM” job. In 2016, officials working for former President Barack Obama extended the STEM permits from one year to two years. If only 20,000 of the 51,672 STEM workers from 2015 used Obama’s one-year extension, they would have increased the 2016 total from 329,158 up to 350,000.
That 350,000 estimate for 2016 means that the government is offering work permits to one foreign graduate for almost every two of the 800,000 young Americans who graduate from college each year with high-skilled degrees in business or medicine, science or software, math or physics.
The OPT program will likely grow to 500,000 foreign workers in 2020 unless it is killed by a pending lawsuit.
Under the new transparency rules established by DHS secretary John Kelly, DHS officials also provided Breitbart with the initial OPT numbers for 2017. That data showed the OPT program in the first half of 2017 by giving work permits to 255,412 foreign students, including 57,315 high-skill technology graduates. That half-year number for 2017 is larger than the 2014 total.
The leftist media has already jumped the shark long ago, but now, on the heels of the Democrats sad loss in Georgia this week, it’s getting ridiculous.
As we might have predicted, the media thinks the loss is not at all because liberalism simply doesn’t sell — especially in the Deep South.
Nay, it must be due to something other than a failed ideology and/or a bad candidate…despite tens of millions of dollars.
According to Rachel Maddow, the loss was due to… wait for it … the weather.
But here’s the dirty little secret: Ossof got fewer votes than the previous Democrat candidate in that district, the one who spent less than a grand.
Yes, you read that right: Nearly thirty million won fewer votes than half a grand.
Here’s more from Redstate…
On Tuesday night, when media outlets declared Karen Handel defeated Jon Ossoff in Georgia’s sixth congressional district, I said progressives would have a difficult time trying to find a scapegoat. After all, Ossoff is straight, white, and male. There was no grievance factor for progressives to latch onto, especially considering he lost to a woman.
But then there is Rachel Maddow. Her ratings have increased since Donald Trump became president mainly because she will indulge even the most absurd theories about the president and his administration. The idea that a Democrat lost to Karen Handel for any other reason than an outside influence cannot be justified. Something sinister happened. There is no other reason Ossoff lost, right?
Enter the weather.
Yes, Maddow went there. Watch this clip:
“If there was a turnout effect from the bad weather today in the district, does that have any partisan implications that you can foresee in terms of what was expected for same-day, election-day voting here, rather than the early vote?”
Remarkable. Yesterday, on the Commentary podcast, John Podhoretz said Ossoff received 24 fewer votes than Rodney Stooksbury, Tom Price’s opponent in 2016. Ossoff spent $30M. Stooksbury? $427.
The hilarious part is, people weren’t even sure if a person named Rodney Stooksbury even existed. He didn’t campaign. His website featured no photos of him. He was a mystery. His existence ultimately was confirmed at some point.