Tuesday, September 24, 2019

Trump: 'If You Impeach Me Now, I Shall Become More Powerful Than You Can Possibly Imagine'

Babylon Bee 🐝 


WASHINGTON, D.C.—Nancy Pelosi is reportedly starting impeachment proceedings against President Trump. It's not clear why but at least it will be fun for all involved, which is good because the news cycle has been a little slow over the summer. We all need a good public spectacle once in a while.

But Trump is a good sport and wanted to warn the Democrats about what they're going to do: "If you impeach me now, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine," he said in an open address to his political foes. "Seriously, I will have huge power, believe me. Maybe the most power of anyone ever."

When pressed for what would happen, Trump admitted that he would probably be impeached and die but they wouldn't find a body: only a folded-up suit and his orange toupee. Then, he would appear to his replacement, Mike Pence, in visions and whisper advice. "For instance, if he were at a state dinner with a foreign diplomat and the salads come out, I'd tell him to use the fork." 

Hmmmm.......

One has to wonder;

Might it not be a good time to give the Democrats what they want.

Let's see:

Free Healthcare
Free Housing
Free College
Universal Basic Income
Open Borders
Gun Confiscation
All Oil and Gas Production shutdown.
Solar and Wind for Everyone
No  Meat
No fossil fueled vehicles
Everyone gets an EV

Now folks as our economy begins to shut down and mass layoffs begin, what might happen?

Me, I am 65 years old, I own a 1,000 acre farm free and clear, it is an enterprise that generates a pretty good income.

I sold my business I built for eight figures, I managed to put 20% of that into investments which are  diversified well enough to weather the looming failure of America's economy.

My wife has passed so I am essentially alone, save my children and grand children who could all easily move to the farm and be cared for.

So what if we all stayed home Nov 2020 and let the crazies seize power?

I am sure I am not the only one who have caches of guns and ammo ready to use in the event of armed conflict.

 (Edited for TOS)

What say you?

To those who ruined Greta Thunberg: How dare you


This child’s life has been destroyed.  And rather than show even a modicum of concern over how terrorized she is, the Left keeps pushing her and pushing her.



Hollywood, politicians, and the news media are all celebrating the psychological abuse heaped onto a Swedish autistic kid named Greta Thunberg.

In their desire to amass power by controlling every aspect of our lives, these heartless assholes have taken a thoroughly terrorized child and paraded her before us – daring us to disagree.

And in the process, they have completely ruined Greta Thunberg.

This child’s life has been destroyed.  And rather than show even a modicum of concern over how terrorized she is, the Left keeps pushing her and pushing her.

I’m sure Greta really does believe that in ten years we will experience mass extinction of the human race because there are countries in the world that are not socialist.

Greta Thunberg is so thoroughly programmed into the Climate Cult, the terror, anger and hopelessness she feels are very real to her.

This is child abuse.

And it certainly proves that the Left’s claim that they care about the children is a lie.

If they really cared about Greta Thunberg they would stop terrorizing her and using her as a human shield.

As I said the other day, the Institutional Left wants to ruin your children just as thoroughly as they’ve ruined Greta Thunberg.

They want your children just as terrified as she is.

They want your children to believe we are just years away from mass extinction. 

Do they truly care about the climate?

No.

They want to destroy free markets, individual liberty and economic prosperity.

Because the freer you are, the less power they have.

In her “speech” at the UN, Greta Thunberg said, “We are at the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth.

How dare you!”

See what I mean?

How dare you care about economic growth and making money!

Greta has been so brainwashed, she really thinks economic growth is the fairy tale whereas the mass extinction of the human race in ten years is not.

The Climate Change con is all about stripping you of economic freedom and prosperity.

It’s a means to an end.

Why do you think they’re linking “Climate Change” to “Capitalism.”

Why do you think the preposterous “Green New Deal” is all about dismantling our free market economy in favor of collectivism?

And why do you think Greta’s handlers have her attacking free countries while completely ignoring China — the biggest polluter in the world?

Their objective has nothing to do with “saving” the Climate or “stopping” Climate Change.

Only Greta Thunberg doesn’t know that.

Thanks to the psychological abuse she’s endured, Greta truly does believe that her life is in imminent peril.

Who the hell does that to a child?!

Greta stands before the UN and reads a speech prepared for her by the bastards who are exploiting her, and the news media and politicians – not to mention the far-Left dummies  on social media – cheer and celebrate this child’s exploitation.

They think it’s great that this 16-year-old autistic kid is in blind terror for her life and the life of the planet. 



And they never once give a thought to what this kind of fearmongering is doing to her emotional and psychological well-being.

There is a silver lining, however.  And that’s what I call Operation Backfire.

The Greta Thunberg exploitation has gone too far.

Thanks to the media promoting the heck out of her unhinged, unrealistic diatribe before the UN, Americans can see for themselves that this is not a well child.

Greta is right about one thing; her life has been ruined.  But it’s been ruined by the people who have psychologically abused her in order to advance socialism.

Normal people are going to see those clips of her speech and the only thing they’ll feel is pity and disgust.

Pity that this young girl has been brainwashed, terrorized and exploited by adults who clearly don’t give a crap about her.

Parents who genuinely love their children will see what is happening to this child and they’ll be disgusted.





Greta’s handlers have crossed the Rubicon.  They’ve pushed this child too hard and too far.  And it is going to backfire on them.





It’s one thing to spoil a child into believing that her every demand must be met or else she’ll throw a tantrum and behave like a little Veruca Salt-like monster.

It’s another thing entirely to terrorize a child into believing her life depends on getting what she demands.

Normal, caring parents will reject that kind of psychological abuse.

And what becomes of Greta Thunberg when this exploitation backfires?  Do those promoting her even care?

No. They really don’t.

Greta is only a means to an end.  And that makes her expendable.

UPDATE:

I saw that MJA from iotwreport.com shared this post. And reading through the comments, I saw Chalupa had written, “I call her Pimpi Long Squawking.” Naturally, I decided to add an image.



South China Sea: Beijing warns of ’hostile action’ as Europe sends warships to the region

 Article by Brian McGleenon in "The Daily Express":

South China Sea: Beijing warns of ’hostile action’ as Europe sends warships to the region

 China hit back at the news of the European nations ordering key ships in their fleets to sail to the disputed sea area. Major General Su Guanghui, China’s defence attaché to Britain last week said: “If the US and UK join hands in a challenge or violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of China, that would be hostile action.” The Nine Dash Line encompasses most of the oil rich South China Sea, which China has belligerently claimed for itself

This claim has infuriated neighbouring countries like The Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam and Brunei.

Frans-Paul van der Putten, a senior research fellow at the Clingendael Institute, an independent think tank in the Netherlands said: “Until a few years ago, European countries preferred to keep a low profile on regional security issues in East Asia, but under the present circumstances there is a new urgency to be involved.

“Sending warships to the South China Sea can provide European governments with more leverage when it comes to dealing with the US and China on geopolitical matters closer to home.

Paul van der Putten’s assessment comes after Britain, France and Germany said in a joint statement late last month that they were “concerned about the situation in the South China Sea, which could lead to insecurity and tension in the region”.

They also appealed to all parties involved in territorial disputes in the waters to “take steps and measures that reduce tensions, and contribute to maintaining and promoting peace, security, stability and safety in the region”.

China, which claims most of the South China Sea as its sovereign territory, is engaged in multiple disputes with its neighbours, including Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines and Brunei.

While the United States is not a claimant, it regards the area as part of its Indo-Pacific strategy to contain China’s military expansion in the Pacific and Indian oceans.

In an apparent show of strength and unity, the US and Britain conducted a joint naval drill in the South China Sea in February, while France sailed its naval assault ship Dixmude and a frigate close to the disputed Spratly Islands last year

China, Malaysia seek to resolve disputes with new dialogue mechanism

Britain is keen to assert freedom of navigation through international waters and alongside its US and Australian allies has been forthright in defending such actions against an increasingly belligerent China.

The Nine Dash Line is at the heart of the South China Sea dispute, Beijing’s claim that encircles as much as 90 per cent of the ­contested waters.

The line runs thousands of miles south from the Chinese mainland to within a few hundred miles of the Philippines, Malaysia and Vietnam.

 Beijing maintains it owns any land or features contained within the line, which confers vaguely defined “historical maritime rights”.

The South China Sea Arbitration, was an arbitration case brought by the Republic of the Philippines against the People's Republic of China to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea at The Hague.

On 12 July 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled in favour of the Philippines.

The tribunal also ruled that China has "no historical rights" based on the "nine-dash line" map

The Nine Dash Line first appeared on a Chinese map as an 11-dash line in 1947 as the then Republic of China’s navy took control of some islands in the South China Sea that had been ­occupied by Japan during the second world war.

After the People’s Republic of China was founded in 1949 and Kuomintang forces fled to Taiwan, the communist government declared itself the sole ­legitimate representative of China and inherited all the nation’s maritime claims in the region.

 https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1181837/south-china-sea-european-nations-britain-france-warships-beijing-fury-leverage-US-strategy


militarised islands in the South China Sea
militarised islands in the South China Sea (Image: GETTY)

Were Warrenistas born without the embarrassment gene?


So last night, I was tootling around Twitter when I stumbled across a picture of Liz Warren posing with one of her Warrenistas and I cringed so hard I got a cramp in my leg.


Were Warrenistas born without the embarrassment gene?
No.  Honey.  No. A thousand gallons of no.

I covered his face to spare him embarrassment.  Though in retrospect, I probably could’ve left it alone.

If you go out in public in that get-up, I’m guessing you were born without the embarrassment gene.

But I don’t want to add insult to injury.

Hey, I know, instead of an emoji, I’ll cover his face with a public figure who, like him, is one of the Warrenistas.



Warrenistas - Stelter
That’s better.  After all, Brian Stelter can take the mockery. He’s used to public embarrassment.

I’m beginning to think there is overlap between the Warrenistas and the former Clintonistas.

Remember this guy?


Chastity Suit 1
Yeah.

He turned up to see Hillary in a friggin’ Clinton onesie.  I coined that look the “Chastity Suit.”  Because grown men who dress like that might as well wear a sign that reads, “I have never ever had even a little sex.”

How long before the Warrenistas start wearing Liz-covered onsies?

Maybe I shouldn’t even jokingly suggest it.

But what do you expect?

When Liz Warren proudly disses men during her campaign speeches, what real men would willingly flock to her?

All she’s left with are the males of the species who lack the necessary testosterone to say, “Are you freaking kidding me?! I’m not wearing a full-body Liz Warren outfit!”
I’ll never forget the time my family went to see William Shatner perform at the Onondaga County Civic Center back in 1970s.

Shatner did a Q & A with the audience and one woman got up and actually walked up onto the stage to show him the outfit she made for the occasion.  She was dressed in a flannel jumpsuit — every square inch of which was covered with images of the Starship Enterprise.  I’m sure JoAnn Fabrics or whatever store she bought it from assumed that flannel would be purchased to make bedsheets for a child, not a jumpsuit for a grown Trekkie.

At least she was a woman.  If a man had walked up on that stage in an Enterprise-covered flannel jumpsuit, I’d still be cringing over it.

Something tells me Liz Warren, cold, impersonal elitist that she is, was probably cringing on the inside while taking that picture.  Sure, she might have feigned delight over a grown man in super-fan T-shirt.  But behind the fake smile she was all kinds of embarrassed for him.

Well, at least one of them was embarrassed.

I can’t imagine leaving the house looking like that.  I really can’t.

But then again, I’m not one of the Warrenistas.

Nor am I a virgin.



Treasury Secretary Mnuchin Discusses The Status of U.S-China Trade Negotiations


U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin talks to FOX Business’ Lou Dobbs about the current status of U.S-China trade negotiations.  Mnuchin and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer have been working together on the overall China issues.
Mnuchin delivers a deliberate explanation of the current status. 

NeverTrump Candidate Suggests Trump Should Be Executed Over Ukraine Call



Former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld, who is challenging President Donald Trump for the 2020 Republican presidential nomination, doubled down on comments Monday that the president could face execution over asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to root out corruption.

“Governor Weld, you went a little bit further than just impeachment in your prior comments,” MSNBC political analyst Elise Jordan pressed Weld. “You’ve said that Donald Trump has committed treason, and the penalty for treason under American law is death… What’s the legal framework here? Have you looked into this? How do you see this proceeding?”

Weld affirmed his stance and falsely said again that “the only penalty for treason is death,” adding that he believes Trump needs to be “carted off to save us all.”

“He’s daring us all to let him be totally lawless,” Weld said. “He has no respect for the law, he doesn’t understand the law. He has no knowledge base under any issues. Why do we want this man as president of the United States? I don’t get it, and now the path is clear.”

Weld’s claim that treason is only punishable by death is untrue. According to 18 U.S. Code § 2381, treason is punishable by either death or imprisonment of at least five years.

The president has been under heightened scrutiny for a phone call with the Ukrainian president where Trump reportedly asked the foreign leader to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter over business dealings with a Ukrainian gas company, according to an uncorroborated claim based on hearsay.

Weld is one of three candidates challenging Trump in the 2020 Republican primary.

Former South Carolina governor Mark Sanford and former one-term Illinois congressman Joe Walsh have both also launched campaigns seeking the GOP nomination next fall. 

Weld affirmed his stance and falsely said again that “the only penalty for treason is death,” adding that he believes Trump needs to be “carted off to save us all.”

Thousands of people exposed to 9/11 attacks eligible for free health care.

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 8:00 AM PT — Tuesday, September 24, 2019
Thousands of former students, staff, and teachers who were exposed to the 9/11 terrorist attacks may be eligible for free health care under the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund. Education officials in the city are reportedly trying to contact thousands of former students who attended public school near ground Zero to tell them they are eligible for the program.
Victims would qualify if they have suffered from any of the 68 cancers or lung illnesses formally associated to the attacks by the World Trade Center Health Program. The Department of Education plans on launching a social media campaign and sending letters out to all 19,000 eligible people to ensure the message gets out to everyone.
This comes after the Trump administration proudly signed a bill in July, which permanently extends the fund for people exposed to toxins related to the terrorist attacks.
“For your entire lives you have gone far beyond your duty to us and today we strive to fulfill our sacred duty to you. We love you. We honor you and we thank you. God bless you all.”

— President Trump

The 9/11 Victims Fund came into the international spotlight in June when comedian Jon Stewart made an emotional testimony on Capitol Hill for lawmakers to extend the program indefinitely. However, the majority of the focus was on compensation for first responders — not students and teachers.
Former students who were there on that fateful day are now saying they are glad something is being done to let victims know they are able to receive help. Everybody who was exposed to the toxins released by 9/11 and has developed a related disease is reportedly eligible to receive treatment through the fund.
https://www.oann.com/thousands-of-people-exposed-to-9-11-attacks-eligible-for-free-health-care/

Comey Engineered the Ambush of Michael Flynn



The evidence is compelling that both Comey and McCabe ambushed Flynn… attempting to trap him into saying something incriminating.  The new book by Comey’s lackey, Josh Campbell, simply confirms the very scheme that Comey bragged about in a public forum.  

Comey and McCabe plotted to take undue advantage of the first few days of “chaos” the Trump White House to bamboozle Flynn into an ambush interview.  They did it under the guise of the Logan Act… which had no legal application.  It was a clever pretense.  

There was nothing improper about Flynn talking to the Russian Ambassador during the transition.  It is a normal practice for all incoming administrations.  Moreover, Flynn was not acting as a private citizen, as the Act requires.

The book admits Comey broke protocols and FBI guidelines.  He did not seek approval from the White House Counsel.  It’s the kind of tactic that only the unprincipled Comey would employ.  “We just decided, you know, screw it,” said Comey.  Yet, Campbell tries to justify such egregious abuse of power.

What’s remarkable is that the Comey-McCabe scheme failed.  The two FBI agents sent to trap Flynn concluded he was not being deceptive but was telling the truth.  At that point, the FBI dropped the case.  It was resurrected later by Mueller’s team of unscrupulous partisans in order to pressure Flynn into saying something incriminating about Trump and the Russians.  He never did, but Flynn plead guilty because he was broke and Mueller was threatening Flynn’s son.

If nothing else, Campbell’s new book makes it abundantly clear that Flynn was unfairly prosecuted.  And his new lawyer, Sidney Powell, is arguing that Mueller’s prosecutors broke the law by withholding exculpatory evidence from Flynn.

Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Just Put Another Bullet Into The Latest Trump “Scandal”



Just how much can a story targeting Donald Trump implode? Apparently, this much.

If you are short on background, on Wednesday of last week, a story broke that a “whistle-blower” had filed a complaint against President Trump. The assertion was that Trump had threatened Ukraine’s newly elected president on a phone call over investigating Joe Biden.

The threat supposedly involved $250 million in military aid. After a day of full blown meltdowns on the left and in the media, the impeachment train was stopped in its tracks when it was revealed Trump had in fact not threatened Ukraine, nor offered any kind of quid pro quo.

In the end, we are left with Biden admitting to extorting Ukraine on tape and Trump simply asking if it could be looked into. Worst scandal ever.
Now, Ukraine’s foreign minister, who has read the read out of the call, just dumped even more cold water on this story.
“I know what the conversation was about and I think there was no pressure,” Prystaiko told Hromadske. “There was talk, conversations are different, leaders have the right to discuss any problems that exist. This conversation was long, friendly, and it touched on many questions, sometimes requiring serious answers.”
This is correct. Whether Democrats and the media want to admit it or not, presidents talk to foreign leaders. They inquire on many different things and it would certainly be in bounds to ask why a former VP is on tape admitting he extorted Ukraine’s former administration. There was no promise made or pressure applied here. How do I know? Because no investigation happened and the money ended up being released anyway. We are once again left arguing hypothetical nonsense, much like during the Mueller probe.

The real story here continues to be Biden bragging on camera that he extorted Ukraine’s former administration. There was no reason for Biden do what he did from a foreign policy standpoint and even if there were, the former VP knew about the grave conflicts of interests. We already know he lied about having discussed his son’s employment in Ukraine. We know the Obama administration warned him. Yet, he threatened Ukraine anyway until they fired a prosecutor who was targeting his son. That stinks to high heaven and deserves a real investigation.

We were told for years after Trump was elected that investigations are good. That the subjects of them should be thankful for their coming exoneration. Why is this any different? Why isn’t Mitt Romney demanding a probe into Biden’s actions? Why is it that investigations are only good and proper when they target Trump? Why is Biden allowed to obfuscate and dictate to the press on this matter?

None of this lost on Republican voters and they see the game is rigged. 


Media Corruption On Perfect Display In One Washington Post Paragraph



Every single assertion of this paragraph isn't just wrong, but the opposite of right. In each sentence, Trump is being blamed for things his political opponents have done.

ABC News’ White House correspondent Karen Travers approvingly tweeted out a paragraph of a front-page Washington Post rant written by Philip Rucker, Robert Costa, and Rachel Bade. The paragraph comes from their cri de coeur headlined “Trump’s Ukraine Call Reveals A President Convinced Of His Own Invincibility.”

While the article matches the headline in its extreme bias and shrill outpouring of opinion — seemingly written by the Democratic National Committee’s newest batch of enthusiastic interns — it is presented as if it’s news, a common problem with our current media culture. Here’s the paragraph:

Every single assertion of this paragraph isn’t just wrong, but the opposite of right. In each sentence, Trump is being blamed for things his political opponents have done. Let’s take a look at some examples.
Trump’s sense of himself as above the law has been reinforced throughout his time in office.
In fact, the main problem during the Trump administration has been the way the self-annointed “Resistance” in the media, unelected bureaucracy, and political institutions have treated Trump as if he were below the law. Traditionally, hard-fought losses are usually followed by an acceptance of the reality of election results, even if grudgingly.

In the case of Donald Trump, his campaign was spied on prior to the election by the intelligence services and government apparatus controlled by the opposing party. They used wiretaps, national security letters, human informants, and other surveillance. His transition was undermined by leaks suggesting that the FBI took seriously an uncorroborated and ludicrous collection of tall tales, “research” later determined to have been secretly funded by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee.

President Trump has yet to be treated as the legitimate winner of the free and fair election he won in 2016. Some 70 Democrats refused to go to his inauguration in protest. The weaponized opposition material from Trump’s political enemies was used to get his national security advisor terminated, his attorney general sidelined from any oversight of his agency, to scare foreign leaders from effectively engaging in foreign policy discussions, to keep good people from serving in his administration, and to ruin the lives of anyone who worked with Trump to secure his victory.

Elites in the media, government, and political institutions have discussed ousting him through the 25th amendment, impeachment, manipulation of the economy, and other extreme measures. Fired FBI director James Comey was found to have violated Trump’s civil liberties when he violated FBI policies governing investigations. Rucker, Costa, and Bade, it might be noted, provide no evidence in support of their regurgitation of the Resistance talking point that Trump views himself as above the law.
As detailed in the Mueller report, he received help from a foreign adversary in 2016 without legal consequence.
What in the world? What are Philip Rucker, Bob Costa, and Rachel Bade smoking? This was not “detailed” in the Mueller report. This is not even a remotely accurate summation of that report, even while acknowledging how partisan of a report it was.

In fact, the report found that the entire basis for the investigation — supposed treasonous collusion with Russia to steal the 2016 election — had no evidence in support of it. Not only did Trump not conspire with Russia to steal the 2016 election, not a single American was found to have done so. Are they trying to elevate the significance of Russia’s 100-year-old practice of meddling in U.S. elections, and falsely characterize those efforts as unidirectional in favor of Trump?

There are countries such as China that desperately want to defeat Trump and had that interest in the 2018 midterm elections and in 2020 elections. We know that China is actively manipulating its actions to help achieve the goal of a Trump loss in 2020. Are Rucker, Costa and Bade suggesting that whichever Democrat Trump runs against should face “legal consequence” for whatever machinations they employ?

It is unclear what “legal consequence” Rucker, Costa, and Bade are fantasizing about, particularly considering it’s a fantasy that even Andrew Weissman’s politically motivated special counsel team couldn’t dream of suggesting.
He sought to thwart the Russia investigation and possibly obstruct justice without consequence.
Here, Rucker, Costa, and Bade blame Trump for not sitting silently while being falsely accused of being a traitor who had colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election. Treason is a crime punishable by death, but apparently President Trump complained too loudly about the false allegations made against him for Rucker, Costa, and Bade’s liking.
Through the government, he has earned profits for his businesses without consequence.
The Washington Post has been absolutely desperate to make some kind of financial impropriety case against Trump. The only problem is that they are more frequently writing about how the Resistance has effectively tarnished Trump’s brand globally. The Trump organization is a global business concern that did not disappear when Trump took office, even if he stepped away from running it.

Apparently Rucker, Costa, and Bade think that the company should not be permitted to operate while Trump is in office. It’s an interesting theory.

It’s a particularly interesting theory given that this entire story is being written relative to the tremendous financial gain the Biden family realized during the Obama presidency, when Joe Biden served as vice president. Hunter Biden, the vice president’s son, went from being released from the military for his cocaine use to receiving a large monthly stipend from an energy concern in the Ukraine, despite his complete lack of qualifications.

He also benefited mightily from Chinese interests.

Only the media could be upset that a global business concern continued to be a global business concern while expressing not a whiff of interest in the way that politicians with no business concerns profit during periods of power.
He has blocked Congress’s ability to conduct oversight without consequence.
The Constitution’s Article 1 branch should be deferred to as much as possible, even with extreme requests, and the executive branch never cooperates with oversight as much as it should. But the worst example of this failure during the Trump administration was the Department of Justice’s refusal to cooperate with the House’s probes of its surveillance of Trump.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein repeatedly slow-walked or refused to provide material as requested by various House committees, successfully keeping the agency’s bad behavior from concerned Republican investigators, all the way to the 2018 midterms. By contrast, Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross were held in contempt of Congress even as they protested that they were cooperating with probes.

Speaking of blocking Congress’s ability to conduct oversight without consequence, however, wait until Rucker, Costa, and Bade hear about former attorney general Eric Holder’s handling of inquiries into a gun-running scandal that led to deaths of Americans! It’s not quite the same as requests for personal or private material of the president that have nothing to do with congressionally authorized or funded government activities, but it’s pretty interesting.

In other words, every sentence in the Washington Post paragraph is well past the point of bias, or slant, or not being even-handed. These sentences are outright and blatant and unabashed falsehoods in the service of a particular political party and agenda.

The Washington Post is singularly and relentlessly devoted to taking down the Republican president. This paragraph shows what so many other paragraphs in so many other articles show, day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year: some reporters are willing to express false statements in service to one political party and in opposition to another.

This is not journalism, but propaganda.

Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. She is Senior Journalism Fellow 
at Hillsdale College and a Fox News contributor. 

Study: 14.3M Illegal Aliens Living in U.S., Costing Americans $132B a Year

Article by John Binder in "Breitbart":

An annually released report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimates that that illegal population living in the U.S. has risen nearly two million in two years, now standing at about 14.3 million illegal aliens.

FAIR analysts fault the increase in illegal aliens to an unsecured southern border, growing sanctuary city policies, widespread available U.S. jobs with no nationwide E-Verify mandate, an increase in social welfare programs, exploitable asylum laws, and the ongoing promise of amnesty by GOP and Democrat lawmakers.
The rise in the illegal population, FAIR analysts find, means illegal aliens are costing American taxpayers nearly $132 billion every year. That fiscal burden to Americans is set to grow even larger without major immigration-reducing reforms, according to the study.

(Federation for American Immigration Reform)
(Federation for American Immigration Reform)
“Unless the federal government takes meaningful action to eliminate the incentives that fuel illegal immigration, the total number of illegal aliens residing in the United States could surge to over 21 million by 2025, at a cost of nearly $200 million, annually,” FAIR analysts project.

The FAIR study is among many that have attempted to estimate the illegal population living in the U.S. Researchers from Yale University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have estimated an illegal population of 22 million, while Pew Research Center regularly cites an illegal population of 11 to 12 million.

As noted previously, the FAIR study confirms that the illegal population is largely concentrated in six states: California, Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois — four of which are sanctuary states where criminal illegal aliens are shielded from deportation.

California, for example, is home to more than three million illegal aliens with the broadest sanctuary state policy in the country. Texas has an illegal population of more than two million, and Florida is home to nearly 1.1 million illegal aliens despite both outlawing sanctuary city jurisdictions.

The sanctuary states of New York, New Jersey, and Illinois have a combined illegal population of about 2.22 million.
Illegal immigration is not only fiscally burdensome on American taxpayers to the sum of billions every year, but an increase of foreign workers in the U.S. labor market due to legal immigration levels — where about 1.2 million immigrants are admitted every year — reduces the wages of America’s working and middle class. Conversely, less immigration increases Americans’ wages.
Extensive research by economist George Borjas and analyst Steven Camarota reveals that the country’s current mass legal immigration system burdens working and middle class Americans while redistributing about $500 billion in wealth every year to major employers and newly arrived immigrants. Similarly, immigration keeps wages low for employers and stagnant for employees.

For every one-percent increase in the immigrant portion of American workers’ occupations, their weekly wages are cut by about 0.5 percent, Camarota finds. This means the average native-born American worker today has his weekly wages reduced by perhaps 8.75 percent.

Today, about 17.5 percent of the American workforce is made up of foreign-born workers. About 7.8 million of these foreign-born workers are illegal aliens living in the U.S., according to the latest analysis by Pew Research Center.

 https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/23/study-14-3m-illegal-aliens-living-in-u-s-costing-americans-132b-a-year/
 Sanctuary-Cities-Frederic-J.-BrownAFPGetty-Images-640x480-640x480-1-640x480

FOIA Release of McCabe Memo Highlights Much More Than Rosenstein’s “Wear a Wire” Controversy


A Judicial Watch FOIA Lawsuit has resulted in the release of a May 16, 2017, memo written by then Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe.  [Link Here]  The media is currently focusing on the aspect where Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein is outlined as willing to wear a wire into the Oval Office to record the President; however, the memo content actually reveals much more.
There are three aspects to this McCabe memo that warrant attention: (1) Rosenstein’s willingness to wear a wire. (2) Evidence that Rosenstein took Mueller into the White House on May 16, 2017, as a set-up to interview Mueller’s pending target; and (3) the CURRENT redactions to the memo indicate CURRENT efforts by the CURRENT AG Bill Barr to protect a corrupt endeavor that encompasses Rod Rosenstein.  While all three aspects are alarming; the last aspect is concerning in the extreme.
In order to understand the significance of this FOIA release CTH is going to present the McCabe memo in two different ways.  First, by highlighting the raw memo release; and then secondly, to highlight the important context by inserting the memo into the timeline.
First, here’s the McCabe memo:
Report this ad

There are two important background contexts that help to understand what is written in the McCabe memo when contrast with the background:
The first two substantive issues within the McCabe memo can only be accurately absorbed against the background of those two context links.
Now we can insert the new McCabe memo information into the timeline.  This will help better understand what was happening in/around the dates in question.
Start by noting the May 16, 2017, date of the meeting at 12:30pm is immediately before Rod Rosenstein took Robert Mueller for an interview with President Trump in the oval office.  This is the meeting where Mueller reportedly left his “cell phone” at the White House.
“Crossfire Hurricane” – During 2016, after the November election, and throughout the transition period into 2017, the FBI had a counterintelligence investigation ongoing against Donald Trump. FBI Director James Comey’s memos were part of this time-period as the FBI small group was gathering evidence.  Then Comey was fired….
♦Tuesday May 9th – James Comey was fired at approximately 5:00pm EST.  Later we discover Rod Rosenstein first contacted Robert Mueller about the special counsel appointment less than 15 hours after James Comey was fired.
♦Wednesday May 10th – From congressional testimony we know DAG Rod Rosenstein called Robert Mueller to discuss the special counsel appointment on Wednesday May 10th, 2017, at 7:45am. [See Biggs questions to Mueller at 2:26 of video]
According to his own admissions (NBC and CBS), Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe immediately began a criminal ‘obstruction’ investigation. Wednesday May 10th; and he immediately enlisted Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
A few hours after the Rosenstein-Mueller phone call James Comey’s office was being searched by the SSA Whistleblower per the IG report on Comey’s memos.
♦Thursday May 11th – Andrew McCabe testified to congress. With the Comey firing fresh in the headlines.  McCabe testified there had been no effort to impede the FBI investigation.
Also on Thursday May 11th, 2017, The New York Times printed an article, based on information seemingly leaked by James Comey, about a dinner conversation between the President and the FBI Director.   The “Loyalty” article [link].  The IG report shows: [Daniel] Richman confirmed to the OIG that he was one of the sources for the May 11 article, although he said he was not the source of the information in the article about the Trump Tower briefing“.
♦Friday May 12th –  Andrew McCabe met with DAG Rod Rosenstein to discuss the the ongoing issues with the investigation and firing.  Referencing the criminal ‘obstruction’ case McCabe had opened just two days before.  According to McCabe:
… “[Rosenstein] asked for my thoughts about whether we needed a special counsel to oversee the Russia case. I said I thought it would help the investigation’s credibility. Later that day, I went to see Rosenstein again. This is the gist of what I said: I feel strongly that the investigation would be best served by having a special counsel.” (link)
According to Andy Biggs questioning of Mueller, on this same day, May 12th, evidence shows Robert Mueller met “in person” with Rod Rosenstein.  This is the same day when SSA Whistleblower went to James Comey’s house to retrieve FBI material and both Rybicki and Comey never informed the agent about the memos:
May 12th, is the date noted by David Archey when FBI investigators had assembled all of the Comey memos as evidence.  However, no-one in the FBI outside the “small group” knows about them.
♦On Saturday May 13th, 2017, another meeting between Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller, this time with AG Jeff Sessions also involved. [Per Andy Biggs]
♦Sunday May 14th –  Comey transmitted copies of Memos 2, 4, and 6, and a partially redacted copy of Memo 7 to Patrick Fitzgerald, who was one of Comey’s personal attorneys.  Fitzgerald received the email and PDF attachment from Comey at 2:27 p.m. on May 14, 2017, per the IG report.
♦Monday May 15th, McCabe states he and Rosenstein conferred again about the Special Counsel approach. McCabe: “I brought the matter up with him again after the weekend.”
On this same day was when James Rybicki called SSA Whistleblower to notify him of Comey’s memos. The memos were “stored” in a “reception area“, and in locked drawers in James Rybicki’s office.
♦Tuesday May 16th – Per the IG report: “On the morning of May 16, Comey took digital photographs of both pages of Memo 4 with his personal cell phone. Comey then sent both photographs, via text message, to Richman.
Back in Main Justice at 12:30pm Rod Rosenstein, Andrew McCabe, Jim Crowell and Tashina Guahar all appear to be part of this meeting.  I should note that alternate documentary evidence, gathered over the past two years, supports the content of this McCabe memo.  Including texts between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok:
[Sidebar: pay attention to the *current* redactions; they appear to be placed by existing DOJ officials in an effort to protect Rod Rosenstein for his duplicity in: (A) running the Mueller sting operation at the white house on the same day; (B) the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel, which was pre-determined before the Oval Office meeting.]
While McCabe was writing this afternoon memo, Rod Rosenstein was taking Robert Mueller to the White House for a meeting in the oval office with President Trump and VP Mike Pence.  While they were meeting in the oval office, and while McCabe was writing his contemporaneous memo, the following story was published by the New York Times (based on Comey memo leaks to Richman):
Report this ad

Also during the approximate time of this Oval Office meeting, Peter Strzok texts with Lisa Page about information being relayed to him by Tashina Guahar (main justice) on behalf of Rod Rosenstein (who is at the White House).
Later that night, after the Oval Office meeting – According to the Mueller report, additional events on Tuesday May 16th, 2017:

It is interesting that Tashina Gauhar was taking notes presumably involved in the 12:30pm 5/16/17 meeting between, Jim CrowellRod Rosenstein, and Andrew McCabe.  But McCabe makes no mention of Lisa Page being present. 
Report this ad

It appears there was another meeting in the evening (“later that night”) after the visit to the White House with Robert Mueller.  This evening meeting appears to be Lisa Page, Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe; along with Tashina Gauhar again taking notes.
♦ Wednesday May 17th, 2017:  Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe go to brief the congressional “Gang-of-Eight”: Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Devin Nunes, Adam Schiff, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer, Richard Burr and Mark Warner.
… […] “On the afternoon of May 17, Rosenstein and I sat at the end of a long conference table in a secure room in the basement of the Capitol. We were there to brief the so-called Gang of Eight—the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate and the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. Rosenstein had, I knew, made a decision to appoint a special counsel in the Russia case.”
[…] “After reminding the committee of how the investigation began, I told them of additional steps we had taken. Then Rod took over and announced that he had appointed a special counsel to pursue the Russia investigation, and that the special counsel was Robert Mueller.” (link)
Immediately following this May 17, 2017, Go8 briefing, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein notified the public of the special counsel appointment.
We Exit The Timeline:
Back to the memo.  Notice the participants:  Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein, Tashina Gauhar and Jim Crowell:

Now remind ourselves about who was involved in convincing Jeff Sessions to recuse himself:

The same two people (lawyers) Tasina Guahar and Jim Crowell, were involved in recusal advice for Jeff Sessions and the “wear-a-wire” conversation a few months later.
Report this ad

Back to the redactions.  Notice how in the McCabe memo FOIA release, the DOJ is redacting the aspects of the appointment of a special counsel.  The redaction justification: b(5) “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.” Or put another way: stuff we just don’t want to share: “personal privacy” etc.
Again, when combined with the testimony by Mueller in response to the questioning by Rep. Andy Biggs, the redacted information looks like current DOJ officials hiding the timing of the decision-making to appoint Mueller thereby protecting Rod Rosenstein.
More motive for this scenario shows up during a statement tonight by Matt Whitaker who appeared on Tucker Carlson television show.   Whitaker outlines why Rosenstein could never admit to having said he would wear a wire at the time the story broke.
When the “wear-a-wire” story first surfaced was when DAG Rosenstein was trying to convince President Trump not to declassify any information until after the Mueller special counsel was concluded.   Rosenstein’s justification for his instructions surrounded President Trump possibly obstructing justice during Mueller’s investigation.


Reminder when Rod Rosenstein convinced President Trump not to declassify the documents that were being requested by Congress (Sept. 2018):
Report this ad

While McCabe is a known liar, there is enough ancillary supportive information, circumstantial and direct evidence, to make the content of the McCabe memo essentially accurate.
Remember, Rosenstein expanded the scope of Mueller’s investigation twice, the second time targeting Michael Flynn Jr.  Also, Rosenstein participated in the indictment of fictitious Russia trolls and a Russian catering company.  Yes, all indications are that Rod Rosenstein was a willing participant in the overall McCabe/Mueller effort.
Ultimately all of the DOJ obfuscation, delay and hidden information under AG Bill Barr has an identical motive: help protect Rod Rosenstein.  That effort continues today with the internal DOJ redactions…

….The problem for Attorney General Bill Barr is not investigating what we don’t know, but rather navigating through what ‘We The People’ are already aware of…. (link)