May 22, 2019

Autopsy of an Attempted Coup

The illegal effort to destroy the 2016 Trump campaign by Hillary Clinton campaign’s use of funds to create, disseminate among court media, and then salt among high Obama administration officials, a fabricated, opposition smear dossier failed.

So has the second special prosecutor phase of the coup to abort the Trump presidency failed. There are many elements to what in time likely will become recognized as the greatest scandal in American political history, marking the first occasion in which U.S. government bureaucrats sought to overturn an election and to remove a sitting U.S. president.

Preparing the Battlefield
No palace coup can take place without the perception of popular anger at a president.

The deep state is by nature cowardly. It does not move unless it feels it can disguise its subterranean efforts or that, if revealed, those efforts will be seen as popular and necessary—as expressed in tell-all book titles such as fired FBI Directors James Comey’s Higher Loyalty or in disgraced Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe’s psychodramatic The Threat.

In candidate and President Trump’s case that prepping of the battlefield translated into a coordinated effort among the media, political progressives and celebrities to so demonize Trump that his imminent removal likely would appear a relief to the people. Anything was justified that led to that end.

All through the 2016 campaign and during the first two years of the Trump presidency the media’s treatment, according to liberal adjudicators of press coverage, ran about 90 percent negative toward Trump—a landmark bias that continues today.

Journalists themselves consulted with the Clinton campaign to coordinate attacks. From the Wikileaks trove, journalistic grandees such as John Harwood, Mark Leibovich, Dana Milbank, and Glenn Thrush often communicated (and even post factum were unapologetic about doing so) with John Podesta’s staff to construct various anti-Trump themes and have the Clinton campaign review or even audit them in advance.

Some contract “journalists” apparently were paid directly by Fusion GPS—created by former reporters Glen Simpson of the Wall Street Journal and Susan Schmidt of the Washington Post—to spread lurid stories from the dossier. Others more refined like Christiane Amanpour and James Rutenberg had argued for a new journalistic ethos that partisan coverage was certainly justified in the age of Trump, given his assumed existential threat to The Truth. Or as Rutenberg put it in 2016: “If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, non-opinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable. But the question that everyone is grappling with is: Do normal standards apply? And if they don’t, what should take their place?”

I suppose Rutenberg never considered that half the country might have considered the Hillary Clinton presidency “potentially dangerous,” and yet did not expect the evening news, in 90 percent of its coverage, to reflect such suspicions.

The Democratic National Committee’s appendages often helped to massage CNN news coverage—such as Donna Brazile’s primary debate tip-off to the Clinton campaign or CNN’s consultation with the DNC about forming talking points for a scheduled Trump interview.

So-called “bombshell,” “watershed,” “turning-point,” and “walls closing in” fake news aired in 24-hour news bulletin cycles. The media went from fabrications about Trump’s supposed removal of the bust of Martin Luther King, Jr. from the Oval Office, to the mythologies in the Steele dossier, to lies about the Trump Tower meeting, to assurances that Michael Cohen would testify to Trump’s suborning perjury, and on and on.

CNN soon proved that it is no longer a news organization at all—as reporters like Gloria Borger, Chris Cuomo, Eric Lichtblau, Manu Raju, Brian Rokus, Jake Tapper, Jeff Zeleny, and teams such as Jim Sciutto, Carl Bernstein, and Marshall Cohen as well as Thomas Frank, and Lex Harris all trafficked in false rumors and unproven gossip detrimental to Trump, while hosts and guest hosts such as Reza Aslan, the late Anthony Bourdain, and Anderson Cooper stooped to obscenity and grossness to attack Trump.

Both politicos and celebrities tried to drive Trump’s numbers down to facilitate some sort of popular ratification for his removal. Hollywood and the coastal corridor punditry exhausted public expressions of assassinating or injuring the president, as the likes of Jim Carrey, Johnny Depp, Robert de Niro, Peter Fonda, Kathy Griffin, Madonna, Snoop Dogg, and a host of others vied rhetorically to slice apart, shoot, beat up, cage, behead, and blow up the president.

Left wing social media and mainstream journalism spread sensational lies about supposed maniacal Trump supporters in MAGA hats. They constructed fantasies that veritable white racists were now liberated to run amuck insulting and beating up people of color as they taunted the poor and victimized minorities with vicious Trump sloganeering—even as the Covington farce and now the even more embarrassing Jussie Smollett charade evaporated without apologies from the media and progressive merchants of such hate.

At the same time, liberal attorneys, foundations, Democratic politicians, and progressive activists variously sued to overturn the election on false charges of rigged voting machines. They sought to subvert the Electoral College. They introduced articles of impeachment. They sued to remove Trump under the Emoluments Clause. They attempted to invoke the 25th Amendment. And they even resurrected the ossified Logan Act—before focusing on the appointment of a special counsel to discredit the Trump presidency. Waiting for the 2020 election was seen as too quaint.

Weaponizing the Deep State
During the 2016 election, the Obama Department of Justice warped the Clinton email scandal investigation, from Bill Clinton’s secret meeting on an airport tarmac with Attorney General Loretta Lynch, to unethical immunity given to the unveracious Clinton aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, to James Comey’s convoluted predetermined treatment of “likely winner” Clinton, and to DOJ’s Bruce Ohr’s flagrant conflict of interests in relation to Fusion GPS.

About a dozen FBI and DOJ grandees have now resigned, retired, been fired, or reassigned for unethical and likely illegal behavior—and yet have not faced criminal indictments. The reputation of the FBI as venerable agency is all but wrecked. Its administrators variously have libeled the Trump voters, expressed hatred for Trump, talked of “insurance policies” in ending the Trump candidacy, and inserted informants into the Trump campaign.

The former Obama directors of the CIA and National Intelligence, with security clearances intact, hit the television airways as paid “consultants” and almost daily accused the sitting president of Russian collusion and treason—without cross-examination or notice that both previously had lied under oath to Congress (and did so without subsequent legal exposure), and both were likely knee-deep in the dissemination of the Steele dossier among Obama administration officials.

John Brennan’s CIA likely helped to spread the Fusion GPS dossier among elected and administrative state officials. Some in the NSC in massive and unprecedented fashion requested the unmasking of surveilled names of Trump subordinates, and then illegally leaked them to the press.

The FISA courts, fairly or not, are now mostly discredited, given they either were willingly or naively hoodwinked by FBI and DOJ officials who submitted as chief evidence for surveillance on American citizens, an unverified dossier—without disclosure that the bought campaign hit-piece was paid for by Hillary Clinton, authored by a discredited has-been British agent, relied on murky purchased Russian sources, and used in circular fashion to seed news accounts of supposed Trump misbehavior.

The Mueller Investigation
The Crown Jewel in the coup was the appointment of special counsel Robert Muller to discover supposed 2016 Trump-Russian election collusion. Never has any special investigation been so ill-starred from its conception.

Mueller’s appointment was a result of his own friend James Comey’s bitter stunt of releasing secret, confidential and even classified memos of presidential conversations. Acting DOJ Attorney Rod Rosenstein appointed a former colleague Mueller—although as a veteran himself of the Clinton email scandal investigations and the FISA fraudulent writ requests, Rosenstein was far more conflicted than was the recused Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Mueller then packed his investigative team with lots of Clinton donors and partisans, some of whom had legally represented Clinton subordinates and even the Clinton Foundation or voiced support for anti-Trump movements.

Mueller himself and Andrew Weissmann have had a long record of investigatory and prosecutorial overreach that had on occasion resulted in government liability and court mandated federal restitution. In such polarized times, neither should have involved in such an investigation. Two subordinate FBI investigators were caught earlier on conducting an affair over their FBI-issued cell phones, and during the election cycle they slurred the object of their subsequent investigation, ridiculed Trump voters, and bragged that Trump would never be elected. Mueller later staggered, and then hid for weeks the reasons for, their respective firings.

The team soon discovered there was no Trump-Russian 2016 election collusion—and yet went ahead to leverage Trump campaign subordinates on process crimes in hopes of finding some culpability in Trump’s past 50-year business, legal, and tax records. The point was not to find who colluded with whom (if it had been, then Hillary Clinton would be now indicted for illegally hiring with campaign funds a foreign national to buy foreign fabrications to discredit her opponent), but to find the proper mechanism to destroy the presumed guilty Donald Trump.

The Mueller probe has now failed in that gambit of proving “collusion” (as even progressive investigative reporters and some FBI investigators had predicted), but succeeded brilliantly in two ways.

The “counterintelligence” investigation subverted two years of the Trump presidency by constant leaks that Trump soon would be indicted, jailed, disgraced, or impeached. As a result, Trump’s stellar economic and foreign policy record would never earn fifty percent of public support.

Second, Mueller’s preemptive attacks offered an effective offensive defense for the likely felonious behavior of John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, Peter Strzok, and a host of others. While the Mueller lawyers threatened to destroy the lives of bit players like Jerome Corsi, George Papadopoulos, and Roger Stone, they de facto provided exemption to a host of the Washington hierarchy who had lied under oath, obstructed justice, illegally leaked to the press, unmasked and leaked names of surveilled Americans, and misled federal courts under the guise of a “higher loyalty” to the cause of destroying Donald J. Trump.

The Palace Coup
All of the above came to a head with the firing of the chronic leaker FBI Director James Comey (who would lie to the president about his not being a target of an FBI investigation, lie to House investigatory committees by pleading amnesia and ignorance on 245 occasions, and repeatedly lie to his own FBI bureaucrats).

In May 2017, acting FBI director Andrew McCabe took over from the fired Comey. His candidate wife recently had been a recipient of huge Clinton-related campaign PAC donations shortly before he began investigating the Clinton email scandal. McCabe would soon be cited by the Inspector General for lying to federal investigators on numerous occasions—cynically stooping even to lie to his own New York FBI subordinates to invest scarce resources to hunt for their own nonexistent leaks as a mechanism for disguising his own quite real and illegal leaking.

The newly promoted McCabe apparently felt that it was his moment to become famous for taking out a now President Trump. Thus, he assembled a FBI and DOJ cadre to open a counterintelligence investigation of the sitting president on no other grounds but the fumes of an evaporating Clinton opposition dossier and perceived anger among the FBI that their director had just been fired. In addition, apparently now posing as Andrew McCabe, MD, he informally head counted how many of Trump’s own cabinet members could be convinced by McCabe’s own apparent medical expertise to help remove the president on grounds of physical and mental incapacity under the 25th Amendment. This was an attempted, albeit pathetic, coup against an elected president and the first really in the history of the United States.

At one point, McCabe claims that the acting Attorney General of the United States Rod Rosenstein volunteered to wear a wire to entrap his boss President Trump—in the manner of Trump’s own attorney Michael Cohen’s entrapment of Trump, in the manner of James Comey taking entrapment notes on confidential Trump one-on-one meetings and leaking them to the press, and in the manner of the Department of Justice surveilling Trump subordinates through FISA and other court authorizations.

McCabe was iconic of an utterly corrupt FBI Washington hierarchy, which we now know from the behavior of its disgraced and departed leadership. They posed as patriotic scouts, but in reality proved themselves arrogant, smug, and incompetent. They harbored such a sense of superiority that they were convinced they could act outside the law in reifying an “insurance policy” that would end the Trump presidency.

The thinking of the conspirators initially had been predicated on three assumptions thematic during this three-year long government effort to destroy Trump:

One, during 2016, Hillary Clinton would certainly win the election and FBI and DOJ unethical and illegal behavior would be forgotten if not rewarded, given the Clintons’ own signature transgressions and proven indifference to the law;

Two, Trump was so controversial and the fabricated dossier was so vile and salacious, that seeded rumors of Trump’s faked perversity gave them de facto exemptions to do whatever they damned pleased;

Three, Trump’s low polls, his controversial reset of American policy, and the general contempt in which he was held by the bipartisan coastal elite, celebrities, and the deep state, meant that even illegal means to continue the campaign-era effort to destroy Trump and now abort his presidency were felt to be moral and heroic acts without legal consequences, and the media would see the conspirators as heroes.

In sum, the Left and the administrative state, in concert with the media, after failing to stop the Trump campaign, regrouped. They ginned up a media-induced public hysteria, with the residue of the Hillary Clinton campaign’s illegal opposition research, and manipulated it to put in place a special counsel, stocked with partisans.

Then, not thugs in sunglasses and epaulettes, not oligarchs in private jets, not shaggy would-be Marxists, but sanctimonious arrogant bureaucrats in suits and ties used their government agencies to seek to overturn the 2016 election, abort a presidency, and subvert the U.S. Constitution. And they did all that and more on the premise that they were our moral superiors and had uniquely divine rights to destroy a presidency that they loathed.

Shame on all these failed conspirators and their abettors, and may these immoral people finally earn a long deserved legal and moral reckoning.

About the Author: Victor Davis Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson is an American military historian, columnist, former classics professor, and scholar of ancient warfare. He was a professor of classics at California State University, Fresno, and is currently the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He has been a visiting professor at Hillsdale College since 2004. Hanson was awarded the National Humanities Medal in 2007 by President George W. Bush. Hanson is also a farmer (growing raisin grapes on a family farm in Selma, California) and a critic of social trends related to farming and agrarianism. He is the author most recently of The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict was Fought and Won (Basic Books).


Conservative-friendly social media. Join FREE today: PlanetUS

Amazon Pulls Out of New York Because Leftists Don’t Understand Math or Economics

Cortez is challenged by simple economics and math–a product of American leftist politics, education system and media

The dispute between the two Democrats lays bare a divide over the plan to offer $2.8 billion in tax breaks for Amazon to establish a major presence in New York City. On one side, old hands like Cuomo; on the other, the newly insurgent, left-leaning wing represented by Ocasio-Cortez.

“Today was the day a group of dedicated, everyday New Yorkers and their neighbors defeated Amazon’s corporate greed, its worker exploitation and the power of the richest man in the world,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter. The new development would have been in the Long Island City neighborhood of Queens, near Ocasio-Cortez’s district.

The outspoken freshman Congresswoman was a critic of the deal Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio had brokered with Amazon.

Cuomo and other supporters of the project said that Amazon would have brought more than enough investment to the city to justify the tax breaks, and would have established New York as a tech hub to rival other hubs like San Francisco.

Additionally, he said, HQ2 would have brought “at least 25,000-40,000 good paying jobs for our state and nearly $30 billion dollars in new revenue to fund transit improvements, new housing, schools and countless other quality-of-life improvements.”

However, Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter questioned the validity of the jobs figure and pointed to a report that Amazon will pay zero federal income tax in 2018, despite $11 billion in profits.

“$0 for schools. $0 for firefighters. $0 for infrastructure. $0 for research and healthcare,” she tweeted Thursday. “Why should corporations that contribute nothing to the pot be in a position to take billions from the public?”

In Amazon’s search for a city to host HQ2, the company invited city boards to put forward bids, which Ocasio-Cortez and others criticized as a means for the company to secure the largest tax breaks possible.

Ocasio-Cortez was elected to Congress for the first time in last year’s midterm elections. The following week, Amazon announced that New York and Arlington, Va., were the winners of its much-hyped HQ2 search competition. Immediately, the congresswoman-elect stated her opposition to the proposal.

“Amazon is a billion-dollar company. The idea that it will receive hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks at a time when our subway is crumbling and our communities need MORE investment, not less, is extremely concerning to residents here,” she said on Twitter last November. “It’s possible to establish economic partnerships [with] real opportunities for working families, instead of a race-to-the-bottom competition.”

Amazon has said it will continue to hire extra workers in New York despite walking back its HQ2 plans.

By Billy Perrigo


Conservative-friendly social media. Join FREE today: PlanetUS

Smollett’s Story Falls Apart

Politicians who jumped on Smollett race attack claim before they knew the facts are suddenly left in a pickle as his story unravels

Another False Flag Liberal Hate Claim Debunked

Democratic politicians are backtracking from their initial comments about what was originally described as a hate crime against “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett, after a Chicago police spokesperson said over the weekend the “trajectory of the investigation” shifted and they no longer consider Smollett a victim in the case.

When the incident was first reported last month, Democratic presidential candidate Cory Booker called it “an attempted modern-day lynching.” But on Sunday, Booker told reporters he is now withholding comment on the case “until all the information actually comes out from on-the-record sources.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Jan. 29 tweeted that the “racist, homophobic attack” against Smollett is “an affront to our humanity.” But over the weekend, Pelosi’s tweet had been deleted.

Smollett, who is black and openly gay, has claimed he was attacked by two masked men early on Jan. 29 as he walked to his Chicago apartment from a Subway restaurant. Smollett alleged the men shouted racial and anti-gay slurs at him.

Last week, Chicago police questioned two Nigerian brothers in the reported attack but released them Friday without charges. Police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said the pair had given officers information that had “shifted the trajectory of the investigation.” Local reports have cited sources saying the attack was a hoax, though the Chicago Police Department has not confirmed that.

“While we are not in a position to confirm, deny or comment on the validity of what’s been unofficially released, there are some developments in this investigation and detectives have some follow-ups to complete which include speaking to the individual who reported the incident, ” Guglielmi said Sunday.

Smollett received an outpouring of support from politicians and celebs when he first went public about the alleged attack in January. Smollett has claimed at least one of the attackers said to him, “this is MAGA country,” in reference to President Trump’s campaign slogan.

While some lawmakers are now backtracking, others have stayed mum as the narrative rapidly shifts. Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, called out Democrats on Twitter who were outspoken initially about the case, but haven’t said anything since the new developments.

“I’m wondering if @KamalaHarris still wants #JusticeForJussie? Will she be as vocal about it now or has she moved on?” Trump Jr. tweeted.

Last month, Sen. Harris, like Booker, referred to the incident as “an attempted modern day lynching.”

“No one should have to fear for their life because of their sexuality or color of their skin,” the 2020 presidential candidate said. “We must confront this hate.”

Others, like New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, said last month, “There is no such thing as ‘racially charged.’ This attack was not ‘possibly’ homophobic. It was a racist and homophobic attack. If you don’t like what is happening to our country, then work to change it. It is no one’s job to water down or sugar-coat the rise of hate crimes.”

John Dickerson, the co-anchor of CBS This Morning, responded to Ocasio-Cortez on Sunday and asked, “Is there an update on this?”

Meanwhile, Smollett’s attorneys, Todd S. Pugh and Victor P. Henderson, are vehemently denying that the attack was a hoax.

“As a victim of a hate crime who has cooperated with the police investigation, Jussie Smollett is angered and devastated by recent reports that the perpetrators are individuals he is familiar with,” the lawyers said in a weekend statement. “He has now been further victimized by claims attributed to these alleged perpetrators that Jussie played a role in his own attack. Nothing is further from the truth and anyone claiming otherwise is lying.”

Fox News’ Mike Tobin and Samuel Chamberlain contributed to this report.


Conservative-friendly social media. Join FREE today: PlanetUS

Trump Declares National Emergency to Divert Billions for Wall

Trump declares emergency on border, eyes $8B for wall as he plans to sign spending package

President Trump said Friday he is declaring a national emergency on the southern border, tapping into executive powers in a bid to divert billions toward construction of a wall even as he plans to sign a funding package that includes just $1.4 billion for border security.

“We’re going to confront the national security crisis on our southern border … one way or the other, we have to do it,” Trump said in the Rose Garden.

The move is expected to face a swift and forceful legal challenge that could stall the attempt in the courts for the near future. But the declaration and other money-moving plans allow Trump to continue to fight for border wall construction while also averting another partial government shutdown — which would have been triggered at midnight absent the new funding package.

Trump, in the Rose Garden, declared once again that “walls work” as he confirmed he’ll sign the emergency declaration.

“We’re talking about an invasion of our country,” Trump said.

And in an almost-casual tone, the president predicted a legal fight that will wind up before the Supreme Court.

“We will have a national emergency, and we will then be sued,” Trump said, adding that the federal appeals courts could well rule against his administration. “Then we’ll end up in the Supreme Court, and hopefully we’ll get a fair shake, and we’ll win at the Supreme Court — just like the [travel] ban.”

A senior administration official told Fox News that the White House plans to next move $8 billion in currently appropriated or available funds toward construction of the wall. Of that, $3 billion could be diverted with help from the emergency declaration.

That money includes about $600 million from the Treasury Department’s forfeiture fund. That money has been described as “easy money” that the White House can use however it wants. The White House is also expected to use drug interdiction money from the Department of Defense.

But by declaring an emergency, Trump would also seek to unlock money from the Defense Department’s military construction budget as well, to the tune of $3.5 billion.

Breaking down the national emergency and how it can fund the border wall

Video

Diverting Pentagon funding, however, is expected to set off a legal battle and has already prompted fierce opposition from Democrats in Congress.

“The President’s declaration of a national emergency would be an abuse of his constitutional oath and an affront to the separation of powers. Congress has the exclusive power of the purse, and the Constitution specifically prohibits the President from spending money that has not been appropriated. … This is a gross abuse of power that cannot be tolerated,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said in a statement.

This is far from the only declared national emergency. According to the Congressional Research Service, there are at least 30 “national emergencies” in effect, including those concerning blocking Iranian government property, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and other terror-related acts. But none of the emergencies have involved the president of the United States spending money that had not been specifically appropriated by Congress

The president’s decision to declare a national emergency comes after a review of the spending package. The compromise package, which was negotiated for weeks in a bipartisan conference committee, passed both the House and the Senate on Thursday. But the deal would provide only a fraction of Trump’s originally proposed figure of $5.7 billion for border security and construction of a wall or physical barrier along the southern border.

The bill also imposed a number of restrictions on the White House, with legislative language preventing the administration from moving funding around to get a barrier or a wall — a factor that may have contributed to the emergency declaration decision.

The package, as it stands, is enough to build just 55 miles of barrier. And notably, the word “wall” does not appear once in the 1,768 pages of legislation and explanatory materials.

The funding battle follows the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. From Dec. 22 through Jan. 25—for 35 days—the White House and congressional Democrats battled over border security funding. Trump requested $5.7 billion for construction of the wall, while Democrats vowed to block any spending proposal that included such funding. The shutdown left more than 800,000 federal employees and contractors furloughed or working without pay. At the end of last month, though, Trump signed a short-term spending package that funded the government through the Friday deadline.

The prior fight left little appetite on either side of the aisle for another shutdown, leading to the passage Thursday of the compromise measure.

Trump, though, has talked for weeks about taking executive action to divert money from other programs for wall construction, without congressional sign-off—despite his criticisms of former President Barack Obama for using executive action.

Fox News’ Alex Pappas and Bret Baier and The Associated Press contributed to this report.Brooke Singman is a Politics Reporter for Fox News. Follow her on Twitter at @brookefoxnews.


Conservative-friendly social media. Join FREE today: PlanetUS

Dershowitz: FBI Plot To Oust Trump ‘Clearly an Attempt at a Coup d’etat’

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s descriptions of Justice Department meetings where he said officials discussed ousting the president.

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz on Thursday said the Department of Justice’s discussions to employ the 25th Amendment to oust President Trump– if true– amounted to an attempted coup.

NEW YORK, NY – FEBRUARY 03: Alan Dershowitz attends Hulu Presents “Triumph’s Election Special” produced by Funny Or Die at NEP Studios on February 3, 2016 in New York City. (Photo by John Lamparski/Getty Images for Hulu)

Dershowitz appeared on Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” to give his take on former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s descriptions of Justice Department meetings where he said officials discussed ousting the president.

“If [McCabe’s comments are] true, it is clearly an attempt at a coup d’état,” Dershowitz said.

Evoking the 25th Amendment, Dershowitz added, would be a fundamental misuse of its original purpose. He said it was originally “about Woodrow Wilson having a stroke. It’s about a president being shot and not being able to perform his office.”

DOJ held meetings on how to oust President Trump

Video

Dershowitz said any justice official who discussed the 25th Amendment in the context of ousting the president “has committed a grievous offense against the Constitution.”

Dershowitz, who authored the book: “The Case Against the Democratic House Impeaching Trump,” further argued that using the 25th Amendment to circumvent the impeachment process or an election, “is a despicable act of unconstitutional power grabbing.”

McCabe, who was fired from the bureau in March 2018 by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions after it was determined he lied to investigators about a leak, sent shock waves through Washington on Thursday for comments he made during an appearance on CBS News’ “60 Minutes.”

The excerpts detail the eight days between the firing of former FBI Director James Comey and the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. After Comey’s firing, McCabe was acting director of the FBI.

“These were the eight days from Comey’s firing to the point that Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel,” Scott Pelley, the ’60 Minutes’ host said. “And the highest levels of American law enforcement were trying to figure out what to do with the president.” He said people involved were “counting noses” and considering who might agree to the idea.

“I was speaking to the man who had just run for the presidency and won the election for the presidency and who might have done so with the aid of the government of Russia, our most formidable adversary on the world stage. And that was something that troubled me greatly,” McCabe said in one excerpt, referring to a phone call he had with Trump on May 10, 2017.


President Trump later fired off a round of tweets, two blasting McCabe and another that quoted Dershowitz’s appearance on Fox News.Bradford Betz is an editor for Fox News. Follow him on Twitter @bradford_betz.


Conservative-friendly social media. Join FREE today: PlanetUS

TUCKER CARLSON: Senate Dems Now Admit Trump-Russia Collusion Never Happened

There was no Russian collusion — It was all fake. It’s negligence on a stunning scale

We have news for you, breaking news, that for whatever reason is being downplayed or ignored by other media outlets, but we think you want to know about it. Five simple words describe it, there was no Russian collusion. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Trump campaign conspired in any way with the government of Vladimir Putin during the last presidential election.

That is apparently the conclusion of the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee. That Committee spent two years investigating this question. Of course, hundreds of interviews, reams of classified documents, untold millions in taxpayer dollars. No collusion at all. That is what we are hearing on Tuesday evening that they have found.

Now, if you’ve been following the story at all, and of course you have been, you will not be surprised by this. No Russian collusion is a lot like the moon landing actually happened or the abominable snowman was probably a long-haired mountain goat. You knew that already because you are not an idiot, but if so, compare your mental acuity to that of prominent political figures here in Washington.

The next time you feel dumb, remember what these Democrats said:

ADAM SCHIFF: U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, CALIFORNIA: I think there is plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight.

MAXINE WATERS, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, CALIFORNIA, DEMOCRAT:  Trump has the Kremlin clan surrounding him. There is more to be learned about it. I believe there has been collusion.

JOHN PODESTA, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: It is starting to smell more and more like collusion.

NANCY PELOSI, SPEAKER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:  We saw cold, hard evidence of the Trump campaign and, indeed, the Trump family eagerly intending to collude, possibly with Russia.

“Smells like collusion.”…”Plenty of evidence of collusion.” “Hard evidence of collusion.”

In the end, it was all fake. And they knew that, they knew it wasn’t real.  They were lying from the very first day.  Only their remarkable aggression, their willingness to say literally anything no matter how outrageous or slanderous or vile, kept the rest of us from catching on to what they were doing.

If the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee is willing to call someone a traitor to this country, there’s gotta be some truth to it, right?

Actually, no, there wasn’t. It was always a hoax.

Adam Schiff is an unscrupulous charlatan — that is the real lesson here.  Don’t expect people like Schiff to apologize though or correct the record, much less repair the lives of the people they have destroyed.

Carter Page still can’t find a job. Roger Stone is still facing life in prison.  Meanwhile, Schiff’s PR team on the other channel continues like none of this ever happened.

Here is Malcolm Nance of MSNBC explaining the results of a two-year Senate investigation mean nothing. People are guilty because we say they are guilty, we must punish them.

“Let me just say one thing. When Benedict Arnold gave the plans to West Point to Major Andre and they captured Major Andre, they do not have any real information linking those plans to Benedict Arnold, other than the fact that it was in his presence at one point during that day.  But everyone knew it was treason when they caught the man, and they hung him.  So at some point, there is going to be a bridge of data here that is going to be unassailable.”

“No one had any evidence, but everyone knew it was treason when they caught the man and they hung him.”

That says it all. Let’s repeat that, once again, slowly so you can write down those words and put them on your fridge as a memento of the terrifying mass hysteria we have all just lived through: “Everyone knew it was treason when they caught the man, and they hung him.”

That is our country now. That is what the Russia insanity has done to us, the real government shutdown has lasted for nearly two and a half years. That’s one percent of this country’s entire existence.  We no longer have meaningful policy dates in Washington, we have investigations, instead. Nobody can think clearly, everybody is afraid.

Tucker Carlson Tonight – Tuesday, February 12

The country’s core problems don’t even rate as interesting anymore, either to legislators or to TV pundits who comment on legislators. The suicide rate just hit a 50-year high, did you know that?  We are in the middle of the worst drug epidemic in the history of America, including the one after the Civil War and the heroin epidemic of the ’70s and the crack epidemic of the ’80s, this is way worse, and it’s one of the reasons the life expectancy, in many parts of the country, is dropping.

This is starting to look like Boris Yeltsin’s Russia, and yet nobody in Washington even notices. All Adam Schiff and the rest of the wild-eyed morons can think about is “Vladimir Putin,” “collusion,” “our hacked democracy” and all the other mindless slogans they have repeated long enough to half believe.

We’ve spent two years perpetuating a fraud, and they are still doing it. What is this? It is negligence on a stunning scale. It has nothing to do with Trump, it has everything to do with running this country, and they are not.

Historians will look back on this moment in amazement and in sadness — who put these crock-pots in charge and let them break things? Why didn’t any responsible person in the media say anything about it? Why did they collude in the charade? What the hell happened to America?

History will judge us for this moment. Adam Schiff’s grandkids will be ashamed of what he did.

Adapted from Tucker Carlson’s monologue on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on February 12, 2019.Tucker Carlson currently serves as the host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) Tucker Carlson Tonight (weekdays 8PM/ET). He joined the network in 2009 as a contributor.


Conservative-friendly social media. Join FREE today: PlanetUS

Media is ‘Stalin-like’ in Ocasio-Cortez Green Deal Cover Up

Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton unloaded on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal and said the media were “complicit” in burying the most radical parts of the deal.

Cotton, a staunch Republican, appeared on The Hugh Hewitt Show on Tuesday and discussed the widely ridiculed Green New Deal that aims to implement sweeping changes across the nation.

But what particularly caught Cotton’s eye was how the media became complicit in hiding the now-infamous FAQ document circulated by the Ocasio-Cortez office, which included lines such as promising a job to “all people of the United States” – including those “unwilling to work” – and making air travel industry obsolete.

“I understand the Democrats that proposed this immediately tried to retract that white paper that went along with their resolution,” Cotton added. “And too many people in the media have been complicit in the Stalin-like or 1984 technique of disappearing it, sending it down the memory hole.”

“And too many people in the media have been complicit in the Stalin-like or 1984 technique of disappearing it, sending it down the memory hole.”— Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton

Hewitt asked whether the Democrats who immediately jumped to endorse the radical package have actually read what’s inside it.

“Sure. I mean, Hugh, it’s pretty remarkable that when these Democrats put out the Green New Deal last week that you had many Democrats running for president leap onto a proposal that was going to confiscate every privately owned vehicle in America within a decade and ban air travel so we could all drive or ride around on high-speed light rail, supposedly powered by unicorn tears, yes,” Cotton said.

Multiple Democratic 2020 candidates such as Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and Kirsten Gillibrand have endorsed the deal.

Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton unloaded on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal and said the media were “complicit” in burying the most radical parts of the deal.

Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton unloaded on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal and said the media were “complicit” in burying the most radical parts of the deal. (Associated Press)

Cotton finished the interview segment saying the Green New Deal, in essence, is what Democrats believe in and want for the U.S.

“But this is where their heart lies,” he said. “They believe that Americans driving around in trucks on farms, or commuting from the suburbs where they can have a decent home into the city to work are a fundamental threat to the world, and they have to have the power and the control of those Americans’ lives to implement their radical vision for humanity.”

Lukas Mikelionis is a reporter for FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter @LukasMikelionis.


Conservative-friendly social media. Join FREE today: PlanetUS

U.S. Attorney Huber Moving to Indict Clintons and Others

U.S. Attorney for the state of Utah John Huber was appointed by Attorney General Jeff Sessions over a year ago to investigate accusations of abuse of power and corruption at the highest levels of the State Department, FBI and Justice Department.

A.G. Sessions mistakenly recused himself from any investigations surrounding accusations of collusion between the Russian government and its operatives, and members of the Donald Trump for President election campaign. He was then duped into appointing Robert Meuller as Special Prosecutor to investigate such allegations. Meuller immediately appointed dozens of Democratic Party operatives to the investigation, resulting in no evidence of collusion from the Trump camp, but a great deal of evidence of collusion between Hillary Clinton’s team and Russian operatives.

U.S. Attorney Huber was appointed by sessions not under any special counsel statute, but within the normal operational standards of the Department of Justice, and tasked with investigating all those that Meuller seemed reluctant to investigate—including Meuller himself. Huber was also selected because Sessions assumed that a Grand Jury selected from among the citizens of Utah would be willing to provide an unbiased response to evidence of wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton and those in the upper echelons of Washington, D.C. bureaus and law enforcement agencies.

U.S. Attorney for the state of Utah John Huber

Although Huber’s work has remained shrouded in mystery, without leaks, we have obtained information from an inside source that Huber has been presenting evidence of felonious activities to the Grand Jury against several high level government actors, and will soon be bringing indictments against Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, FBI Director James Comey, Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, CIA Director John Brennan, Associate Deputy Director Bruce Ohr, FBI Agent Peter Strzok, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Christopher Steele, and several other principals of Uranium One, The Clinton Foundation and Fusion GPS.

According to our source, the sealed indictments will be made public within the next 4 months.

PUBLIUS



Tired of Facebook? Check out Conservative-friendly social media. Join FREE today: PlanetUS

Watch this 30 sec. video about PlanetUS:

Conservative-friendly social media. Join FREE today: PlanetUS

TRUMP: America Will Never Be a Socialist Country

“America Will Never Be A Socialist Country”; “We Were Born Free And We Will Stay Free”

President Trump said the United States will never become a socialist country in his 2019 State of the Union address.

“We stand with the Venezuelan people in their noble quest for freedom — and we condemn the brutality of the Maduro regime, whose socialist policies have turned that nation from being the wealthiest in South America into a state of abject poverty and despair,” Trump said Tuesday night.

“Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country,” the president said. “America was founded on liberty and independence – not government coercion, domination, and control. We are born free, and we will stay free.”

[RELATED: CNN Instant Poll: 76% Of Viewers Approved Of Trump State Of The Union]

“Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country,” Trump declared.

[RELATED: CBS News Instant Poll: 72% Approve Of Trump’s Immigration Ideas]

The Expansion of Socialism

One hundred years ago most people of the world were laborers. Hard working people naturally looked for ways to rise above their humble circumstances, and in America that meant innovating and giving extra effort. Not all nations afforded their working classes the opportunities preserved to Americans by the U.S. Constitution.

Revolutions

In 1776 Americans declared their independence from the tyranny of the British Crown. In 1917 the Russian peasants and working classes revolted against the government of Tsar Nicholas II, led by Vladimir Lenin and a group of revolutionaries called the Bolsheviks. In the 1920s the Chinese Red Army led the revolution and marched across China killing anyone who had an education or who owned more than 1 acre of land. NAZIs came to power in Germany and marched across Europe.

The Difference

Americans enjoyed the liberties guarantied by their Constitution, and they were free to apply themselves, and work harder or smarter than their competition, and earn more than their parents had ever dreamed. The free-trade economy catapulted America from a backwater British colony to a world power in mere decades. Russia and China invoked socialism, which is government control of production and distribution. This form of government promises “fairness” among all of its citizens, asserting that none will rise above others (presumably at the expense of others). Socialism comes in various forms: Democratic Socialism, Communism and Fascism (where socialist government officials control the economy through corporations).

Socialism Has Murdered 100 Million

Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong-un, Kim Jong-il have ordered the extermination of millions of their citizens, totaling around 100,000,000 in the 20th Century. Why? Because socialism is about power and control. It is anti-liberty. When power to redistribute wealth is given to government, it must exercise that power to force its citizens to live under its edicts. Because socialism guaranties equal receipt of goods and services, regardless of effort or risk, socialist economies always stall from lack of innovation. They wither and die—without exception.

Socialism Today

Venezuela is the latest victim of socialism. What was an oil-wealthy growing economy just 10 years ago has become another victim on the ash heap of socialism. To quote a Venezuelan woman featured on a CNN report the other day, “This socialist utopia has left nearly all stomachs hungry.” Indeed, in a nation rich in oil those who can scrape together a box of rapidly devaluing currency must wait in gasoline lines from 3 days and nights to fill their tanks. This is the natural course of socialism.

Before Venezuela it was Cuba, and the USSR, and Communist China. Each of these nations enslaved their working people and plunged them into poverty, while elites who ran the government lived lavishly. It was only as each country began to allow capitalism to take root and expand that the economies grew and the people began to thrive.

Socialist economies produce shortages of every consumer item, including food. Bread lines like this are common daily experiences in socialist nations.

What About Democratic Socialism in Scandinavia and Europe?

We have heard American socialists point to socialism “successes” in Europe as they espouse such economic schemes for the U.S. They tell us that countries like Denmark and Sweden enjoy a high standard of living while guaranteeing equality among their citizens. To a lesser extent, other European nations have moved sharply left toward socialism.

Here is the reality. Scandinavian countries are small, with homogenous populations. Because they are defended by America’s military, they spend very little on defense, and divert that money to social welfare programs. They are in “voluntary agreement” socially that none will rise above the rest, and agree to high tax rates to support this philosophy. Unfortunately, the era of being defended by America is abruptly ending, and President Trump is demanding that Europe increase defense spending (rendering him quite unpopular in Europe). Also, millions of Muslims have moved into Europe and overwhelmed the social welfare systems, crashing them and draining their semi-capitalistic economies.

Democratic-socialism only survives when it is it supported by the economic engine of capitalism. As UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher observed, however, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” Indeed, when democratic socialism has drained the resources of the capitalist engine, it leaves its people waiting in long lines for scarce food and other resources—many of which will not arrive in time.

Why Do Democrats Love Socialism?

Socialism is about power and control. It is a bait-and-switch fraud scheme. It promises “fairness.” It promises forced equality. It promises something for nothing. The reality of socialism is that it transfers the wealth and power of The People to the government, with the promise of “We will now provide for all of your needs.” The people are lured into giving up their property and personal choices under this scheme. They surrender their healthcare system to this form of government, with such false promises as “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” President’s weekly address, June 6, 2009: “If you like the plan you have, you can keep it. If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too. The only change you’ll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold.” As always happens, this is a lie told by the socialist government to trick the citizens into surrendering their wealth and power. This is followed by higher taxes, higher national debt, and a proliferation of government regulation.

Socialism Devalues God and Human Life

We note that anywhere that socialism has been imposed, human life and family relationships are diminished tremendously, as is the worship of our Creator. The surrender of power to the government necessitates that nothing else compete with the state’s supremacy. An iron fist rules a socialist society, and anything that threatens the state’s authority is eliminated. Because individualism is nurtured by the family social structure and a belief in divine parentage, socialism breaks down the family structure wherever possible and eliminates God from public and private life. In socialist nations like China and the USSR, we saw atheism replace faith, and the government deciding who you could marry and how many children you could have. Human life is devalued as the state replaces deity, and concepts like abortion and Eugenics supplant love of fellow humans.

All of this is dependent on government’s ability to control every aspect of our lives, of course, so socialism controls the flow of information eliminates the ability of the citizens to protect themselves from the government through the confiscation of firearms.

Does Any of This Sound Familiar?

Of course, since the Bolshevik Revolution socialists have seen America’s individual liberty and economic success as the greatest threat to the myth of socialism, and therefore, the transfer of all wealth and power to a small group of elites. This is why socialists have focused on penetrating the American media and educational systems over the past 100 years, completely overtaking them in the past two decades. Now, our children are bombarded daily in classrooms with a steady diet of socialism, as are we with every news and entertainment program on television.

An entire political party has been overtaken by socialists, and they have become so embedded that they are now emboldened to the point of speaking openly about their socialist platform. They promise “equality” and “fairness,” asserting that someone else will pay for the benefits they are promising. Of course, even the mathematically-challenged Democrats know in their heart-of-hearts that nothing they promise is true. It is all smoke and mirrors. It is all a lie, as it has always been. There is no universal healthcare, and there is no guarantied salary or college education. Even if money grew on trees, there aren’t enough leaves on trees in America to pay for the promises being made by Democrats. They add up to hundreds of trillions of dollars. Plus, as they were imposed, our economy would crash and there would be no money for even the basics—and we would soon be just like every other people that ever embraced socialism: impoverished and enslaved.

The American Democrat Party has been taken over by far left socialists, who employ socialist propaganda techniques developed in previous national takeovers. Indeed, Democratic Party leaders like Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid have made tens of millions of dollars while in office, while their constituents fall deeper into poverty.

Socialism is a Ponzi Scheme

Socialism is a farce. It is a fraud. It is the political equivalent of Big Foot. Every policy of the left is packaged to appear to give something to someone to make his life more “fair,” but in reality, it is nothing more than a scheme to transfer more power or wealth from the citizens to the ruling class. Every issue in politics and society fits within this rubric. Gun control has nothing to do with saving lives. Indeed, the places where gun control is strongest, where Democrats reign, gun violence is exponentially worse. Welfare spending does not eliminate poverty. Abortion does not improve women’s health. Taxation and regulation do not enrich the poor. Government healthcare does not increase health levels. It is all a fraud. A hoax. It is directly out of the playbook of socialism—promise what the people like to hear, in exchange for their wealth and power. Once you have taken their wealth and power, rule over them with an iron fist. This is the sum total of socialism.

Americans enjoy the highest degree of individual liberty and wealth in human history. It can’t be taken from us by force. Only fraud and deceit can convince us to surrender our superior way of life in exchange for the enslavement and poverty of socialism. The siren’s song sounds sweet, and promises such lovely things—but it is a lie, and our very existence is in jeopardy because of the encroachment of socialism in our nation. We must reject it and root it out. It is cancer. It is deadly. We must attack it with the force it deserves.

By James Thompson. James is a political commentator and professional ghostwriter.


PlanetUS is conservative-friendly social media. Get set up on PlanetUS before Facebook deletes you.

Tired of Facebook stealing your information and selling it? Tired of the bias and propaganda? Set up your free account today at PlanetUS.com

Walls Work

Democrats know it, but they want President Trump to fail.

Of all the Democrats’ arguments against a southern border wall, the shadiest is that it would not work.

According to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), President Donald J. Trump is “forcing American taxpayers to waste billions of dollars on an expensive and ineffective wall.” As he joined Pelosi in rebutting the president’s January 8 Oval Office address, Senate Democrat leader Chuck Schumer of New York decried Trump’s “ineffective, unnecessary border wall.” Schumer added: “We can secure our border without an expensive, ineffective wall.”

In fact, walls work. Love them or hate them, their effectiveness is indisputable.

• “Part of our area is covered with some fencing on our east side. That accounts for about 6 percent of our traffic,” Border Patrol chief Raul Ortiz told journalists during President Trump’s January 10 visit to Rio Grande Valley, Texas. “Where we have no fencing, over 90 percent of our traffic occurs in those areas.” A day earlier, Ortiz added, 450 people were apprehended in the unfenced sector, including 133 from such non-Latin nations as India, Pakistan, and Romania.

• Some 560,000 illegals were caught astride San Diego and Tijuana in Fiscal Year 1992, when a border wall was installed there. By FY 2017, the Border Patrol says it snared 26,086 — down 95.3 percent.

• A barrier between the Tucson, Ariz., sector and Nogales, Mexico, was erected in 2000. That year’s 616,346 arrests plunged to 38,657 in FY 2017 — down 93.7 percent.

• A fence installed at the border between Yuma, Arizona, and Los Algondones, Mexico brought apprehensions from 138,438 in FY 2005 to 12,847 in FY 2017 — down 90.7 percent.

“Crime has significantly decreased in the Yuma area,” then–acting homeland security secretary Elaine Duke wrote in USA Today in August 2017, “and smugglers now look for other less difficult areas of the border to cross — often areas without fencing.”

• A 150-mile barrier between Israel and southern Egypt cut the number of illegal-alien entrants from 17,000 in 2011 to 43 in 2013, after the fence’s completion, Israel’s Ministry of the Interior states — down 99.7 percent.

This wall “has stopped all illegal immigration,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu boasts. But Esteban Flores of Harvard International Review argues that “other measures enacted by the Israeli government have also been of immense importance.” He explains: “Israel has passed two laws targeting immigrants — one prohibiting immigrants from transferring money out of the country and another forcing employers to deposit 20 percent of an immigrant employee’s salary into a bank account which can only be withdrawn upon exit of the country.”

Flores unwittingly reinforces President Trump’s argument that a wall is necessary, though not sufficient, to boost border security and hinder illegal immigration. Other protections include sensors, more Border Patrol agents, extra detention space, additional immigration judges, E-Verify (to confirm employees’ legal status), and harsher penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens.

• Bulgaria erected a barrier on its Turkish perimeter in 2013. That year’s 11,000 illegal crossings dropped to 4,000 in 2014 — down 63.6 percent.

• Just as British Gibraltar dangles from Spain’s underside, Spanish Ceuta and Melilla surf atop Morocco. Multiple fences and barriers there sliced 2014’s 2,100 arrests at the Spanish-territorial/Moroccan frontier to 2015’s 100 — down 95.2 percent.

The strongest proof that walls work is that Democrats once loved them.

Former and current senators Joe Biden, Tom Carper, Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, Debbie Stabenow, and Ron Wyden were among the 26 Democrats who voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006. It authorized 700 miles of double fence. All 54 Senate Democrats voted unanimously in June 2013 for $46 billion in border security, including 350 miles of new steel fence.

“Between 2005 and 2015, polls show that nearly half of Democrats continued to support building a border barrier of some kind,” Cato Institute scholar Emily Ekins wrote in The Federalist. “However, things changed in 2015 when Donald Trump announced his bid for the presidency,” she continued. “Democratic support shifted more swiftly starting in the fall of 2015 onward. Now only about 12 percent of Democrats support a border wall or fence.”

Meanwhile, Republicans consistently have endorsed a wall, Ekins reported: 73 percent in October 2015; 71 percent today.

Courtesy of the Cato Institute

So, Trump Derangement Syndrome actually causes Democrats’ borderphobia.

Indeed, and amazingly, Ekins elaborated, “Reuter/Ipsos found that simply telling Democrats Trump supports a policy turns them against it — even universal health care.” Normally, regarding health care, 68 percent of Democrats think “government should take care of everybody, and the government should pay for it.” However, when told that Trump believes this, Ekins wrote, “only 47 percent supported government guaranteed health care — a 21-point drop.” She concluded: “Thus, even on an issue as central to the Democratic policy agenda as government-guaranteed universal health subsidies, Trump can turn Democrats against it. So, certainly he can turn them against a border wall, too.” 17

Walls work, and Democrats know it. But they want this president to fail. So, Democrats battle effective border protection so they can “resist Trump” — national security be damned. The Democratic party truly is America’s arsenal of hypocrisy.

Michael Malarkey furnished research for this opinion piece.

Deroy Murdock — Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor and a contributing editor of National Review Online.


Tired of Facebook shadow banning and deleting conservative viewpoints? It’s only a matter of time before they delete your account.

JOIN conservative-friendly PlanetUS.

The Problem With Socialism

One hundred years ago most people of the world were laborers. Hard working people naturally looked for ways to rise above their humble circumstances, and in America that meant innovating and giving extra effort. Not all nations afforded their working classes the opportunities preserved to Americans by the U.S. Constitution.

Revolutions

In 1776 Americans declared their independence from the tyranny of the British Crown. In 1917 the Russian peasants and working classes revolted against the government of Tsar Nicholas II, led by Vladimir Lenin and a group of revolutionaries called the Bolsheviks. In the 1920s the Chinese Red Army led the revolution and marched across China killing anyone who had an education or who owned more than 1 acre of land. NAZIs came to power in Germany and marched across Europe.

The Difference

Americans enjoyed the liberties guarantied by their Constitution, and they were free to apply themselves, and work harder or smarter than their competition, and earn more than their parents had ever dreamed. The free-trade economy catapulted America from a backwater British colony to a world power in mere decades. Russia and China invoked socialism, which is government control of production and distribution. This form of government promises “fairness” among all of its citizens, asserting that none will rise above others (presumably at the expense of others). Socialism comes in various forms: Democratic Socialism, Communism and Fascism (where socialist government officials control the economy through corporations).

Socialism Has Murdered 100 Million

Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong-un, Kim Jong-il have ordered the extermination of millions of their citizens, totaling around 100,000,000 in the 20th Century. Why? Because socialism is about power and control. It is anti-liberty. When power to redistribute wealth is given to government, it must exercise that power to force its citizens to live under its edicts. Because socialism guaranties equal receipt of goods and services, regardless of effort or risk, socialist economies always stall from lack of innovation. They wither and die—without exception.

Socialism Today

Venezuela is the latest victim of socialism. What was an oil-wealthy growing economy just 10 years ago has become another victim on the ash heap of socialism. To quote a Venezuelan woman featured on a CNN report the other day, “This socialist utopia has left nearly all stomachs hungry.” Indeed, in a nation rich in oil those who can scrape together a box of rapidly devaluing currency must wait in gasoline lines from 3 days and nights to fill their tanks. This is the natural course of socialism.

Before Venezuela it was Cuba, and the USSR, and Communist China. Each of these nations enslaved their working people and plunged them into poverty, while elites who ran the government lived lavishly. It was only as each country began to allow capitalism to take root and expand that the economies grew and the people began to thrive.

Socialist economies produce shortages of every consumer item, including food. Bread lines like this are common daily experiences in socialist nations.

What About Democratic Socialism in Scandinavia and Europe?

We have heard American socialists point to socialism “successes” in Europe as they espouse such economic schemes for the U.S. They tell us that countries like Denmark and Sweden enjoy a high standard of living while guaranteeing equality among their citizens. To a lesser extent, other European nations have moved sharply left toward socialism.

Here is the reality. Scandinavian countries are small, with homogenous populations. Because they are defended by America’s military, they spend very little on defense, and divert that money to social welfare programs. They are in “voluntary agreement” socially that none will rise above the rest, and agree to high tax rates to support this philosophy. Unfortunately, the era of being defended by America is abruptly ending, and President Trump is demanding that Europe increase defense spending (rendering him quite unpopular in Europe). Also, millions of Muslims have moved into Europe and overwhelmed the social welfare systems, crashing them and draining their semi-capitalistic economies.

Democratic-socialism only survives when it is it supported by the economic engine of capitalism. As UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher observed, however, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” Indeed, when democratic socialism has drained the resources of the capitalist engine, it leaves its people waiting in long lines for scarce food and other resources—many of which will not arrive in time.

Why Do Democrats Love Socialism?

Socialism is about power and control. It is a bait-and-switch fraud scheme. It promises “fairness.” It promises forced equality. It promises something for nothing. The reality of socialism is that it transfers the wealth and power of The People to the government, with the promise of “We will now provide for all of your needs.” The people are lured into giving up their property and personal choices under this scheme. They surrender their healthcare system to this form of government, with such false promises as “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” President’s weekly address, June 6, 2009: “If you like the plan you have, you can keep it. If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too. The only change you’ll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold.” As always happens, this is a lie told by the socialist government to trick the citizens into surrendering their wealth and power. This is followed by higher taxes, higher national debt, and a proliferation of government regulation.

Socialism Devalues God and Human Life

We note that anywhere that socialism has been imposed, human life and family relationships are diminished tremendously, as is the worship of our Creator. The surrender of power to the government necessitates that nothing else compete with the state’s supremacy. An iron fist rules a socialist society, and anything that threatens the state’s authority is eliminated. Because individualism is nurtured by the family social structure and a belief in divine parentage, socialism breaks down the family structure wherever possible and eliminates God from public and private life. In socialist nations like China and the USSR, we saw atheism replace faith, and the government deciding who you could marry and how many children you could have. Human life is devalued as the state replaces deity, and concepts like abortion and Eugenics supplant love of fellow humans.

All of this is dependent on government’s ability to control every aspect of our lives, of course, so socialism controls the flow of information eliminates the ability of the citizens to protect themselves from the government through the confiscation of firearms.

Does Any of This Sound Familiar?

Of course, since the Bolshevik Revolution socialists have seen America’s individual liberty and economic success as the greatest threat to the myth of socialism, and therefore, the transfer of all wealth and power to a small group of elites. This is why socialists have focused on penetrating the American media and educational systems over the past 100 years, completely overtaking them in the past two decades. Now, our children are bombarded daily in classrooms with a steady diet of socialism, as are we with every news and entertainment program on television.

An entire political party has been overtaken by socialists, and they have become so embedded that they are now emboldened to the point of speaking openly about their socialist platform. They promise “equality” and “fairness,” asserting that someone else will pay for the benefits they are promising. Of course, even the mathematically-challenged Democrats know in their heart-of-hearts that nothing they promise is true. It is all smoke and mirrors. It is all a lie, as it has always been. There is no universal healthcare, and there is no guarantied salary or college education. Even if money grew on trees, there aren’t enough leaves on trees in America to pay for the promises being made by Democrats. They add up to hundreds of trillions of dollars. Plus, as they were imposed, our economy would crash and there would be no money for even the basics—and we would soon be just like every other people that ever embraced socialism: impoverished and enslaved.

The American Democrat Party has been taken over by far left socialists, who employ socialist propaganda techniques developed in previous national takeovers. Indeed, Democratic Party leaders like Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid have made tens of millions of dollars while in office, while their constituents fall deeper into poverty.

Socialism is a Ponzi Scheme

Socialism is a farce. It is a fraud. It is the political equivalent of Big Foot. Every policy of the left is packaged to appear to give something to someone to make his life more “fair,” but in reality, it is nothing more than a scheme to transfer more power or wealth from the citizens to the ruling class. Every issue in politics and society fits within this rubric. Gun control has nothing to do with saving lives. Indeed, the places where gun control is strongest, where Democrats reign, gun violence is exponentially worse. Welfare spending does not eliminate poverty. Abortion does not improve women’s health. Taxation and regulation do not enrich the poor. Government healthcare does not increase health levels. It is all a fraud. A hoax. It is directly out of the playbook of socialism—promise what the people like to hear, in exchange for their wealth and power. Once you have taken their wealth and power, rule over them with an iron fist. This is the sum total of socialism.

Americans enjoy the highest degree of individual liberty and wealth in human history. It can’t be taken from us by force. Only fraud and deceit can convince us to surrender our superior way of life in exchange for the enslavement and poverty of socialism. The siren’s song sounds sweet, and promises such lovely things—but it is a lie, and our very existence is in jeopardy because of the encroachment of socialism in our nation. We must reject it and root it out. It is cancer. It is deadly. We must attack it with the force it deserves.

By James Thompson. James is a political commentator and professional ghostwriter.

PlanetUS is conservative-friendly social media. Get set up on PlanetUS before Facebook deletes you.

Tired of Facebook stealing your information and selling it? Tired of the bias and propaganda? Set up your free account today at PlanetUS.com

Texas Finds 95,000 Non-citizens on Voter Rolls; 58,000 Have Voted

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced Friday that the state has discovered 95,000 non-citizens on the voter rolls going back to 1996, 58,000 of whom have voted in at least one Texas election  — an announcement likely to raise fresh concerns about the prospect of voter fraud.

Texas has some of the toughest voter ID laws in the nation and has been one of the main battlegrounds in the Republican-led fight against alleged voter fraud. The office, in a statement, said that 33 people were prosecuted for voter fraud last year, and 97 were prosecuted between 2005-17. There are 16 million people in Texas registered to vote.

“Every single instance of illegal voting threatens democracy in our state and deprives individual Texans of their voice,” Paxton said in a statement.

The New York Times reported that the findings were a result of of an 11-month investigation into records at the Texas Department of Public Safety. Gov. Greg Abbott praised the findings and hinted at future legislation to crack down on voter fraud.

“I support prosecution where appropriate. The State will work on legislation to safeguard against these illegal practices,” Abbott tweeted.

The revelation is likely to have national consequences and stir debate and the role of voter fraud. President Trump created a commission in 2017 to investigate allegations of voter fraud in the 2016 election. But it was eventually dismantled by Trump after the group faced lawsuits, opposition from states and in-fighting among its members.

Trump said at the time that Democrats refused to hand over data “because they know that many people are voting illegally.” Democrats have dismissed claims of voter fraud and accused Republicans of trying to disenfranchise minority voters with tight voter ID laws.

NC fraud probe could prompt new primary, general elections

Dallas state Rep. Rafael Anchia told The Associated Press that “because we have consistently seen Texas politicians conjure the specter of voter fraud as pretext to suppress legitimate votes, we are naturally skeptical.”

Paxton’s office noted that there have been a number of convictions of voter fraud in the state in recent years, including a charge against a non-citizen this month for illegal voting in Navarro County.

Fox News’ Kaitlyn Schallhorn and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

PlanetUS is conservative-friendly social media. Get set up on PlanetUS before Facebook deletes you.

Tired of Facebook stealing your information and selling it? Tired of the bias and propaganda? Set up your free account today at PlanetUS.com

Supreme Court Upholds Pentagon Limit On Transgender Military Service

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Pentagon to restrict military service for transgender individuals while the Trump administration’s policy is litigated in the lower courts.

The ruling reversed the orders implemented by lower courts, which had prevented the Pentagon from proceeding with the plan.

The decision came after the Justice Department requested that the Supreme Court bypass the lower courts and decide the issue—a request the high court rejected on Tuesday, instead directing the case to work its way through the appeals and lower courts.

The Department of Defense had barred military service by transgender people until former President Barack Obama’s administration began to allow transgender people already in the military to serve openly. The Obama administration also moved to set an official date for transgender people to be able to enlist in the U.S. Armed Forces.

But early in his presidency, President Trump sought to restrict service to those who do not seek to undergo gender transitions — after initially announcing a ban.

Earlier this month, a federal appeals court sided with the Trump administration, ruling that it was wrong to block the Pentagon from implementing plans to block the service of transgender individuals. The appeals court ruling said the military’s plan appears to rely on the “considered professional judgment” of “appropriate military officials.” It noted that the plan “appears to permit some transgender individuals to serve in the military.”

Brooke Singman

By Brooke Singman, Bill Mears | Fox News

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Conservative friendly social media. PlanetUS.com

Jayme Closs Found: Captivity Details Emerge After Wisconsin Teen Returns After 3 Months

Wisconsin teen Jayme Closs — found alive Thursday after a three-month disappearance — was targeted by a 21-year-old man authorities think she’d never met, who suddenly showed up at her home, killed her parents and held her captive for 88 excruciating days, officials revealed Friday.

The suspect in the teen’s disappearance was identified as 21-year-old Jake Thomas Patterson, of Gordon. A criminal complaint charging Patterson with two counts of homicide and one count of kidnapping is “expected to be filed next week,” the District Attorney’s Office said Friday, according to the Star Tribune. He was arrested Thursday on homicide and kidnapping charges.

Douglas County Sheriff Thomas Dalbec said Patterson surrendered peacefully and was arrested “just down the road from the residence.” His first court appearance has not been scheduled.

Jayme Closs was found alive on Thursday, Jan. 10, 2018, after she went missing nearly three months ago. 

Jayme Closs was found alive on Thursday, Jan. 10, 2018, after she went missing nearly three months ago.  (FBI)

Authorities said they believed Closs was Patterson’s “only target” and was taken against her will.

Barron County Sheriff Chris Fitzgerald said Patterson, who had no prior criminal record, “planned his actions and took many steps to hide his identity.” He said Patterson killed Closs’s parents to kidnap her.

Closs vanished Oct. 15 after James Closs, 56, and Denise Closs, 46, were gunned down inside their home in Barron County, located about 80 miles northeast of Minneapolis. Officials determined Closs was inside the home when her parents were murdered, but then the trail went cold.

Jake Thomas Patterson, 21, was arrested on Thursday, Jan. 10, 2018.

Jake Thomas Patterson, 21, was arrested on Thursday, Jan. 10, 2018. (Barron County Jail)

Closs was eventually placed on the top of the FBI’s kidnapping and missing persons list and, while details were scarce, authorities continued to suggest the 13-year-old was alive.

Police on Friday praised Closs’s perseverance, which culminated in her flight to freedom.

The home where Jayme Closs lived with her parents is seen on Friday, Jan. 11, 2018.

The home where Jayme Closs lived with her parents is seen on Friday, Jan. 11, 2018. (AP)

“It’s amazing, the will of that 13-year-old girl to survive and escape,” Fitzgerald said.

FBI Milwaukee tweeted Friday to thank law enforcement, citizens and the media for their hard work.

“We thank all of our law enforcement partners, including the citizens of the community and the media for keeping the information of 13 year old Jayme Closs in the public which helped bring her safely home today,” the FBI said.

On Thursday, the 13-year-old Closs was able to escape from a cabin before flagging down a person walking a dog in Gordon and asking for help. Jeanne Nutter, the woman who first spotted Closs told the Associated Press she “was terrified” but wanted to “get her to a safe place.” She recalled the teen looked disheveled, dirty and thin. She also noted Closs was wearing shoes too big for her feet.

“She [Closs] just yelled, ‘Please help me, I don’t know where I am. I’m lost,'” Nutter recalled.

The town welcomed Jayme Closs back home after she went missing for nearly three months. 

The town welcomed Jayme Closs back home after she went missing for nearly three months.  (AP)

The two went to the home of Peter and Kristin Kasinskas who called 911.

Kristin Kasinskas told The Associated Press she did not know why the teen was targeted. She said Closs told her that the suspect “killed my parents and took me.” Kasinskas said she didn’t know Patterson, although he lived three doors down from her. She said she taught him science in middle school but remembered him as being quiet. She said she did not see him during the months Closs was missing.

Jayme Closs kidnapping suspect named as 21-year-old Jake Thomas Patterson

Video

“She [Closs] said that this person’s name was Jake Patterson, he killed my parents and took me,” Kasinskas said. “She did not talk about why or how. She said she did not know him.”

Neighbor Daphne Ronning told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that Patterson’s parents moved to Gordon about 15 years ago. She said his parents moved away but the suspect and his brothers continued to use the home. She said she did not know Patterson was living at the house and had not seen Closs. Fitzgerald said Gordon was not on authorities’ radar.

Closs was taken to a hospital and held overnight for observation. She has since been medically cleared and released.

A photo of Jake Thomas Patterson, 21.

A photo of Jake Thomas Patterson, 21.

Investigators do not believe Patterson had any contact with Closs’s family prior to the night he opened fire on them, Fitzgerald said. It was not immediately clear if Closs and Patterson knew one another or had contact before she was kidnapped.

“We want to thank Jayme for being so courageous and for achieving an opportunity to find a way back to us,” Diane Tremblay, the administrator for the Barron Area School District, said. “What an extraordinary young lady.”

Trembley said there will be a celebration for Closs in the community. Closs is a student at Riverview Middle School in Barron.

Fox News’ Edmund DeMarche and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Ginsburg’s Imminent Departure from Supreme Court

This week marked the first time Ruth Bader Ginsburg has missed oral arguments since the associate justice joined the Supreme Court in 1993.

The 85-year-old, who is recovering from recent cancer surgery, has repeatedly said in the past that she would retire from the nation’s highest court only when she can no longer “do the job full steam.”

The court’s public sessions are set to resume Monday. No date has been set yet for when Ginsburg will return to the bench, a court spokesperson said.

Ginsburg underwent lung surgery last month to remove cancerous growths, and is continuing to recover. After weeks out of public view, she was spotted Wednesday morning leaving her Washington, D.C., apartment, TMZ reported.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has cancerous growths removed from lung

But Ginsburg’s recent absence has stirred speculation on whether she was considering retiring, given her previous comments on the topic.

The justice, dubbed “the Notorious RBG” by supporters, has said at least since 2013 that she would continue to serve on the court as long as she can, as pointed out by the Washington Examiner. Supreme Court appointments are for life, though many justices over the years have chosen to retire at some point.

“As long as I can do the job full steam, and that, at my age, is not predictable,” Ginsburg told the New York Times in 2013.

Three years later she told NPR that she would “retire when it’s time. And when is it time? When I can’t do the job full steam.”

“I will retire when it’s time. And when is it time? When I can’t do the job full steam.”— Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

As recently as last year she repeated that she would remain on the court as long as she can be fully engaged.

“As long as I can do the job full steam, I will be here,” she said during an event at the Adas Israel Congregation in Washington.

“I said I will do this job as long as I can do it full steam,” she said last month at the premiere of a movie about her early career.

But Ginsburg’s absence from the court and participation from home is also not unprecedented. The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist also worked from home and even authored several opinions while undergoing cancer treatment from 2004-05.

Ginsburg also has already hired clerks for the term that extends into 2020, suggesting possible retirement isn’t being planned.

By Lukas Mikelionis |The Associated Press contributed to this report.


Conservative-friendly social media. Because Facebook will delete you one day soon. Get you FREE account at PlanetUS.com

Facebook’s Zuckerberg Blasted for ‘Out of Touch’ Year-end Post after Scandal-plagued 2018

After a year plagued by privacy scandals, hate speech controversies, the viral spread of disinformation and the public airing of his company’s internal communication, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg used his year-end note to focus on the positive ー drawing the scorn of critics who blasted the billionaire as “tone deaf” and “out of touch.”

As he looked back on a year that saw his company’s stock price drop and scores of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle calling for new, strict privacy regulations in the wake of Cambridge Analytica, Zuckerberg spent a chunk of his note boasting that 2 billion people now use one of Facebook’s services and the tech giant has empowered countless small businesses.

“I’m proud of the progress we’ve made,” he wrote in the letter, which notes that Facebook now employs 30,000 people who focus on safety, but does not dwell on the specifics of any particular challenge or scandal.

Zuckerberg wrote that Facebook is a “very different company” than it was two years ago and has “fundamentally altered [its] DNA” to prioritize the prevention of harm. He also wrote that he learned a lot in the last year, but a range of critics took issue with the tone of his note.

“When read as a whole, the post simply confirms one thing about Facebook. No change has affected (or is designed to affect) the leading cause of Facebook’s problems ー the business model,” wrote Paul Armstrong, a tech adviser, in Forbes. “Without this, Facebook is doomed to become irrelevant to other platforms or become extremely dangerous and be broken up.”

Armstrong’s advice to Facebook for 2019 includes banning all political advertising, “atomic bombing” Facebook’s algorithm-driven Newsfeed and verifying all “news sources” on the network.

Mark Zuckerberg “is a bit out of touch with people’s perception,” Mark Douglas, CEO of digital advertising platform SteelHouse, told Cheddar. “It’s going to be a rocky year, that’s clear.”

Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive officer and founder of Facebook Inc. attends the Viva Tech start-up and technology gathering at Parc des Expositions Porte de Versailles on May 24, 2018 in Paris.

Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive officer and founder of Facebook Inc. attends the Viva Tech start-up and technology gathering at Parc des Expositions Porte de Versailles on May 24, 2018 in Paris. (Getty Images)

“They are the least trusted company in tech. They are going to have to rebuild the trust with the users or they are going to lose those users,” Douglas explained.

Although Facebook has continued to see its monthly active users increase globally, the company is confronting flat growth in parts of North America and decreased growth in Europe. Besides that fact that it was harnessed by Russia to meddle in the 2016 presidential election, Facebook confronted a series of false rumors on WhatsApp, which it also owns, that led to more than 20 people being lynched in India.

Cesar Sayoc, who stands accused of sending 13 pipe bombs through the mail to a range of prominent Democrats and critics of President Trump, trafficked in conspiracy theories, white supremacy and anti-Semitism on his Facebook profile. And the Menlo Park, Calif. company stands accused of furthering “ethnic cleansing” in Myanmar, where the military has targeted the country’s mostly Muslim Rohingya minority group with severe violence.

A number of critics called on Zuckerberg to step down or take a break from leading the company.

Leslie Miley, former CTO of the Obama Foundation, said the 34-year-old Silicon Valley executive should “resign and find a pursuit that will teach him humility and help him find his moral compass.”

The executive director of Color of Change, a racial advocacy group that has tangled with Facebook over its treatment of minorities, told the Guardian that Zuckerberg “desperately needs to begin implementing systemic solutions, in a way that is transparent, rebuilds the public trust and provides a safer platform for all people.”

The head of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit digital rights organization, told the Guardian that Zuckerberg should find a new job in 2019, while TechCrunch called the CEO’s letter “tone deaf.”

Some other critics were not as harsh.

“It means personally committing to a Facebook that doesn’t accidentally make decisions that aid violent regimes, white supremacists and other bad actors,” Dia Kayyali, program manager at Witness, told the Guardian. “Above all, it means simply being honest about Facebook’s largely detrimental role in global society. That would be the biggest challenge of all”

Facebook has managed to make enemies on both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill, with Democrats calling for more regulation and some Republicans claiming the network is biased against them, and it faces FTC and FBI probes.

“2019 is not starting out better, that’s for sure,” Douglas said.

Christopher Carbone covers technology and science for Fox News Digital. Tips or story leads: christopher.carbone@foxnews.com. Follow @christocarbone.

Tired of Facebook stealing your information and selling it? Tired of the bias and propaganda? Set up your free account today at PlanetUS.com

Why Dems Fight Against a Border WALL

A nation without borders is not a country—it is an open territory. If a nation fails to delineate its sovereign boundaries, and enforce its borders, it becomes impossible for that nation to care for its citizens or defend them from outside aggression.

So why are democrats dead set against establishing a solid border in the form of an impenetrable WALL?

First and foremost, most democrats benefit from an influx of illegal migrants who are uneducated and unskilled. These people are dependent on the welfare state—the power base of the Democratic Party. Democrats thrive on the existence of a permanent underclass, and count on the votes of all those who depend on government handouts. Indeed, those who receive government benefits in one form or another vote almost exclusively democrat.

But don’t democrats say they support border security? No. They say they prefer secondary support systems—electronic surveillance, drones, monitors, etc.

Aren’t these forms of border monitoring just as effective as a WALL? No!

Here’s why. Think about our current immigration system. It is a mess, and as soon as an illegal crosses the border, he or she is taken into custody, and in many cases is eventually released into the country after promising to show up in court to determine the proper immigration status. Almost no one shows up to the hearing. They are lost into the crowd of millions of illegal aliens living in our country.

A WALL stops that process. With a WALL at the border, no one and nothing gets through. Illegals don’t get through. Victims of human trafficking don’t get through. Drugs don’t get through. Terrorists don’t get through.

That is exactly why democrats are fighting the WALL so vehemently. They know that only a WALL will stop those foreign invaders who weaken America and render it easy for political takeover. That is their endgame—so it benefits them. If democrats were truly representing the American people, as is the president, there would be no question—the border WALL would be built and illegal crossings would end.

By James Thompson. James is a political commentator and professional ghostwriter.

Next Step for Gov’t Shutdown – Permanent Pink Slips

Temporary government “shutdown” amounts to a slowdown for a few days.

Most educated people understand that a government “shutdown” amounts to nothing more than a paid vacation for a small percentage of ‘nonessential’ federal employees. After the dust has settled – usually within mere days of the fracas – everyone goes back into the office, and the only ones who suffer any inconvenience at all are a few tourists attempting to get into federal parks. Of course, like most pointless government activities, these partial, temporary shutdowns are expensive.

Here’s a question: If no one really notices the problem of a government shutdown, why is everyone so excited to get the government up and running again?

Followup question: Why does our government employ nonessential people?

At a time when the president, duly elected by the people, would like to weed out Obama-era holdovers who covertly undermine the people’s will by secretly sabotaging the president’s policies, it seems like the perfect opportunity to start handing out pink slips.

Under normal circumstances, it’s really difficult to fire a bad apple federal employee, thanks to sweetheart union contracts authored by democrats. At a time when the government is shut down, and theoretically never needs to start up again, it seems like a perfect time to start saying goodbye to bureaucratic dead wood.

Start the government printing presses, and unpack the pink paper. It’s time to do something that will benefit the people. Fire the deep-state holdovers.

By James Thompson. James is a political commentator and professional ghostwriter.

‘Pay to Play’ at Clinton Foundation Under Investigation

Republicans on the House Oversight Committee on Thursday examined accusations of “pay to play” at the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, as Democrats dismissed the Capitol Hill hearing as a partisan exercise.

North Carolina GOP Rep. Mark Meadows, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Operations, opened Thursday’s hearing by expressing concern over recently reported tax documents showing donations to the Clinton Foundation plunged in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election.

The filings showed that the foundation took in $26.6 million in 2017, a 58 percent drop from the $62.9 million it received the previous year.

“Now several reports suggest that the decrease in donations could reflect a ‘pay to play’ activity in the years prior to the decline in donations,” Meadows said.

The Clinton Foundation has repeatedly denied all allegations of “pay to play.”

Meadows added that the committee sought to have U.S. Attorney John Huber, the prosecutor appointed to investigate the foundation, testify at Thursday’s hearing. But Meadows said the Justice Department did not accept the invitation.

“Mr. Huber was asked to join us this afternoon and update the committee on the operations and progress of his investigation, and unfortunately, DOJ has been unwilling to make him available,” Meadows said. “I find this not only frustrating for me, but frustrating for the American people.”

Meadows told Fox News last week three people have come forward with hundreds of pages of evidence of potential wrongdoing by the Clinton Foundation, including misappropriation of funds and allegations of quid-pro-quo promises made to donors during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

Clinton Foundation whistleblowers come forward, Rep. Meadows says

Video

Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed Huber to lead the evaluation into issues involving the FBI, the Clinton Foundation and the sale of Uranium One, amid calls from some conservatives to appoint a special counsel.

The top Democrat on the subcommittee, Virginia Rep. Gerry Connolly, ripped into Republicans at the beginning of the hearing, accusing them of recycling attacks on the Clintons. He asked why the committee wasn’t investigating conflicts in the Trump administration, and referenced other scandals, like former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen being sentenced to prison for a variety of crimes.

CLINTON FOUNDATION WHISTLEBLOWERS HAVE COME FORWARD WITH HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF EVIDENCE, MEADOWS SAYS

“Here we are, a few weeks before Christmas, and my Republican friends are re-gifting an old probe,” Connolly said, adding, “They’ve found nothing, but that doesn’t stop them from trying to do it again.”

Still, the committee had a slate of other witnesses — Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, Phillip Hackney, a law professor at the University of Pittsburg, Lawrence Doyle of DM Income Advisors and John Moynihan of JFM Associates – appear to discuss the Clinton Foundation and laws governing non-profits.

Fitton referenced reports of the Clinton Foundation receiving “staggering sums” of money from Saudi benefactors, estimated between $18 million and $50 million, he said. Fitton added: “While Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state, Bill Clinton gave two speeches in Saudi Arabia earning a total of $600,000.”

“There is enough evidence to warrant serious investigations of the Clinton Foundation,” Fitton said.

Fitton, a conservative whose group frequently sues for public records from government agencies, also dinged agencies inside the Trump administration for not doing more to turn over documents.

“It’s unfortunate that even the Trump administration doesn’t want to divulge the full truth about this,” he said.

According to a committee notice, the purpose of Thursday’s hearing was to discuss the management of 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations, using the Clinton Foundation as a case study.

The committee advisory said these organizations are “not permitted to be organized or operated for the benefit of any private individual and are only permitted to engage in minimal political activity” and added that when “a nonprofit organization violates these terms, defrauds contributors, or engages in impermissible political activity, the IRS may revoke its tax exempt status.”

Fox News’ Samuel Chamberlain and Adam Shaw contributed to this report.Alex Pappas is a politics reporter at FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter at @AlexPappas.

Facebook’s Fall: Enemy of Democracy

In 2010, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s story was the stuff of Hollywood movies. “The Social Network,” about the website and its founder’s meteoric rise, starred A-listers Jesse Eisenberg and Justin Timberlake, won an Oscar and made almost $250 million in the United States alone.

What a difference eight years makes.

Today, Zuckerberg is seen by many as a wincing megalomaniacal multibillionaire, and the personal data-mining company he created is viewed by some as an existential threat to democracy itself.

“It’s been a sudden thing. These people are not the darlings anymore and it’s been hard for them to adapt,” Lincoln Network President Aaron Ginn told Fox News. “So they’ve made a lot of unforced errors.”

Ginn, who co-founded the Lincoln Network five years ago to help technology and government work together to promote individual liberty and economic opportunity, added that “there are significant internal company responsibilities that, I think, [Facebook executives] have not lived up to.”

FACEBOOK COULD THREATEN DEMOCRACY, WARNS FORMER GCHQ CHIEF

Indeed, in less than a decade, Zuckerberg has managed to enrage leaders on both sides of the aisle in the U.S., and around the world, as his social media network has emerged as a polarizing tool that can be politically weaponized amid concerns about algorithms issues, privacy, misinformation and bias.

‘Zuckerberg got too big for his hoody, lost track of his responsibilities to Facebook users, advertisers and employees’— Porter Bibb

Facebook’s perceived threat has reached such a level that Damian Collins, chairman of the U.K. Parliament’s Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, recently took the extraordinary step of sending a sergeant-at-arms from the legislative body to use forceful tactics to seize secret documents that could contain data about Facebook’s privacy controls and potentially shady correspondence between Facebook’s top executives.

Other high-profile figures in the U.K. have also voiced their concerns about the social network. Asked in a BBC interview whether Facebook is a threat to democracy, Robert Hannigan – the former head of GCHQ, the British equivalent of the NSA replied: “Potentially yes. I think it is if it isn’t controlled and regulated.”

The documents, which are under seal in the U.S., are part of an ongoing lawsuit in California between Facebook and app developer Six4Three. Brits clearly think they’re damaging, as the BBC described a sergeant-at-arms being sent to nab the documents as a “highly unusual” tactic that hasn’t been employed “in living memory.”

The once-sterling company has been operating under a dark cloud of suspicion for most of 2018, with European regulators insisting to probe the tech giant’s internal communications and British regulators hitting Facebook with a fine of 500,000 U.K. pounds ($644,000) — the highest possible — for failing to protect the privacy of its users in the Cambridge Analytica data scandal.

But the drama with Facebook is hardly limited to incidents across the pond – and both British and American lawmakers have mocked Zuckerberg’s lack of cooperation with empty chairs to represent where he would have sat if he actually attended various hearings that he has blown off.

FACEBOOK’S AUDIT OF ALLEGED ANTI-CONSERVATIVE BIAS ONGOING, WON’T COMMIT TO RELEASING FINAL REPORT

“Facebook is the villain and finally people know it,” Washington University professor Liberty Vittert wrote in a Fox News Op-Ed pegged to both the British lawmaker and the infamous Cambridge Analytica scandal. “If the government doesn’t get its act together and start creating and enforcing laws to regulate these powerful companies, we are in real trouble.”

As Facebook’s issues tick off lawmakers in various countries, the tech monster has also caught the attention of both liberal and conservative groups on U.S. soil.

‘Facebook has now become part of the broader ‘establishment,’ which doesn’t necessarily look out for the regular people, and thus, is now treated with suspicion’— DePauw University professor Jeffrey McCall

Progressive advocacy groups, including MoveOn and Public Citizen, teamed up to create Freedom From Facebook – which calls on the FCC to break up Zuckerberg’s massive conglomerate. Freedom From Facebook has accused the social media network of curating the news that billions of people consume, bankrupting potential competitors, killing innovation, reducing choice, tracking users and “spending millions on corporate lobbyists.”

Liberal advocacy groups have also decried Facebook’s use of a GOP opposition firm to do some digging on billionaire George Soros.

Meanwhile, Facebook has long been accused of censoring conservative viewpoints and promoting news with a liberal bias.

Ginn said that the majority of employees who determine what is considered hate speech and oversee content have liberal political views. He feels that institutional bias, combined with data proving the majority of users lean left, has turned Facebook into “activist central,” despite the social network not being designed for political activism.

FACEBOOK’S MOUNTING WOES WEIGH ON SOCIAL NETWORK’S STOCK

“It doesn’t remove that they have a responsibility, when 50 percent of the nation believes something different, generally speaking, to accept them on their platform,” Ginn said.

Earlier this year the conservative Media Research Center launched TechWatch, a project dedicated to exposing those kinds of incidents as they plague the tech industry.

MRC Vice President Dan Gainor, who heads up the project, feels that the mainstream media “has been looking for someone or something to blame for Trump winning in 2016 and journalists are pointing the finger at social media.”

‘The top social media, search media companies reach billions of people and have the ability to silence the right more than even a major government’— Media Research Center VP Dan Gainor

“They are convinced that somehow the right used Facebook to win and they want it reined in or destroyed before a repeat performance in 2020,” Gainor told Fox News. “Facebook made its relationship with the media worse because it dared to work with a right-leaning group like Definers and used them to prepare ordinary research about billionaire liberal George Soros… the press has been on an anti-Facebook crusade ever since.”

Facebook Inc.’s board of directors defended the Soros controversy, saying that it was “entirely appropriate” to ask if the billionaire investor had shorted the company’s stock after he called the social-media giant a “menace.”

While the folks behind TechWatch and Freedom From Facebook don’t share ideologies, the two groups seem to agree that Zuckerberg’s company is causing people harm.

SECRET FACEBOOK DOCUMENTS SHOW COMPANY ALLEGEDLY GAVE ADVERTISERS SPECIAL ACCESS TO USER DATA

“Censorship got very bad — bad in ways that are tough to track, because all of our experiences online are personalized. People from ordinary citizens to major politicians have been censored and these firms use the vague term ‘hate speech’ to restrict any content they simply don’t like,” Gainor said. “The top social media, search media companies reach billions of people and have the ability to silence the right more than even a major government.”

DePauw University professor Jeffrey McCall told Fox News that Americans have “long suffered from the false notion that if something is technologically glitzy, it must necessarily be great,” and feels Facebook is the latest example.

 Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in September.

 Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in September. (AP)

“Facebook emerged as a craze that led people to believe the platform was a life enhancer in terms of social connections and flow of information, broadly considered.  While many people enjoy sharing photos and updates with friends, it turns out the platform gave false hope and expectations on many levels,” McCall said. “Hanging out on Facebook doesn’t really make us happier and what we learn there might or might not be reliable. Individual privacy has been lost in many regards.”

Ginn noted that Facebook has become sort of “the middle man between the media and the customer,” and hasn’t gained many corporate friends in the process.

Among the mainstream media organizations that have attacked Facebook are BuzzFeed and The New York Times. BuzzFeed News recently quoted a number of current and former employees as saying the atmosphere at the Menlo Park, Calif.-based company is one of feeling “under siege” with a growing sense of “paranoia.”

The New York Times recently published a bombshell report that detailed Facebook’s attempt to distance itself from various controversies, ranging from Russia-linked activity on the platform to attempting to discredit enemies. The report noted that Facebook has connected more than 2 billion people, essentially creating a “global nation unto itself” that has “reshaped political campaigns, the advertising business and daily life around the world.”

“Along the way, Facebook accumulated one of the largest-ever repositories of personal data, a treasure trove of photos, messages and likes that propelled the company into the Fortune 500,” the Times wrote. “As Facebook grew, so did the hate speech, bullying and other toxic content on the platform.”

The scathing Times report painted Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg as careless regarding their company’s ability to “disrupt elections, broadcast viral propaganda and inspire deadly campaigns of hate around the globe.”

‘Legitimate concerns about the machinations behind the scenes at Facebook have surfaced now, and it is clear that big tech is not promoting individual empowerment’— DePauw University professor Jeffrey McCall

Reporter-turned-investment banker Porter Bibb specializes in media, entertainment and technology ventures, with over 40 years of experience moving money in those fields. He told Fox News that it’s time to “bring in the grownups” because Zuckerberg is “blind to the fact that he is driving his company off the cliff.”

“Zuckerberg got too big for his hoody, lost track of his responsibilities to Facebook users, advertisers, and employees and failed to accept the fact that his inexperience does not qualify him to run the world’s largest social media enterprise,” Bibb said. “Sandberg and Facebook’s feckless board only intensified the likelihood that the roof will fall in on Facebook.”

Facebook algorithm issues are yet another concern for users on both sides of the political spectrum. The social network, for example, accidentaly tagged an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence as hate speech, and briefly censored a photo of Santa Claus.

TechWatch has only been around for three months but has faced no shortage of Facebook-related content, posting stories about the company failing to protect users from foreign scam artists, shadowbanning pro-life contentupsetting a journalists’ union, raising the eyebrows of various lawmakers and examined a potential conflict of interest over Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., — who warned a colleague to back off Facebook — because his daughter is employed at the company.

Ginn said that a lot of steps Facebook has taken to rectify the issues actually made the problems worse, pointing to Zuckerberg declaring he wanted the social media service to make people better as an example.

“Most people on the right would say, ‘That’s not your role,’ and they receive pressure from internal employees and users who say, ‘That is your role,’” Ginn said, before adding that the exit strategy for Facebook should simply be to act more “laissez-faire and Libertarian.”

In addition to displeasing users, staffers, voters, lawmakers, reporters, activists and tech rivals, Facebook could suddenly agitate investors, too.

The company’s mounting problems and newly-disclosed internal documents prompted a research firm to downgrade its stock to hold from buy last Thursday.

“Facebook has now become part of the broader ‘establishment,’ which doesn’t necessarily look out for the regular people, and thus, is now treated with suspicion. Legitimate concerns about the machinations behind the scenes at Facebook have surfaced now, and it is clear that big tech is not promoting individual empowerment, but instead exploiting the masses for profit, power and pushing of ideology,” McCall said.

Brian Flood
 

By Brian Flood | Fox News

Brian Flood covers the media for Fox News. Follow him on Twitter at @briansflood.

Fox News’ James Rogers contributed to this article.

Conservative-friendly social media site: PlanetUS.com

of US . . . by US . . . for US