VIDEO: President Trump Highlights America’s Great Accomplishments at the United Nations’ 74th Session

President Trump, with his foreign policy and national security team, held a presser after his three days at the 74th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. The President also took questions at the end.

Listen to the good news. News that won’t be reported by the media.

President Trump’S press conference following meetings with world leaders September 25, 2019.CNBC Television

During the Q&A President Trump addresses both Biden and his conversation with the President of Ukraine stating that both countries are concerned about corruption at the highest levels of government.

Remarks by President Trump in Press Conference

InterContinental New York Barclay
New York, New York

4:28 P.M. EDT

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Thank you very much.  Thank you.

Well, thank you all for being here.  We’ve had a tremendous three days in New York, at the United Nations.  I want to thank the Secretary-General.  It’s been really incredible what’s been taking place.  And he’s been a fantastic host to a lot of countries.

The meetings I had on a bilat, or close, were pretty staggering.  I think we set a new record, but you’ll have to check that out.  The — we met very, very — for pretty extended periods of time, either two and two, one on one, or just about at that level with Pakistan, Poland, New Zealand, Singapore, Egypt, South Korea, United Kingdom, India, Iraq, Argentina, Germany, Brazil, France, Japan, Ukraine, Honduras, El Salvador, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, UAE, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru.  Other than that, we weren’t too busy over the last three days.

And, unfortunately, the press doesn’t even cover it.  You know, we have — we’ve made some fantastic deals, like with Japan.  For farmers, we have a tremendous trade deal with Japan.  And that doesn’t get covered because you waste your time on nonsense.

The PMI manufacturers’ index has gone substantially up, which was an incredible — Larry Kudlow, wherever you may be — Larry, please stand up.  He just gave me these numbers.  And existing new home sales are through the roof.  Just came out.  Oil prices have gone down ever since the Saudi Arabia incident, and they’ve gone down very substantially.  So, we have plenty of oil.  But those numbers were surprising to you, Larry.  And the extent of the increase.  Is that a correct statement?  So thank you, Larry Kudlow.

We think we’ll make this little announcement to you because — important.  You know the so-called whistleblower?  The one that didn’t have any first-class, or first-rate, or second-tier information, from what I understand.  You’ll have to figure that out for yourself.  But I’ve spoken with Leader Kevin McCarthy and the Republicans — many of them — and we were going to do this anyway, but I’ve informed them — all of the House members — that I fully support transparency on the so-called whistleblower information, even though it was supposedly second-hand information, which is sort of interesting.

And other things have come out about the whistleblower that are also maybe even more interesting.  But also insist on transparency from Joe Biden and his son Hunter on the millions of dollars that have been quickly and easily taken out of Ukraine and China.  Millions of dollars.  Millions and millions of dollars taken out very rapidly while he was Vice President.  And I think they should have transparency for that.  I’ve informed the Leader about that.

And additionally, I demand transparency from Democrats who went to Ukraine and attempted to force the new President, who I met and is an outstanding person.  I just met a little while ago; some of you were there.  I think he’s going to be outstanding.  He got elected on the basis of corruption.  He wants to end corruption in Ukraine, and I think that’s great.

But they went there and they wanted to force the new President to do things that they wanted under the form of political threat.  They threatened him if he didn’t do things.  Now, that’s what they’re accusing me of, but I didn’t do it.  I didn’t threaten anybody.  In fact, the press was asking questions of the President of Ukraine.  And he said, “No pressure.”  I used the word “pressure.”  I think he used the word “push,” but he meant pressure, but it’s the same thing.  No push, no pressure, no nothing.  It’s all a hoax, folks.  It’s all a big hoax.

And the sad thing about this hoax is that we work so hard with all of these countries — and I mean really hard.  This has been — I’ve been up from early in the morning to late in the evening, and meeting with different countries all for the good of our country, and the press doesn’t even cover all of this.  And it’s disappearing — it’s really disappointing also to those countries that are with us and spend so much time with us.

So, we want transparency.  We’ve informed Kevin McCarthy about transparency.  And we said, “Vote for it.”  So I think you’ll have close to 100 percent of the Republican votes, I hope.

And it got almost no attention, but in May, CNN reported that Senators Robert Menendez, Richard Durbin, and Patrick Leahy wrote a letter to Ukraine’s Prosecutor General expressing concern at the closing of four investigations they said were “critical.”  In the letter, they implied that their support for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake and that if they didn’t do the right thing, they wouldn’t get any assistance.  Gee, doesn’t that sound familiar?  Doesn’t that sound familiar?

And Chris Murphy — who I’ve been dealing with on guns — you know, so nice.  He’s always, “Oh, no, we want to work it out.  We want to work it out.”  But they’re too busy wasting their time on the witch hunt.  So, Senator Chris Murphy literally threatened the President of Ukraine that, if he doesn’t do things right, they won’t have Democrat support in Congress.  So you’re going to look all of this up.

One other thing — I’m just going off of certain notes and elements of what we’ve been doing over the last three days, but this just came up a few minutes ago: The “Amazon-Washington Post” just put out a fake article that Acting Director of National Intelligence, Joseph Maguire — who I’ve gotten to know, and he’s a tough cookie — and I was surprised; I was shocked to hear this — was going to quit, blaming the White House for something that they wouldn’t let him talk openly, freely.  And I was shocked because I know Joe, and he’s tough.  A tough guy.

And I was really surprised to hear he was going to quit.  Before I could even either talk to him or talk to anybody else, he put out a statement — I didn’t speak to Joe yet — but he said, “At no time have I considered resigning my position.”  In other words, the story in the Washington Post was a fake.

“At no time have I considered resigning my position since assuming this role on August 16, 2019.  I have never quit anything in my life, and I am not going to start now.  I’m committed to leading the intelligence community to address the diverse and complex threats facing our nation.”  That’s from the Acting Director of National Intelligence, a very good man, Joseph Maguire.

So we’re having a great period of time.  Our country is the strongest it’s ever been economically.  Our numbers are phenomenal.  Wilbur, thank you.  And Larry.  Everybody.  The numbers are phenomenal.  Our economy is the strongest in the world.  We’re the largest economy in the world.

Had my opponent won, we would be second right now because China was catching us so rapidly, we would’ve been second by this time.  And unless somebody does a very poor job as President, we’re going to be first for a long way, because we’ve picked up trillions and trillions of dollars in value and worth of our country, and China has lost trillions and trillions of dollars, and millions of jobs, and their supply chain.  And they want to make a deal.

This year, America came to the United Nations stronger than we have ever been before: Since my election, the United States has not only brought our economy to a level that we have never seen, the most jobs that we’ve ever had — you know you’ve heard me say it many times — African American, Asian American, Hispanic American, the best unemployment numbers we’ve ever had.  And the most and best employment numbers: 160 million — very close to that number — in jobs.  We’ve never been anywhere close.

Wages are up, and inequality is down.  Something that people don’t like writing about.  But wages are up.  I used to speak during the campaign, and I’d talk about wages where people were making less money three years ago than they were making 21 years, 22 years ago, and they’d have two jobs and three jobs.  When I say “three years ago,” I’m talking into the area sometime prior to the election.  And they were doing very badly.  And now, for the first time in many years, wages are up and employment is up, and unemployment is down.  And it’s a beautiful thing to watch.

In a week of active and ambitious diplomacy here at the United Nations, America renewed our friendships.  We advanced our values greatly and made clear to everyone that the United States will always defend our citizens to promote prosperity.

I met with Prime Minister Boris Johnson, at length, of the United Kingdom, continuing our discussions on a magnificent, new bilateral trade deal.  So we’ll see what happens with respect to Brexit, but I suspect we’ll have a fantastic deal with the UK. It should be much bigger than it has been over the last number of years.  Over the last 20 years, frankly.  It should be a much bigger deal.

That’s true with many countries.  We’re going to have much bigger trade deals with a lot of countries that have an opportunity to come.  And they all want to do business with the United States, especially now.

Earlier today, I stood alongside Prime Minister Abe of Japan — a friend of mine, a great gentleman.  Had a great reelection.  And we signed a terrific new trade deal, which tremendously helps our farmers and ranchers, and technology.  The technology companies are really big beneficiaries.

We also held very productive conversations with leaders of Pakistan, India.  And many other nations are achieving stronger ties of fair and reciprocal trade.  And with respect to Pakistan and India, we talked about Kashmir.  And whatever help I can be, I said — I offered, whether it’s arbitration or mediation, or whatever it has to be, I’ll do whatever I can.  Because they’re at very serious odds right now, and hopefully that’ll get better.

You look at the two gentlemen heading those two countries — two good friends of mine — I said, “Fellas, work it out.  Just work it out.”  Those are two nuclear countries.  They’ve got to work it out.

This week, we also made incredible strides on national security with President Duda of Poland.  We signed a joint declaration advancing defense cooperation.  And, crucially, Poland has agreed to put up 100 percent of the money — something I don’t think you’ve ever heard said before.  But they’re going to put up 100 percent of the money, of hosting additional U.S. military personnel that we’ll be taking from various other countries.  We won’t have more over; we’ll have — we’ll be moving them around.

Poland is building us phenomenal new facilities.  They’re spending everything, and they’re going to really do a job.  But we’ll be moving a few thousand soldiers, and Poland will be paying that for it.

Together with Prime Minister Lee of Singapore, I signed an important agreement extending our defense cooperation.  This hasn’t been changed in many years.  Then, yesterday, I met with prospective members of the Middle East Strategic Alliance, which is a group that I know very well; I know all of them.  And through this effort, the nations of the Middle East are taking more responsibility for securing their own future and their own neighborhood.  And they’re also reimbursing us and paying us for a lot of the military work that we incredibly do.

But because we’re now independent, energy-wise — we’re energy independent — we have very few boats going over the Middle East.  We used to have them going through the Straits all the time.  And you probably noticed that, every once in a while, they go after somebody else’s.  They haven’t gone after ours yet. If they do, they’ve get big problems.  But we have very few boats going over there.  They were saying the other day, they’ve never attacked an American boat, and I’m not asking for trouble.  But if they do, they know they have far bigger trouble.  But then they said, “But, you know, we don’t see very many American boats over here anymore.”

This week also brought extraordinary progress to nations of our own hemisphere.  In recent days, we’ve achieved historic asylum cooperation agreements with El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.  We were with El Salvador today.  A great young gentleman became the President.  He’s strong and tough, and he’s taking care of crime.  He was really something today.  I was very impressed with him.  And likewise with Honduras, who we met.  We signed a cooperation agreement with both, and also with Guatemala.

We’re working with our partners in Central America to ensure that asylum-seekers can pursue relief as close to their home countries as possible.  That’ll make a tremendous difference at our southern border.

And Mexico — I have to say, President Lopez Obrador has been outstanding — an outstanding partner.  And he’s doing a great job in Mexico.  The cartels are way down, and the numbers — our Secretary is here now — the numbers are way down.  Way, way down.  And we’re doing that without the help of Congress, meaning the Democrats in Congress who won’t give us a single vote to take care of loopholes.

We have loopholes that are so horrible, and it would be so easy to fix.  And they know they should be fixed but they don’t want to do because they don’t want to give Trump any credit because it’s all about the election.  That’s all they care about.  They don’t care about our country; they care about the election.

And the sad part is, with all of the tremendous work that we’ve done this weekend — whether it’s Secretary Mnuchin or Secretary Pompeo, who had some outstanding, outstanding meetings — with all of this tremendous work that we’ve done, the press doesn’t even cover it.  And the Democrats did this hoax during the United Nations week.  It was perfect.  Because this way, it takes away from these tremendous achievements that we’re taking care of doing, that we’re involved in in New York City, at the United Nations.

So that was all planned, like everything else.  It was all planned.  And the witch hunt continues, but they’re getting hit hard in this witch hunt, because when they look at the information, it’s a joke.  Impeachment?  For that?  When you have a wonderful meeting, or you have a wonderful phone conversation?

I think you should ask.  We actually — you know, that was the second conversation.  I think you should ask for the first conversation also.  I can’t believe they haven’t, although I heard there’s a — there’s a rumor out they want the first conversation.  It was beautiful.  It was just a perfect conversation.

But I think you should do that.  I think you should do, and I think you should ask for VP Pence’s conversation because he had a couple conversations also.  I can save you a lot of time.  They’re all perfect.  Nothing was mentioned of any import other than congratulations.  But the word is that they’re going to ask for the first phone conversation.  You can have it anytime you need it.  And also Mike Pence’s conversations, which were, I think, one or two of them.  They were perfect.  They were all perfect.

It’s very sad what the Democrats are doing to this country. They’re dividing.  They’re belittling.  They’re demeaning our country.  So many leaders came up to me today and they said, “Sir, what you go through, no President has ever gone through.  And it’s so bad for your country.”  People laugh at the stupidity of what they’ve asked for.  And here we could do asylum.  We could do all of these different things so easily.  We could do asylum quickly.  We could do loopholes; get rid of them.

Instead, we actually made deals with Mexico and with Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras.  And we’re doing it with them instead of with our Congress, but we’re doing it.  We get it done.

The wall is being built, by the way.  It got little coverage.  I went to the border.  It’s going up in New Mexico.  It’s going up in Arizona.  It’s going up in California, believe it or not.  They really wanted that wall in California, in San Diego.  As soon as it was completed, they said, “We don’t want a wall.”  They were begging me for a wall.  I should take it out and move it to another location.

We were with the Governor — spoke to him a lot — but the Governor of Texas, Lieutenant Governor of Texas, Attorney General of Texas, the senators of Texas — Cornyn, Ted Cruz.  And we’re building an incredible wall.  That’s going to — number one, it’s going to look great.  It’s going to be virtually impossible to cross unless you’re one hell of a mountain climber.  It’s very tough.  It’s going to be very tough to get people and drugs over those walls, because they’re the real deal.

I went to the Secretary of Homeland security, and he got all his people together.  I said, “Give me four walls — your optimum.  Every single thing included.”  And they give me 20 percent less, 20 percent less, and 20 percent less — meaning, less cost.  They came back, they said, “This is the wall, sir.  This would be the best.”  We have the panels on top, which are anti-climb panels.  I don’t know if you noticed the steel on top.  We have a different design for a different area, but this anti-climb is very tough.  They’ve — we had people going out and real climbers telling us which is the toughest to climb.  But these are anti-climb panels.  Very tough to get across.

And the wall is going up, many miles a week.  And we hope to have over 400, but maybe as much as 500 miles, which we’ll pretty much do it because you have a lot of natural barriers; you have mountains, you have really rough rivers.  You have some really rough land that you can’t cross very easily.  So they serve as their natural walls.  But we — we’ll have, we think, over 400, but we could even have 500 miles.

To combat the malice, corruption of both the Venezuelan and Iranian dictatorships, today I issued proclamations suspending the entry into the United States of senior regime officials and their families.

And further, to promote American values, on Monday I was proud to be the first President in history to host a meeting at the United Nations —

I’m so surprised; first President for this.  I can’t believe that I’m first.  I spoke to Franklin Graham about that.  I can’t believe it.

— at the United Nations, on protecting religious freedom and liberty for people around the world.

While some partisans and unelected bureaucrats in Washington may choose to fight every day against the interests and beliefs of the American people, my administration is standing up for the American people like no administration has in many, many years.  You forgot the American people.  You totally forgot the American people.

This week, every — every week, I really can say — of my presidency, we’re standing up for American prosperity, American security, and the American way of life.  And together, with our friends and partners, we’re building a more peaceful, prosperous, and promising future.

We have a tremendous relationship now with a lot of nations that are very happy with what’s going on, and that includes in South America, where they’ve been so helpful, where nobody thought this would be possible.  The relationship with Mexico is an example, or El Salvador, or Honduras, or Guatemala.  Nobody even knew about it.  Yet, we sent them hundreds of millions of dollars, and all we got back was caravans of people pouring in.

We had tremendous — we had tremendous — it was terrible.  And we’ve got that stopped, and the countries are now helping us.  And we stopped those payments, by the way.  We don’t pay those countries that money anymore.  But I will tell you, if they’re as good as they seem to be — they’re really doing a job on crime and stopping the wrong people from leaving and coming to the United States — we’ll be helping them a lot with economic development projects and other things.

So, with that, we had a tremendous three days.  It was beautiful to see.  Made a lot of new friends.  I read you a list of all the countries I saw pretty much one on one.  And it’s been very busy, but it’s been very, very fruitful.

So we could take a couple of questions. I’d love some questions on some of the things that we accomplished at UNGA, instead of the witch hunt — the phony witch hunt questions, which I know that’s what you want to ask because it’s probably better for you, but it’s not better for the country.

So maybe we’ll take a few — a few questions.  Please.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  You suggested that you didn’t do anything wrong in the course of your conversations with the Ukrainian President.  But can you explain to the American people why it is appropriate for an American President to ask a foreign leader for information about a political rival, and what you would have said if you discovered that Barack Obama perhaps had asked a foreign leader for information about you before your campaign for the presidency?

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah.  Well, that’s what he did, isn’t it, really?  When you think about it.

Look, that whole witch hunt was started, and hopefully that’ll all come out.  But there’s been some fantastic books written that just came out — whether you will look at Gregg Jarrett, or McCarthy’s book that just — just came out recently, and so many other books.  And a lot of books are coming out. When you start reading those books, you see what they did to us.  What they’ve done to this country is a disgrace.  They’ve hurt this country very badly.  And no other President should have to go through what I’ve gone through.

The President — the new President of Ukraine is looking to stop corruption.  There’s a lot of corruption going on, and there was corruption.  I just told you about senators that threatened him with votes and no money coming into Ukraine if they do things.  That’s really what people are trying to say that I did, but the only difference is I didn’t do it.  You take a look at that call; it was perfect.  I didn’t do it.  There was no quid pro quo, but there was with Biden and there was with these senators.  And they threatened.  They said, “You do this, you do that.  We’re not going to give you votes.”  That’s — that’s the real deal.

So we have an honest group of people that have been maligned.  And, you know, it’s — a lot of people say I’ll do even better.  I’m very happy.  Yesterday, I guess we had a 53 poll, and a lot of people say add 10 points to anything.  Anybody voting for Trump, you can add — anytime you get a poll, you can add 10 points or 7 points or 6 points.  Take it any way you want.  But I don’t know if I consider that to be a compliment, but in one way it is a compliment.

And I guess that’s what happened in the last election: Far more people came to vote than anybody thought possible.

Q    So why should the American people then be comfortable with an American President asking a foreign leader for information about an American citizen?

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, I think you can look at your senators and you can look at Biden, and you can look at all these other people.  But what we’re looking for is corruption.  An investigation started, called the “Russian witch hunt,” affectionately.  And it was a total phony scam.  It was set up by people within the government to try and stop somebody from getting elected.

And after that person — namely, me — won, and convincingly won at 306 to 223 in the Electoral College — which, by the way, when you run a race, if you’re running electoral — you know, if you go by the College, Electoral College, that’s a much different race than running popular vote.  And it’s like the hundred-yard dash or the mile.  You train differently.

And I can’t help it that my opponent didn’t go to Wisconsin and should have gone much more to Michigan and Pennsylvania and other places.  But that’s the way it is.  We won election, convincingly.  Convincingly.  And then you had the text message on, “Well, if she doesn’t win, we’ve got an insurance policy.” How bad was that?  You know the insurance policy?  That’s sort of what has been taking place over the last number of years — the insurance policy.

No, there are a lot of very dishonest people.  We’re the ones that played it straight.  And you know what?  The millions of people out there that are looking at what’s going on — those people understand it.  They see it.  And they think it’s disgusting.  And our people are being hurt, and our country is being hurt.

When Nancy Pelosi allows her position to be taken over by radical far-left socialists, or worse, that’s pretty bad.  That’s pretty bad — especially when the senators and all of these other people have actually done what they’re accusing me of doing, which I didn’t do.

I’m going to have Mike Pompeo say a couple of words.  I’m going to have Steve Mnuchin say a couple of words.  And then we’ll do a couple of more questions.

SECRETARY POMPEO:  Mr. President, I thought I’d start by talking about Iran.  We had a productive week.  We saw the Europeans take a position with respect to the attacks that took place in Saudi Arabia, making clear this was Iran, just as President Trump and I had been saying, and have now joined us in saying that the existing JCPOA framework is not going to work, it’s not going to solve the world’s problems, it’s not going to create Middle East stability.

Then we had a good set of meetings with our Middle East allies as well.  The President joined for a meeting of the GCC where we talked again about how we can help deter.  We want peace.  We want a peaceful resolution with the Islamic Republic of Iran.  We’re hoping we can get that way.  In the end, it’ll be up to the Iranians to make that decision, whether they’ll choose violence and hate — and the President said in his speech yesterday to the General Assembly — if their bloodthirst will continue.

We hope that’s the (inaudible).  We hope we can get the opportunity to negotiate with them and get an outcome that’s good for both of them, for the United States, to make sure that they never have a nuclear weapon and that they can’t foment their terror with ballistic missiles and in the way they have all around the world.  And I think we made real progress uniting the world on that here over these past few days.  Thank you.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Thank you.

SECRETARY MNUCHIN:  As Secretary Pompeo said on Iran, we had very good discussions with all of our allies about the sanctions program, which is the maximum pressure, and unity on the sanctions program.  The Europeans made it very clear they would not do anything without our consent.

And then, on the economic front, we had the entire economic team here for all the meetings: Secretary Ross, Larry Kudlow; Ambassador Lighthizer just left to go back to D.C.  He’s working hard on trying to get USMCA passed.  But we had a lot of productive discussions.  The Japanese trade deal and a lot of discussions on investing in the U.S., more jobs in the U.S., and more trade.  Thank you.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Okay.  Go ahead, please.

Q    Thank you.  Kristina Partsinevelos, Fox Business.  I want to focus on markets, because I’ll leave it to everybody else to talk about impeachment.  Markets reacted positively after you spoke about China, and that it would happen sooner than — rather than unexpectedly.

Yet, you have the Foreign Minister of China saying that they have no intention of, you know, unseating the United States.  And yet, they’re investing heavily in infrastructure and military.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Not anymore, maybe.

Q    But what — what is different this time, though?

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  And maybe they just say that, Kristina.

Q    What is different this time, though?  The fact that you’re saying it’s progressing.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Oh, I just think it’s progressing.  I think they want to make a deal.  They’re losing their supply chain.  You know, it’s getting killed.

Q    Do you have something specific?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I don’t want to say that.  But I can tell you that these two men — and, in this case, more specifically, Steve, we’re having some very good conversations.
And I guess it’s next week that a group is coming in and the week after.  So we have a lot of — we have a lot of talks going on, and also by telephone.

They want to make a deal.  And you know why they want to make a deal?  Because they’re losing their jobs, and because their supply chain is going to hell.  And companies are moving out of China, and they’re moving to lots of other places, including the United States.  And that’s not good; that’s far worse than they thought.

And, by the way, in the meantime, we’re taking in billions and billions of dollars in tariffs.  We’re taking in tremendous numbers in tariffs.  And we’re helping our farmers who got targeted.  Now, by the way, China is starting to buy our agricultural product again.  They’re starting to go with the beef and all of the different things — pork.  Very big on pork.

But if you look and if you see — and they actually put out, I think, a statement.  But they’re starting, very heavy, to buy our ag again.  No, they want to make a deal.  And they should want to make a deal.  The question is: Do we want to make a deal?

Q   If USMCA doesn’t pass through Congress, is that it for NAFTA?

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, that would be a shame.  Well, I don’t want to answer that question, but you know how I feel about NAFTA.  I think NAFTA is the worst trade deal ever made, although I also happen to think World Trade Organization was not one of the greats.  Not one of the greats.  That was the creation of China, which went like a rocket ship from the day they signed.  It was — it was terrible.

But, no, we’re going to find out.  That’s going to be a very interesting question, with Nancy and Chuck and all of these people focusing on the witch hunt because they can’t beat us at the ballot.  They can’t beat us at the ballot.  And they’re not going to win the presidential.  We’re having great polls.  We have internal polls that are — Ohio, Iowa.  Pennsylvania is looking good.  North Carolina.

We just won two races that a lot of people — we thought we were going to lose both of those races.  One was down 17 points three weeks before the race, and he ended up winning by a substantial margin — by a substantial margin.  And — Dan Bishop.

And then we had a second race, as you know, and he was up one or two points and ended up winning by — what was it?  Twenty-five points or some incredible — I’ll ask you folks because I don’t want to be inaccurate.  Otherwise, I’ll have a front-page story: “We have breaking news.  Trump exaggerated.”

But he won by many, many points.  And he was leading by maybe two, maybe three, but he won by — in the twenties.  So it’s — it’s been — so we’re looking great in North Carolina, looking great in Florida.

And you had one or two congressmen Democrats say, “Listen, we can’t beat them at the election, so let’s impeach him.”  Right?  Didn’t you hear — Al Green.  That’s a beauty.  He’s a real beauty, that guy.  But he said, very distinctively, it’s all — it was all over the place.  I don’t know — they’re trying to lose that tape, I guess.

But he said, “We can’t…”  Essentially, he said, “We can’t beat him.  Let’s impeach him.”  That’s pretty — that’s pretty dangerous stuff.

Steve, go ahead.

Q    Thank you, sir.  You had expressed some concerns about the precedent of releasing the transcript.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah.  I don’t like it.

Q    Why did you go ahead and do it?

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Because I was getting such fake news, and I just thought it would be better.  And now they’re asking for the first phone conversation, and I’ll release that too, if it’s important to you.  But they’re asking for — because I had a conversation previous — on a previous election plateau that he had hit.  The — the current president hit a couple of different plateaus.  And I spoke to him, previous to the call that we released, which was a very innocent call — very, very innocent; very nice call.

And as he said, we were — “I wasn’t pushed.  I wasn’t pushed,” meaning pressured.  He wasn’t pressured at all.

But I don’t like the concept of releasing calls because when a president or prime minister, or a king or a queen, calls the United States, you don’t like to say, “Gee, we’re going to release your call to the fake-news media, and they’re going to make you look like a fool.”  What happens is, it’s hard to do business that way.  You want to have people feel comfortable.

So I hated it, but you folks were saying such lies, such horrible things about a call that was so innocent and so nice.  In fact, Lindsey Graham said to me, when he read it — it was very interesting.  He’s a good man.  He’s a smart man.  He said, “I can’t believe it.  I never knew you could be this, really, nice to a person.”  He said, “I cannot believe it.  You were so nice.  I didn’t think you had that in you to be so nice.”

I was nice.  I’m nice to a lot of people.  People don’t understand that.  But I was.  But he was shocked that it was such a nice call.  There — he said, “There is nothing here.”  And all fair people say the same thing.

But I don’t like the precedent, Steve.  I don’t like it where you’re dealing with heads of state and to think that their call is going to be released.  But I felt that — and, you know, we spoke to Ukraine about it.  Mike actually called up his counterpart, and we spoke to Ukraine about it because we want to — because they could have been — if that they didn’t want us to do it, we would not have done it.

But he actually said, “That was a very innocent call.  You can release it all you want.”

Q    And are you now braced for long impeachment saga?

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, I thought we won.  I thought it was dead.  It was dead.  The Mueller report — no obstruction, no collusion.  You look at all of the things that happened.

Corey Lewandowski was fantastic the other day, as a person that they have been tormenting.  You look at all the people that they’ve tormented, all the legal fees.  People came here with bright eyes; they wanted to make life so great for other people.  And they left where they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees that they didn’t have.  And it’s a sad thing.  What these Democrats have done to ruin lives is so sad.

I’ve seen people with only good intention.  They came to Washington because they wanted to make the United States and the world a better place.  And they went home — they were dark.  They got hit by Mueller’s subpoenas.  I think there were 2,500 subpoenas, or some ridiculous number.  Five hundred people were interviewed, and yet, they don’t interview Joe Biden and his son.

If you’re Democrat, you have automatic protection.  That’s years and years of people putting in certain people into positions.  But when you look at all of the — all of the trauma that these fakers, of course — and the press — look, the press is — much of the press is not only fake, it’s corrupt.  These stories they write are corrupt; they’re so wrong.  And they know that.

You know, it used to be — I used to get great press until I ran for politics.  I mean, I used to be the king of getting good press.  I was very good at it.  And I got good.  I mean, they covered me well for what — otherwise, I probably wouldn’t be here.

And once I ran, I said, “Boy, this is incredible.”  But if you see the way they treat my family — used to be treated great.  My family worked so hard.  The people that work with me — these people — all of these people, they work so hard.  They’ve done such a good —

Look, we have the greatest economy we’ve ever had.  We have a military — two and a half trillion dollars.  We’ve rebuilt our military.  You don’t hear the vets complaining.  We got Choice approved.  It couldn’t be approved.

But when you see what happened with the viciousness, and when you see little Adam Schiff go out and lie and lie and stand at the mic — smart guy, by the way — stand at the mic and act like he’s so serious.  And then he goes into a room with Nadler, and they must laugh their asses off.  They must laugh their asses off.

But it’s so bad for our country.  People have said — Rush Limbaugh — great man; Sean Hannity said it.  A lot of people have said it.  Mark Levin.  They said they don’t know if one man anywhere in the world, with all the men they know — or woman — that could handle what I’ve had to handle.

And I think that’s true, but I handle it.  To me, it’s like putting on a suit.

All right, how about one more question?  A question on the economy.  A question on the economy.

Go ahead.  Go ahead.

Q    Hi, Mr. President.  VPItv from Venezuela — Caracas, Venezuela.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Good.  Good.  Wow.

Q    Yeah.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  How are you doing?

Q    We made it.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  How are you doing over there?

Q    Pretty bad.  Our situation is pretty bad.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah.  I would say “pretty bad.”  Yeah.  Sad.

Q    Yeah.  But we are fighting.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  And it was one of the great countries and one of the richest countries not so long ago — 15 years ago.  It’s incredible.

Q    But we are going to make it.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Right.  I agree with that.  And we’re helping you.

Q    Yeah.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  We’re helping you.

Q    Yeah, I know.  And thank you.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Go ahead.

Q    I have two questions —

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Go ahead.

Q    — to take advantage of this.  Maduro traveled to Russia and Diosdado Cabello to North Korea — two of the most antagonist nations in the U.S. interests.  What can be done to contain this?  What are they looking for in that country?  And because the special envoy, Mr. Abrams, said that the Russians are willing to negotiate it.  This is one question.

And the other: Mr. President, you say that the socialists is one of the biggest challenges, you said yesterday in the United Nations.  But the region is far from safe.  Maduro is still a dictator, full in power.  (Inaudible) in Argentina and Brazil are on their (inaudible) about the socialist and populist.  Are you worried about it?

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, I just say that socialism will never happen in the United States.  It can’t happen in the United States.  And Venezuela — unfortunately, I have to use your country as the example of what socialism can do, how it can tear the fabric of a country apart.  Because I know a lot about Venezuela.

I’ve had many, many friends of mine come from Venezuela.  They live — many in Miami — a certain section of Miami, I won’t mention the name because they’ll say I’m thinking about my business, and I’m not.  But they are fantastic people and they like your President.  They voted overwhelmingly for me.  They like what I’m doing for Venezuela.

We have Venezuela very much in our hearts and very much in our sights.  And we’re watching it very carefully.  And you know what I would say?  We’re giving millions and millions of dollars in aid — not that we want to, from the Maduro standpoint, but we have to because, on a humanitarian — people are dying.  They have no food.  They have no water.  They have no nothing.  They’re dying.  No medicine.  Their hospitals are closed or — or don’t even have electricity.  It’s so sad to see.

Let me just say that we have it under control.  We are watching it very carefully.  And we’re going to be very, very —

Q    Russia (inaudible) —

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  We’re — we’re watching it very carefully, including other countries that may or may not be playing games.  We’re watching it very closely.

Q    But, you know, if Russia is talking with the USA or Guaidó, what can you tell — about us?

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Just put this in the back of your mind: It’s all going to be fine.  We know everything that you said, and it’s all going to be fine.  We’re very much involved.  We very much know what’s going on, and we’re very much involved.  Okay?

Thank you all very much.  Thank you.  Thank you very much.

END

5:10 P.M. EDT

© All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Great America Pac releases new ad titled ‘Biden Privilege’

Great America Pac released a new ad titled Biden Privilege stating:

Great America PAC’s hard-hitting new ad details Hunter Biden’s business deals in Ukraine and China that occurred after official visits and appointments by the Vice President, and the troubling admission of a Ukrainian quid pro quo by Biden in early 2018. Democrats should investigate one of their own – Joe Biden.

RELATED VIDEO: President Trump’S press conference following meetings with world leaders September 25, 2019.CNBC Television

During the Q&A President Trump addresses Biden and Ukraine stating that both countries are concerned about corruption at the highest levels of government.

Election Fraud Charges Brought in Michigan

I know that by now you might be thinking this blog could be renamed Michigan Frauds and Crooks.

Is it Michigan or is it that papers like the Detroit News are doing their jobs?

And, to one of my critics—you see I do write about American crooks when the news interests me!

Thanks to reader Cathy for this story published yesterday:

Southfield city clerk charged with 6 felonies tied to November election

Detroit — Southfield City Clerk Sherikia L. Hawkins was charged Monday with six felony counts over “unauthorized and inaccurate” changes to absentee ballots in the November 2018 election.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson made a joint announcement of the charges in Detroit, calling it a “rare” case.

“Voting is fundamental to the very essence of our democracy,” Nessel said during a Monday news conference. “It is incumbent upon state governments to safeguard the electoral process and ensure that every voter’s right to cast a ballot is protected.”

Allegations that Hawkins altered 193 absentee voter records came to light during the 14-day canvass following the election. Benson said the Oakland County Clerk’s Office reported with the Bureau of Elections “the potential for these irregularities and from there we began our investigation.”

[….]

Hawkins, a Democrat who just a few months ago was honored by the state party with the Dingell/Levin Award at its Legacy Dinner in Detroit, could not be reached Monday at her office for comment or a number listed in public records. Her attorney also could not be reached.

[….]

After taking office in January, Benson and Nessel, both Democrats, wanted to make sure the state’s elections were protected from “every conceivable threat,” Nessel said.

“Every citizen must know that when they enter the ballot box, the vote that they cast will be counted and that the collective will of the voters will be carried out,” Nessel said.

Hawkins,38, was arraigned Monday in 46th District Court in Southfield on the charges, which include election law-falsifying returns or records, forgery of a public record, misconduct in office and multiple counts of using a computer to commit a crime.

Forgery of a public record is a 14-year offense, Nessel said.

[….]

“After the city has examined the underlying facts of this matter, we will explore all appropriate and legal avenues to protect the voting process and rights of the Southfield Citizenry,” the statement issued by [City Council] spokesman Michael Manion said. “Mrs. Hawkins will be on administrative leave with pay at this time.”

Hawkins is paid $101,500 per year in Southfield as the city’s clerk.

[….]

Hawkins made history in November 2017 as the first African-American elected as city clerk, according to the clerk’s page on the city’s website. She formerly served as Pontiac’s city clerk.

More here.

Just for fun, see my tag for ‘Michigan’ to see how often the state has been the scene of some criminal activity reported here at Frauds and Crooks.

RELATED ARTICLE: Good Summary at Powerline Blog on Rep. Ilhan Omar’s Apparent Scam on America

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Sting Sex Trafficking at the Source . . . Its Buyers

Authorities have arrested more than 100 people in a massive child sex trafficking sting in central Ohio. Yes, you heard correctly: 100 people, in the state of Ohio, for child sex trafficking. The Homeland Security special agent in charge of the investigation warned, “We are just scratching the surface… it’s that way across the country.”

Human trafficking, particularly for sex, is a global enterprise — and the United States is, unfortunately, the leader in driving demand. Because human trafficking is no small business, this Ohio sting operation involved more than 30 law enforcement agencies.

As reported by The Columbus Dispatch, “[a] report commissioned for the city of Columbus last year found that the National Human Trafficking Resource Center in 2015 received 1,066 trafficking calls from Ohio, the fourth-highest volume in the country. Central Ohio rescue groups have served more than 700 human-trafficking victims since 2008; girls between the ages of 12 and 18 are at the highest risk.”

The child sex-trafficking ring outed by this particular sting was not operated on the streets or in dark alleys as one might expect but on the internet. The perpetrators defied stereotypes as well. Among the arrested suspects were an emergency room doctor and a church youth director! Traffickers and predators can be anyone.

In his remarks relating to the sting, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) acknowledged the “real dangers on the internet for children.” He continued, “[c]riminals involved in trafficking other human beings prey upon those individuals that are already at risk, subjecting them to prostitution and addiction. . .. Predators who seek to harm our children and grandchildren are not hiding in the bushes, they’re lurking on the internet.”

In this sting operation, law enforcement officers posed as the underage boys and girls with whom the predators initiated online chats. But the sting was not focused merely on “internet predators, but human traffickers and the men who feed the sex trade with their dollars.”

In a bipartisan effort to target the buyers of sex, Congresswoman Ann Wagner (R-Mo.) and Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) recently introduced the Sex Trafficking Demand Reduction Act, which would amend the minimum standards of combating sex trafficking (contained in the current Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000) to include language prohibiting the purchase of sex.

Without buyers, you lower the demand for sex trafficking. Buying human beings should be unacceptable behavior, and one way to make it unacceptable is by penalizing said behavior. Passing the Sex Trafficking Demand Reduction Act would paint a clear line between what is ethically right and what is wrong and would be a great step in the right direction for our culture. You can read more about the bill here.

Of the 104 arrested, there were 24 male suspects (ranging in age from 20 to 59) accused of attempting unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and importuning, 43 women accused of selling sex, 36 men accused of trying to buy sex, and one man accused of promoting prostitution.

Thanks to years of human trafficking advocacy, our society knows so much more about the realities of the business of sexual exploitation than we once did. Thankfully, the 43 women arrested for selling sex are now in what Ohio calls CATCH Court (Changing Actions To Change Habits), a two-year treatment-oriented program and specialty docket for women in the system who are victims of human trafficking. No matter what kind of spin liberal activists may use, “pimp” and “prostitute” are erroneous and outdated terminology for what we now know as the business of sex trafficking. Arresting the victims is not the perfect system, but at least for now, it has proved to be the most effective means of getting the trafficked away from their traffickers and into safety. (Oftentimes victims do not see themselves as victims due to the manipulative grooming of the trafficker).

One thing is certain: we need to arrest more of the buyers of sex. The law needs to continue driving a long, hard stake into the ground with a sign that reads: our women, boys, and girls are not for sale.

COLUMN BY

Patrina Mosley

Patrina Mosley serves as the Director of Life, Culture and Women’s Advocacy at the Family Research Council. Her writings and research examine the sanctity of life and women’s dignity issues in policy and culture.

Specifically, Patrina specializes in advocating for women in matters of abortion, sex trafficking, and pornography. From her policy analysis to cultural commentary, her goal is to motivate others to action from a biblical worldview.

Her commentary has been featured in the New York Times, Washington Examiner, The Hill, Townhall, The Federalist, The Daily Signal, The Christian Post and more. She has also testified in state legislatures on fetal pain in abortion, and the influence pornography has to normalize violence against women as well as its effect in increasing the demand for sex trafficking.

Before her current role, Patrina served as Family Research Council Action’s Assistant Director where she walked alongside state and federal campaigns for endorsement. Combining her passion for elections and educating voters, she oversaw numerous grassroots projects to lead endorsed candidates of faith, family, and freedom to victory.

Before joining FRC, Patrina directed Concerned Women for America’s collegiate initiative, Young Women for America. In training the next generation of women to be leaders in public policy, she grew YWA’s campus reach across the country while at the same time pioneering biblically based educational curriculum on policy issues such as abortion, family and marriage, support for Israel, and sexual exploitation.

Patrina is a graduate of Liberty University with a Bachelor of Science in Religion with a specialization in Biblical Studies and a Masters in Public Policy.

RELATED ARTICLES:

UNCompromising: Trump Steals the Show with Religious Freedom

The Remains of an Abortionist’s Day

Scalise Brings Born-Alive Push to VVS

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Beto’s Confiscation Plan Shows Why Gun Owners Must Reject Appeasement

Gun confiscation is the goal. Gun confiscation has always been the goal. Thanks to a recent outburst by 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Robert (Beto) Francis O’Rourke, potentially millions more Americans are now aware of this fact.

On September 12, a visibly deranged Beto told the viewers of an ABC News Democratic primary debate, “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.” As has become custom among the more frivolous candidates, the Beto campaign was selling a t-shirt with the intemperate statement later that evening. According to the Associated Press, on September 19 Beto stated that he is open to broadening his plan to include all semi-automatic firearms.

Beto’s comments have drawn criticism from some Democrats. However, it is instructive that the Democratic criticism appeared to be more about the former congressman’s strategy than the substance of his plan; they prefer confiscation that is well-cooked instead of raw.

Sad that Beto’s candor might foil his more subtle approach to identical gun control efforts, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) told CNN, “I frankly think that that clip will be played for years at Second Amendment rallies with organizations that try to scare people by saying Democrats are coming for your guns,” adding, “We need to focus on what we can get done.” CNN quoted a “Democratic aide” as saying that Beto’s debate statement “only feeds into the NRA’s narrative that Democrats are going to take away your guns.”

In other words: Stop it Beto. You’re spoiling the ending.

Beto’s bombastic delivery of their confiscation agenda even shamed the legacy media, who have long been complicit in obfuscating gun control advocates’ political aims. In response, the media was forced shine unwanted light upon the gun controllers’ confiscatory plans. As the editors of the National Review noticed, “For years, advocates of the right to keep and bear arms have suspected that confiscation was the endgame but have been rebuffed as paranoiacs in the press. Such a rebuffing is no longer possible.”

The National Review editors appreciated what NRA members already know: confiscation has long been apparent to those paying sufficient attention. The only surprise for Democrats was Beto’s failure to follow their long-standing script. Others seem to be slipping in kind:

In May, former 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) did something similar while writing an op-ed for USA Today in which he described his plan to confiscate commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. Making clear that he would imprison those who did not comply, Swalwell wrote, “we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.”

Later that month, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) called for gun confiscation during an interview with CNN. When asked by anchor Poppy Harlow if that meant that otherwise law-abiding Americans would be imprisoned for failing to comply with his confiscation plan, Booker merely responded, “[w]e should have a law that bans these weapons and we should have a reasonable period in which people can turn in these weapons.”

In September, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) expressed her support for gun confiscation. At an appearance on “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon,” Harris called confiscation “a good idea” and told the audience that “we need to do it the right way.”

The gun controllers’ refrain is international. In reaction to the March 15 terrorist attack in Christchurch, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern took unilateral measures to restrict firearms and Kiwi lawmakers enacted legislation to ban possession of semi-automatic centerfire rifles and many semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns. The country’s gun control scheme provided for the confiscation of lawfully-possessed firearms.

U.S. anti-gun politicians cheered Ardern’s confiscation effort. Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) stated via Twitter, “This is what real action to stop gun violence looks like. We must follow New Zealand’s lead, take on the NRA and ban the sale and distribution of assault weapons in the United States.” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) tweeted, “Christchurch happened, and within days New Zealand acted to get weapons of war out of the consumer market. This is what leadership looks like.”

In recent years, gun control rallies have been littered with signs calling for firearms confiscation and the repeal of the Second Amendment. The great and good have written countless thought pieces calling for gun confiscation or an amendment to the Constitution to eliminate recognition of the right to keep and bear arms. The New York Times used a frontpage editorial to call for gun confiscation.

Of course, the gun confiscation agenda didn’t start with the 2020 election cycle.

In 2015, failed 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton expressed her support for Australia-style gun confiscation. When asked about Australia’s confiscation scheme at a town hall in Keene, N.H., Clinton noted, “I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level if that could be arranged.” Clinton added, “I don’t know enough details to tell you … how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australian example is worth looking at.”

In 2013, President Barack Obama pointed to Australia and the UK’s confiscatory gun control regimes in calling for a “transformation” of American gun laws. In 2014, Obama again pointed to Australia as an example for America during a Tumblr Q&A session. After describing his failure to enact gun control as the “biggest frustration” of his presidency, Obama stated, “A couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting… And Australia just said, well, that’s it, we’re not seeing that again. And basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws.”

Decades ago, gun control advocates were just as explicit about their confiscation goals as many of the Democratic presidential candidates are today. They refuse to accept the benefits of gun ownership, and yet they’re the ones attacking the stubbornness of the Second Amendment?

In a 1995 interview with 60 Minutes, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) expressed her support for gun confiscation. While discussing the 1994 Clinton semi-automatic ban, Feinstein stated, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them—‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it.”

In the 1970s, groups like National Council to Control Handguns (later named Handgun Control, Inc. then Brady) openly called for a ban on the civilian possession of handguns. NCCH Chairman Pete Shields went so far as to explain how gun control advocates would bring about confiscation. In a 1976 interview with the New Yorker, Shields stated,

I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily—given the political realities—going to be very modest… So then we’ll have to start working again to strengthen that law and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal—total control of handguns in the United States—is going to take time.

An understanding that gun control advocates seek firearms confiscation must inform the entire gun control debate. As Shields pointed out, gun control measures build upon each other and facilitate the more extreme controls that anti-gun advocates have admitted they seek to enact.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) pointed this out during a recent appearance on ABC’s This Week while explaining why gun rights supporters oppose so-called “universal” background check legislation. Cruz stated,

As soon as you have every person private to private transaction. If you have a grandfather giving his grandson a shotgun to go bird hunting. If you have a federal government background check for that, what you will see the next step to be is the only way to enforce that is a federal gun registry, and a gun registry is the step you need for gun confiscation… you know we now have three of the ten Democratic presidential candidates actively advocating for gun confiscation. They are saying the federal government is going to come forcibly take your gun.

Cruz’s analysis of the situation was spot on. Gun control legislation that requires all private firearms transfers to take place pursuant to federal government interference is a necessary component for facilitating anti-gun politicians’ confiscation plans.

Gun control advocates have made themselves clear. Their efforts are not about “background checks,” or keeping guns away from “dangerous” individuals, or any other so-called “commonsense gun safety” measures.

They are not operating in good faith.

The gun control movement is about civilian disarmament through firearms confiscation. Beto simply let their cat out of the bag.

RELATED VIDEO: Lauren Boebert/Dudley Brown speak on 2A Rights

RELATED ARTICLES:

U.S. Supreme Court Schedules NRA-Supported Second Amendment Case for Argument

Establishment Catholic Media Pushing Gun Control

Wisconsin: Gov. Evers Calls for Firearm Confiscation & Criminalizing Private Transfers

The Hopkins Hypocrite: Michael Bloomberg Touts Free Speech While Another Bloomberg Entity Degrades It

Andrew Who?

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

President Trump orders the declassification and release of un-redacted Russia Investigation related documents and text messages

The following is the September 17th, 2019 Statement from the Press Secretary:

At the request of a number of committees of Congress, and for reasons of transparency, the President has directed the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice (including the FBI) to provide for the immediate declassification of the following materials: (1) pages 10-12 and 17-34 of the June 2017 application to the FISA court in the matter of Carter W. Page; (2) all FBI reports of interviews with Bruce G. Ohr prepared in connection with the Russia investigation; and (3) all FBI reports of interviews prepared in connection with all Carter Page FISA applications.

In addition, President Donald J. Trump has directed the Department of Justice (including the FBI) to publicly release all text messages relating to the Russia investigation, without redaction, of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Bruce Ohr. [Emphasis added]

This will give the people the opportunity to see who said what to whom, and who knew what about the attempt to take down a sitting President of the United States.

This was a coup d’etat or putch.

The truth must be revealed so that it can never again happen to anyone, let alone the President.

New Study Links Premarital Sex with Separation and Divorce

Study: ‘Generalized beliefs that uncommitted sex is okay … can contribute to the failure of a marriage’


by Paul Murano  •  ChurchMilitant.com

If you already knew divorce rates today are in part the byproduct of the sexual revolution, this will confirm your wisdom. A new study conducted by a group of Florida State University researchers, published in the journal Psychological Scienceconcludes that premarital sex can have deleterious effects on one’s future marriage.

The researchers investigated common factors influential in determining the success and failure of marriagesAmong the major factors contributing to marriage failure is an individual’s premarital beliefs and behaviors toward uncommitted sex.

What we’ve found,” Juliana French, the first author of the studysaid in a statement to the Association for Psychological Science, “is that when, prior to their marriage, one or both spouses hold generalized beliefs that uncommitted sex is okay, that can contribute to the failure of a marriage.”

Generalized beliefs that uncommitted sex is okay can contribute to the failure of a marriage.Tweet

French, along with assistant professor Andrea Meltzer and fellow graduate student Emma Altgelt, collected and analyzed data from 204 newly married couples, focusing primarily on information gathered about their behaviors and attitudes prior to marriage. 

While following up periodically with the couples over several years in order to discover what may lead to marital satisfaction, they collected information and cataloged data on which couples had eventually separated or filed for divorce.

The researchers found that people who expressed behaviors, desires and attitudes prior to marriage that would make them more likely to engage in uncommitted sexual relationshipswho generally believed that sex without love or commitment is OKwere more likely to separate and divorce.

The bad news goes even further. While those who were loose in attitude and behavior on sex without commitment were less satisfied at the start of their marriages, and experienced more rapid declines in satisfaction over the first several years of marriagepeople whose marital partners had been “unrestricted” or promiscuous in action and attitude prior to marriage also  experienced a rapid decline in marital satisfaction over the first few years of marriage, leading to greater likelihood of separation or divorce — even if they themselves were premaritally celibate.

“What we found most surprising about these results was the fact that both [spouses’ premarital attitudes and experience] play an important role in long-term marital outcomes,” said French.

This study is another example of science supporting the truth and goodness of natural law, codified in Christian moral teachingScripture infers that sexual union is not simply something one does, but something two become. 

Two becoming “one flesh” could happen within (Gen. 2:24), or outside of (1 Cor. 6:16) marriage. Aquinas speaks of the one-flesh union as creating a new relation that cannot be repudiated. We are learning more through science about the profundity of the biblical term of two becoming one flesh. 

Scripture infers that sexual union is not simply something one does, but something two become. Tweet

Genetic material, chemical compounds, hormones and prostaglandins, nucleotides and seminal proteins are exchanged and commingled in this greatest of natural human intimaciesTracey Chapman, a researcher at the University of East Anglia in Norwich in the United Kingdom, has conducted studies on fruit flies and has concluded that seminal protein is a “master regulator of genes and that females exposed to it through sexual union show a wide range of changes in gene expression.

Cells have proteins called receptors that bind to signaling molecules and initiate a physiological response. Chapman believes this kind of sexual signaling is widespread in the animal world, raising questions about what kind of behavioral responses may occur in female mammals.

A 2002 CUNY study conducted by psychologist Gordon Gallup and subsequent confirmations indicate that seminal fluid does indeed alter the mood of womenas it is absorbed into their bloodstream and acts as a mood stabilizer and safeguard against depression

It is now well-documented that “bonding hormones” such as oxytocin and vasopressin are released during sexual intimacy, causing emotional and psychological bonding between the two partners. Other scientific studies relating to male microchimerism in women and the possibility of telegony in humans have pointed to other interesting possibilities that may someday uncover more depth of truth about the one-flesh union.

The more science reveals insight into the physical, psychological and social dimensions of the family, the more the “Sexual Revolution” is nakedly exposed as the destructive foundation upholding our Culture of DeathAs this study points to in its correlation between premarital sex and divorce, it is a revolution not only against God, but against human nature as well.

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: President Donald Trump Tours the Progress on the Border Wall in San Diego, CA

In San Diego, California, President Donald J. Trump got an up-close look yesterday at the great progress being made on new and replacement border wall.

“We’re building it at a breakneck speed,” the President said after receiving an update from Border Patrol officials. All told, the wall will “be over 400 miles. And we think we can get it close to 500 miles by the end of next year,” he added.

President Trump’s goal has always been to stop illegal immigration and protect the American people. Now, with border wall construction underway, the results are undeniable: Illegal border crossings plummeted 30 percent between July and August.

“Nobody is coming in unless they’re coming in legally. They’re coming in through a process,” the President said.

© All rights reserved.

8 Stubborn Facts on Gun Violence in America

The Heritage Foundation has published a booklet titled “8 Stubborn Facts on Gun Violence in America.” Heritage Foundation’s John Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government,  and Amy Swearer, visiting Legal Fellow, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, did a column after the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida in March 14, 2018 using the same title.

Both the booklet and column found that politicians are willing to rush to judgement about mass shootings without knowing all of the facts. In the case of the Parkland shooting, every level of government, from the Broward County School District, to the Broward County Sheriff to the Federal Bureau of Investigation knew that Nickolas Cruz was a threat and clear and present danger to his fellow students. Yet, at each level, government failed. Why?

John Malcolm and Amy Swearer note:

Here are eight stubborn facts to keep in mind about gun violence in America:

  1. Violent crime is down and has been on the decline for decades.
  2. The principal public safety concerns with respect to guns are suicides and illegally owned handguns, not mass shootings.
  3. A small number of factors significantly increase the likelihood that a person will be a victim of a gun-related homicide.
  4. Gun-related murders are carried out by a predictable pool of people.
  5. Higher rates of gun ownership are not associated with higher rates of violent crime.
  6. There is no clear relationship between strict gun control legislation and homicide or violent crime rates.
  7. Legally owned firearms are used for lawful purposes much more often than they are used to commit crimes or suicide.
  8. Concealed carry permit holders are not the problem, but they may be part of the solution.

Each of these facts is firmly based on empirical data.

Malcolm and Swearer state, “Murders in the United States are very concentrated. According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, over 50 percent of murders occur in 2 percent of the nation’s 3,142 counties. Moreover, gun-related homicides are heavily concentrated in certain neighborhoods within those counties: 54 percent of U.S. counties had zero murders in 2014.” [Emphasis added]

According to the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC):

Murders actually used to be even more concentrated.  From 1977 to 2000, on average 73 percent of counties in any given year had zero murders. Possibly, this change is a result of the opioid epidemic’s spread to more rural areas. But that question is beyond the scope of this study.  Lott’s book “More Guns, Less Crime” showed how dramatically counties within states vary dramatically with respect to murder and other violent crime rates. [Emphasis added]

John R. Lott, Jr. in the third edition of his book “More Guns, Less Crime” states,

There are certain points that are beyond dispute.

1. By any measure, concealed- handgun permit holders are extremely law abiding.
2. Even the number of anecdotal news stories of defensive gun uses completely dwarfs any possible bad actions by permit holders with their concealed handguns.
3. No refereed academic articles by economists or criminologists claim that right- to- carry laws have a significant bad effect on crime rates.

Lott concludes, “At some point the risk of gun- free zones is going to have to be seriously discussed. Whether one looks at city or country gun bans or even smaller gun bans involving malls or schools, bans increase violence and murder. The gun- control debate has changed dramatically over the last decade.”

CPRC notes, “According to a 2013 PEW Research Center survey, the household gun ownership rate in rural areas was 2.11 times greater than in urban areas (“Why Own a Gun? Protection is Now Top Reason,” PEW Research Center, March 12, 2013).   Suburban households are 28.6% more likely to own guns than urban households. Despite lower gun ownership, urban areas experience much higher murder rates. One should not put much weight on this purely “cross-sectional” evidence over one point in time and many factors determine murder rates, but it is still interesting to note that so much of the country has both very high gun ownership rates and zero murders.”

Recently gun owners, particularly member of the National Rifle Association, have become the targets of the Democratic Party and their candidates running for president. Taking away guns is their mantra. Democrats regurgitate this without understanding how government has failed each and every time there has been a mass shooting. Governments at every level fail to understand that gun violence depends on: where one lives, who is your intimate partner, if you are a gang member and if are you a male between the ages of 18-34. The victims are predominantly women and children.

Government, especially in the case of Parkland, failed to see the numerous “red flags” when it came to Nickolas Cruz. In every mass shooting someone saw something, and in many cases, said something to government officials. The tragedy is that government officials often fail to take action, which is the greatest threat which leads to gun violence. It’s the government stupid!

Government cannot regulation or legislate morality. The answer is simple: Thou shall not murder!

© All rights reserved.

RELATED:

When Democrats Push For Universal Background Checks, The Danger Of A National Gun Registry Looms

Father of Parkland Victim on What Could Have Stopped the Tragedy

Violate Your Oath And Turn On American Citizens At Your Legal Peril, Gun-Grabbers

Idea Sheet from WH and DOJ On Toomey-Manchin Background Checks by The Daily Caller

Report: White House, DOJ Floats Background Check Proposal Amongst Republicans

VIDEO: The Mental Health Box

Declaring people mentally ill was a favorite tactic of communist dictators…the Democrats are trying to do the same thing.

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Is Petitioned to Rehear the Federal Refugee Resettlement Opinion

ANN ARBOR, MI— The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) and Bursch Law PLLC have filed a petition for rehearing by the entire Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals bench of a two-judge panel opinion of that court dismissing Tennessee’s challenge to the constitutionality of the federal refugee resettlement program for lack of standing.​

The basis for the rehearing petition, which was filed last Friday, Sept. 6, is that the two-judge opinion is “painfully at odds” with Supreme Court precedent.The Thomas More Law Center, a national nonprofit public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, agreed to represent the State of Tennessee, its General Assembly and two state legislators at no charge, after the state’s attorney general refused to bring the requested lawsuit. John Bursch of Caledonia, Michigan, represented the plaintiffs on behalf of TMLC at the oral arguments in the Sixth Circuit.

TMLC filed the federal lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs in March 2017, alleging that the Refugee Act of 1980, currently imposed on it by the federal government, amounts to an unconstitutional power grab – commandeering millions in state taxpayer dollars for a purely federal program.

A federal district court granted the federal government’s motion to dismiss the case. On appeal to the Sixth Circuit, a two-judge panel affirmed the lower court’s dismissal on the sole grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing. It never reached the merits of the case.

Consequently, the petition for rehearing asks the Sixth Circuit’s full bench to consider the question: Does the Tennessee General Assembly have standing to challenge a regulatory regimen that allows the federal government to siphon dollars from the state treasury “at times and in amounts of the federal government’s choosing,” effectively diluting the legislature’s exclusive power of appropriation?

The controversy over refugee resettlement in Tennessee dates back to 2008. That’s when the state pulled out of the federal refugee program in accordance with its agreement with the federal government. But the flow of refugees continued, as the federal government simply transferred management of the program to a private agency, Catholic Charities of Tennessee, an arm of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, observed, “This case has enormous jurisprudential consequences, not only on the issue of the federal refugee resettlement program, but on the ability of Congress to force states to pay for future bizarre, fantastical, unwanted programs as proposed by current Democrat candidates without any recourse to the courts.”

Crucial to the argument for rehearing is the 2015 case of Arizona v. Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC), wherein the Supreme Court ruled that state legislatures have standing to bring lawsuits when their legislative powers are threatened.

The petition for rehearing states, “In sum, the federal government is siphoning state funds to pay for a program from which Tennessee has withdrawn, and it can do so on any date and for any amount it wants. As the federal government admitted in its brief, Tennessee’s decision to end participation in the Refugee Resettlement Program had ‘no implications whatsoever’ on Tennessee’s obligation to fund the program. The federal government mandates Plaintiffs provide Medicaid to otherwise eligible refugees, or face termination of federal benefits.”

Accordingly, the federal government forces Tennessee to continue funding the refugee program by threatening to pull $7 billion in federal Medicaid funding, which represents 20 percent of the state’s total budget.

The rehearing petition warned, “As the federal bureaucracy continues to grow, federal officials will increasingly look to state budgets as the solution to federal funding deficits. When federal bureaucrats do so in violation of the Constitution, e.g. by coercing states to continue funding under pain of losing 20% of the state budget, state legislators must have the ability to bring suit.”

Besides Medicaid funding, the federal government also commandeers state funds for other welfare programs and for public education of the refugees.

TMLC’s complaint alleges that “the federal government has violated the Unites States Constitution’s Spending Clause and the Tenth Amendment” by enacting legislation and rules which purport to give the federal government authority to commandeer state funds to finance the refugee resettlement program.

The argument in favor of the General Assembly’s standing is bolstered by the fact that both chambers of the Tennessee General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in 2016 in favor of filing a civil lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal refugee resettlement program. The State Senate passed Senate Joint Resolution 467, by a vote of 27-5 while the House voted 69-25 to pass the same resolution.

In accordance with SJR 467, TMLC is providing its legal services, including a potential appeal to the Supreme Court, at no cost to taxpayers.

Since January 2002 the federal government has placed more than 19,000 refugees into Tennessee cities and towns.

These refugees often arrive in poor health, with no job or English skills, and with children who are placed in public schools and in need of expensive translators and tutors. And without any waiting period they can automatically apply for all welfare programs provided by the State of Tennessee.

As a result, the federal program thwarts the state legislature’s ability to pass a balanced budget as required by the Tennessee Constitution.

In the middle of a fiscal year the federal government, for any reason, can decide to settle additional refugees into Tennessee causing the state’s spending to exceed its revenue.

In short, this purely federal program diverts state tax dollars away from other state programs that benefit deserving Tennesseans.

Clearly, the General Assembly has been deprived of its right “to spend state funds in the manner the people of Tennessee may – through their elected legislators – deem appropriate,” the petition states.

You can read the full petition for rehearing here.

You can read the original complaint, as filed by TMLC in March 2017, here.

Low Lying Fruit About To Be Plucked

The hunters have now become the hunted. They are all going down. It’s either us or them. I for one, do not think Trump is in this to lose. You see, we are now at steps six, seven and eight on the scale of discovery and action I wrote about last year. We are at war and we are in fact winning. I am well documented stating this for nearly three years now in my books, articles, media interviews and public speeches. President Trump actually named Page, Strzok, Comey and McCabe in this exchange with the media as individuals guilty of treason. But the swamp runs very deep. This is just the beginning, the low lying fruit.

What to Expect?

They are all going down. Yes, that includes the Clinton’s and the Obama’s in due time. Mark my words. It begins now in 2019 and carries on through Trump’s second term. It will be a cascading avalanche at some point in time. Just like Hillary Clinton stated way back when that if you take me down that she would bring all of Washington DC down with her. Well its seems Mcabe has said the very same thing as reported by Sara Carter on the Laura Ingraham show.

AG Barr and John Durham are working in great detail on multiple investigations. Remember, FISA brings down the house. Then we have Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch, and  Rudy Giuliani, all working on different aspects of taking down the deep state. And as President Trump told us at the Orlando rally in 2019, that the state department has most if not all of the 33,000 e-mails that Clinton bleached. Then there are the NSA files, Wikileaks and all that Julian Assange will reveal once extradited to the US and gets his day in court. Then there is the Jeffrey Epstein case. Now I for one have not seen a death certificate, autopsy report, or a funeral for Epstein. Did he kill himself? I was not there, but I would say most definitely not. Was he suicided? Meaning killed by another to look like a suicide? Highly probable. Or, is Epstein being held in a military detention as a controlled high valued asset to extrapolate intel? Time will tell. Dead or alive, much of the intel needed to go after those surrounding the Epstein case is already procured. The list is extensive and it is global.

The deep state scum will eat each other alive throughout this process. They will rat each other out as the cascading avalanche crushes them all. Caution, as time goes by, we will learn about not only treasonous acts and crimes, but horrific acts which include pedophilia and believe it or not acts even far worse than this. For now, I will leave it at that. Oh and don’t be concerned about impeachment or any other subpoenas or attacks against President Trump. They have NOTHING on the President, nothing. There will be no impeachment. If by chance it gets to and then through the house, its’ DOA in the Senate. The deep state  and its fake news media operatives are panicking. They know they are in deep S$%t. Sit back, enjoy the show.

THE STORM IS UPON US

Trump and the Age of Transparency

So you can see the de-class is now underway. The swamp is being drained. Do you think it is by coincidence that headline after headline is coming out with regards to 911? This issue along with Benghazi, fast and furious, JFK, MLK, RFK and scores of other injustices, and crimes against humanity, will dominate the headlines throughout President Trump’s second term. This will include the nationalization of the Federal Reserve and the restoration of sound money restoring power to the people. I cover this weekly, with Economist Dr. Kirk Elliott on the GFR (Global Financial Reset) weekly report here on my YouTube channel.

The world is changing. And so, we are engaged and embarking upon a truly unprecedented time in our history. Buckle down. Stay the course, trust the plan and remember, Freedom…it’s up to U.S.

Related Articles

Levels and Layers They Are All Going Down

Comey and the De-class According to Plan

Military Tribunals Coming Soon For You To View

The Storm Is Upon Us

My Draw Mohammad Manifesto

This is for artists who’ve remained silent about the issue of drawing Mohammad, even after cartoonists were slaughtered over it, and who are afraid to draw Mohammad, though they’d never admit it, and who have never been challenged over it. The reason why the Charlie Hebdo massacre happened is because ten years earlier, when Danish cartoonists were threatened with murder for drawing Mohammad, the civilized world, the world that claims to defend Free Speech, sold out Free Speech, submitted to the savages, and even justified the threats. And the enemy saw that abject fear across the West, and they knew that they could get away with murder. And they did, because no one speaks of Charlie Hebdo anymore, and hardly anyone draws Mohammad anymore.

But still, after those at Charlie Hebdo were murdered over Mohammad cartoons on January 7, 2015, you would have thought that such an attack would have rallied the West to respond in a strong way, and for publishers across the world to publish the cartoons, in defiance of such an attack on civilization. Instead, fear ruled the day and it created a vacuum that sleazy politicians filled. They made the attack all about themselves, as they converged in France, leading crowds to nowhere, and saying nothing worthwhile or true about what had happened. And recalling the videos and the pictures at the time, these sleazy politicians probably made sure that the Mohammad cartoons that the cartoonists were murdered over were nowhere in sight in the crowds behind them. But there were plenty of trendy pens being held in the air, and t-shirts and signs with “Je Suis Charlie”, worn and held by those who would never draw Mohammad. If you don’t draw Mohammad, you don’t get to say “Je Suis Charlie”. The event dishonored those at Charlie Hebdo, and ignored the entire point of it all, that we must defy these evil savages by doing precisely what they threaten us not to do.

Eventually, it took the typically callous actions of Muslims to finally provoke a strong response. Eleven days after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, Muslims walked over their dead bodies to hold an event at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas, to defend Mohammad from criticism and cartoons called “Stand with the Prophet in Honor and Respect”. And Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer saw that and decided to stand with Free Speech by organizing a Mohammad cartoon contest where the winner would be announced at the same location, where there would also be an exhibition of Mohammad art, and Geert Wilders would be the keynote speaker. I ended up winning the contest, and the jihadists who came to mass-murder us ended up getting their heads blown off. And then there was a second attack on us, but this time it was by the media, on both the left and the right, who were determined to paint us- the targets of a terrorist attack -as worse than the jihadists who came to murder us.

Free Speech isn’t about what we can talk about, it’s not about speech that’s considered “acceptable” in society at any particular time, it’s about saying what “can’t” be said, yet still saying it, come what may. And that freedom to say the unsayable is under relentless attack by those who view that freedom as a threat to them. Weak ideas, weak ideologies, can’t withstand scrutiny. And people having the freedom to say whatever they want could lead them to call out those ideas and ideologies, to expose them as the complete opposite of what they claim to be, and that’s why Muslims and leftists are the greatest enemies of Free Speech, because they have the most to lose if their ideas are allowed to be scrutinized.

If you don’t support cartoonists drawing Mohammad, then you don’t support Free Speech. If you reserve all of your condemnation for those who draw Mohammad, and are silent about those who threaten them over it, then you’re a coward.

Once human beings are murdered over cartoons, those who would invoke “hurt feelings” and “decorum” should be completely dismissed. This is an issue of free expression, an issue of defying an enemy in wartime who wants to kill you if you exercise that freedom. Yet I’m still told that I shouldn’t draw Mohammad because it “hurts” the feelings of Muslims, because it’s not “nice”, because it pisses off Muslims. The only reason people are worried about pissed off Muslims is because Muslims act violently when they’re pissed off. But my support for Free Speech doesn’t end when Muslim violence begins, my support only grows stronger.

Still, to this day, I’m accused of “provoking” Muslims, when it’s their threats over cartoons that “provokes” me to draw Mohammad. I know that most cartoonists don’t draw Mohammad because of death threats, but death threats should have been the spark to get most of us to draw Mohammad. It did with me. I was raised Muslim, and I never even considered drawing Mohammad, and I didn’t even know that there was a prohibition against it. But when Muslims warn us that we can’t draw Mohammad because Islam forbids it, we have a choice, to either draw Mohammad or become de facto Muslims and sell out Free Speech.

We’re always hearing that “it’s time” for something to be said or done, for no other reason that that “it’s 2019”, and it’s usually something as stupid as “It’s time for a black, female, transgender James Bond.” Well, it’s time that cartoonists who claim to support free speech draw Mohammad. Otherwise, you’re full of it.

It’s time that those who claim to support Free Speech are put to the test. Behaving as an enemy wants you to behave is capitulation, but I’m told by some cartoonists who haven’t drawn Mohammad that it’s not their “thing”, that it doesn’t “interest” them. When cartoonists are murdered for drawing something that an enemy at war with us doesn’t want us to draw, the only self-respecting thing one can do is to draw precisely what the bastards don’t want you to draw. Can you imagine the World War Two generation being warned by Hitler and his Nazis that if they drew Hitler, they would be murdered, and of that generation falling silent and not drawing Hitler? That warning would have resulted in endless Hitler cartoons. I don’t want to hear, “Well, that was a different time”, because it’s just an excuse to capitulate, as if we all have to get on board with this Age of Capitulation, just because so many do it. Defying evil is a timeless thing, and while I understand that not everyone is built for it, if none do so, then evil wins. And right now, evil is winning. That we cannot defeat the Islamic enemy, almost 18 years after 9/11, is a defeat unto itself.

Where is the traditional American defiance in all of this? As Ayn Rand put it, “Defiance, not obedience, is the American’s answer to overbearing authority.” And look at the part of the world that doesn’t draw Mohammad to know what happens when evil wins, to see what happens to an entire part of the world where the bad guy won. A world so defeated that the founder of the ideology that defeated them cannot be drawn, cannot be criticized, and so cannot be overthrown from their mind. The West resembles the Islamic world more than the Islamic world resembles the West, post-9/11. That’s Islamization at work. The incremental, corrosive, pushing of Islam down our throats as something good and valuable to us, when it’s antithetical to everything we claim to upheld.

When it comes to Mohammad cartoons and cartoonists, I’m particularly disappointed with Frank Miller, who’s referred to as a “controversial” cartoonist, but who hasn’t drawn Mohammad in the 14 years since cartoonists were first threatened with murder for drawing Mohammad, at least in a way that the news media couldn’t ignore. Miller used to talk a good game about Free Speech decades ago, but he’s pretty much clammed up about Free Speech since the Mohammad cartoon “crisis” hit, which tells me that his “support” for Free Speech was all talk. If you’re not going to support Free Speech when it most matters, then I don’t want to hear you yap about it when it least matters.

As for those who tell me that it’s not their “duty” to put their lives on the line by drawing Mohammad: Drawing Mohammad is not a death sentence, but Not drawing Mohammad, and not publishing Mohammad cartoons could be a death sentence for our culture. Speaking for myself, I’ve drawn Mohammad over 300 times, I survived a jihadist attack, I’ve gotten thousands of death threats from Muslims, and I’m alive. Yes, the bastards want me dead, and my life has become difficult at times, but Free Speech is alive, even if I’m the last one drawing Mohammad. If I’m going to die over this, then I’m going to die as I want to live, not as an enemy wants me to “live”.

Islamic dictatorships forbid Mohammad cartoons, and the West is increasingly forbidding Mohammad cartoons. That this needs to be stated tells us how far we’ve fallen, but we need to be completely different from Islamic dictatorships, and in this issue, we’re far too alike. And that’s why I have two books worth of my Mohammad cartoons, so far, to try to keep that world at bay, even if only by myself.

Some things are worse than death, such as a world without Free Speech. We know what that kind of world looks like, what kind of hellhole it is, so we should operate in a way that makes our world completely different from that world. And if this challenge of mine only makes people openly admit their fear of drawing Mohammad, then that’s a start.

The Islamic enemy has many on its side who want to kill Free Speech, and we have very few on our side who want to defend it. This is unacceptable, and it’s unbecoming of a people who have the freedom to speak, but who choose not to, out of fear. The Danish Mohammad cartoon “crisis”, and the Charlie Hebdo massacre were challenges to our core values, and we failed to meet those challenges directly and honestly. We’ve become a culture that is regularly paying tribute to an ideology that sanctions the war against us. It’s infuriating, at times, to see this widespread cowardice, and to see a weak enemy have such power over so many of us.

It’s tough to hear cartoonists talk about their “brave” and “controversial” work – such as portraying Jesus as a warlord, (while they would Never portray Mohammad as the warlord he actually was). It’s equally tough to see an organization- one that I used to be a card-carrying member of -claim that it’s all for Free Speech, but then run at the first sign of trouble. The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund published a pamphlet about “Cartoonists Under Fire”, which was written after the Garland attack, and which made No mention of me, a cartoonist who was literally under fire in Texas. I called them out publicly, on my blog, on social media, and on Red Eye, and some CBLDF members scrambled to try to put a good face on it, but they showed that their “support” for Free Speech was very conditional and very leftist. And they’ll never get another penny from me.

It’s insane that cartoonists are threatened with death for drawing Mohammad cartoons, and it’s insane that we’re blamed for inciting terrorism, and I draw Mohammad, repeatedly, to push back against such insanity. This is war, on the battlefield, and in the culture, and I’m challenging cartoonists to prove their support for Free Speech by drawing Mohammad. Right now, and it’s hard to believe, but I’m the only cartoonist who is regularly drawing Mohammad today. There should be so many people drawing Mohammad that it confounds the enemy. If many of us drew Mohammad after the Mohammad cartoon “crisis”, and if many publishers published Mohammad cartoons, those at Charlie Hebdo might still be alive, because they wouldn’t have been so isolated and so easy to kill, as the few who drew Mohammad. A few years before the massacre, Charlie Hebdo had their offices firebombed, and Hebdo’s publisher, Stephane “Charb” Charbonnier, stated at the time, “I would rather die standing than live on my knees.”We Americans all have a good time mocking the French, but they did what many of us don’t dare do, so we should keep that in mind before pretending that we’re better than them on the issue of Free Speech. Where is the American equivalent of Charlie Hebdo?

Marvel and DC Comics, and other mainstream comic book publishers, have published benefit books for all kinds of causes over the decades, and I think “it’s time” for Free Speech to get that same kind of treatment.

As for those cartoonists who might be waiting to draw Mohammad, waiting until the coast is clear: the coast isclear. It was cleared by those who defend freedom. Some, with their very lives. If we keep acting as if Free Speech is over, it will be.

The question isn’t “Why would you draw Mohammad if you know it makes Muslims crazy?”, the question is, “How do you respond when Muslims threaten to murder over Mohammad cartoons?” And the answer is, by drawing Mohammad cartoons. Free Speech is under attack by the left, by Muslims, and by the worst on the right, so when Free Speech is under attack, you defend it, you exercise it, you push back and you defy its enemies. It’s a simple thing, but we’re living in such a mad time in history that savages have made cartoons a part of the battleground in this never-ending post-9/11 war. Cartoons. And that’s not to diminish the value of cartoons, which I love and which I make my living on, it’s to illustrate how fragile, how hypersensitive this enemy is, and how we should use that as part of the defense of the West.

One of the most self-loathing things I hear from non-Muslims about Mohammad cartoons is that it’s “blasphemous” to Muslims, as if we should place something as unimportant to us as “blaspheming” Islam above something as important to us as our freedom of expression. As if Islamic blasphemy should be any concern of those of us who don’t observe Islam. As if Islam’s prohibitions should be our prohibitions. This is one of the things that distinguishes Islam from other religions, in that it is the least live and let live religion in history. And regardless what people tell themselves about the nature of Islam, the fact that its founder was a warlord tells us all we need to know about Islam’s nature. “But there’s a verse in the Koran which tells people to live and let live!” I’m told. And then I have to inform them of Islam’s doctrine of abrogation, which is that if later verses in the Koran contradict earlier ones, then Muslims are to go with the later ones. So the later, violent passages calling for war killed whatever “peaceful” passages there were. One of the great conceits of Islam is that not only are Muslims to follow Mohammad as ‘the perfect model’, but that we all are. That’s a hostile religion that has overstepped itself, and we need to remind Muslims that Islam has no sway over us. And in this post-9/11 world, one of the most dramatic ways to show that is to draw Mohammad.

Some people have actually told me that they’re afraid to even like my social media posts, which is a terrible state for a free people to be in. And even if none of you answer the challenge and draw Mohammad, well, that’ll make a point as well. You either support Free Speech or you don’t. You cannot remain neutral when your fellow cartoonists are threatened with murder and then murdered over cartoons, no matter what you tell yourself. No matter what others tell you. And no matter if no one ever challenges you about it. You know you’ve capitulated. I’m just letting you know that I know that you have.

If you believe that you “can’t” draw Mohammad, then you’ve sold out Free Speech to its savage enemies.

You support Free Speech or you don’t.

Support Free Speech.

Draw Mohammad.

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Is America Next?

Western Europe is at its last breath and they know it. It was collective and deliberate cultural suicide by the EU leaders and there is no going back. Once you are dead, you are dead. Now, the question is how far is America behind Europe in its own demise!

The recent massive migration and redistribution of Muslims into every corner of America and rising numbers due to their high birth rate has become troublesome. In addition, Muslims’ revert to their intolerant behavior that has made many Americans against this small minority. For instance, demanding legal status for Sharia (Islamic laws), the type of draconian laws that for the most part resemble those of man’s barbaric past has made some Americans concerned. But being concerned and doing something about it is millions of miles apart. Many Americans who understand the issue are frustrated and feel helpless.

The idea that Muslims are only a very small minority and it is simply not possible that this small group could destroy America from within, is a myth that the leftist media crafted and forced down the throats of gullible Americans. The American people have been repeatedly lectured by the know it all, elected officials and leftist media, claim that only a very small minority of Muslims are troublemakers who are given the peaceful masses of Muslims a bad name. According to them, those of us who sound the alarm are a bunch of bigots, racists and Islamophobes. Well then, wouldn’t it be more prudent to let the facts settle the matter, rather than blindly accepting either position?

Of course, it would, except for one huge problem. In the face of threats, people tend to go to the mind’s medicine cabinet and take a few denial pills, in the same way they turn to their aspirin bottle when a headache strikes.  Well, just ask any European who fled his country for a safer place like the US if the Islam problem is real and deadly. I have news for you: Neither the pronouncements of officials, nor any tranquilizer can make Islam go away. Islam is here and it shows every sign of imposing itself on us as it has in Europe.

Recall that it took only 19 of these killers to launch the aerial mass murder of 9/11 that killed almost 3,000 people, shattered our open trusting way of life, and cost us trillions of dollars. Unfortunately, we have not learned anything from the 9/11 attacks but instead, act as if we are suffering from Stockholm syndrome.

As time passed, we learned these new Muslim arrivals not only assimilate, but they also use our laws against us in order to advance Islam in America. These newcomers have taken advantage of the provisions of the most benign system known to humanity, democracy, to implode it from within. To Muslims, no other religion is deemed worthy of recognition, much less accommodation. There is not a single church or synagogue or a Buddhist temple in all of Saudi Arabia. They are banned.

Western armchair theorizers and wishful thinkers need to take time and study the Islamic system in order to avoid making empty demands on Muslim leaders that will never be met because they are completely unrealistic and against their religion.

Islam presently has its stranglehold over a billion human beings, posing as an existential threat to all non-Muslims. When this billion and a half adhere to the pathological belief of Islam and use it as their marching orders in life, the rest of humanity ignores this threat at their peril.

OK, let me tell you the truth. The reality portrays a vastly different picture. America is far from a stronghold given its vast wide-open borders. It is a nation of laws where all forms of freedom are enshrined in the Constitution. It is where Americans live by a humane ethos diametrically opposed from those of Islamist savagery. Sadly, these differences confer great advantage to Islamists and place America in imminent danger.

Let me repeat my statement again: the breach of “Fortress America” from the air on 9/11 is only the first installment of much more forthcoming dreadful assaults, unless we abandon our complacency, stop relying on the invincibility of law-enforcement, our phony elected official political talks, fake news media and are willing to make the sacrifice needed to protect our way of life, maybe only then can we survive.

We the People must reevaluate and amend all that has been fed to us for years by crafty politicians and the leftist mainstream media. America is not safe and it is only going to get worse. Islam’s invasion is currently in progress just under your nose via stealth jihad and subversion. The sad part of it is that most Americans don’t even realize it.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Welcome to the Islamic States of America | Secure America Now

William Pelham Barr, Patriot or Traitor?

John Brennan writes: “But if democracy is a process rather than a state, the democratic process may involve, at some point, the violation of personal liberties and procedural justice.”

“This is the chilling apologia for the anti-Trump conspiracy.  In order to keep the regime moving “forward,” the violation of personal liberties and procedural justice” is justified, whether it is an unpaid campaign adviser being violated (Carter Page) or the National Security Advisor (General Mike Flynn); whether it entails launching a disinformation campaign (Trump/Russia), or reversing an election (the Mueller probe).  The ends – their ends – justify any means.” – Diana West in her book, The Red Thread


William Pelham Barr has a history of cover-ups, and the more I look at the facts, the more convinced I’ve become that he will protect the Deep State.  Resistance to the onslaught of evil is almost non-existent.  Socialists control the mass media, they have all the money in the world, they control higher and now even lower education, and they have edged their way into the pulpits of America.  Add all of that up along with our ignorant electorate who blindly vote without any knowledge of the candidates and how the hell are we ever to win?  These freedom hating socialists belong in the center of Dante’s hell.

It is a sobering fact that American presidents (many of whom have been corrupt) have gone out of their way to hire fixers to be their attorney generals.  Recent history alone gives us a good look at several of them…Loretta Lynch (2015-2017), Eric Holder (2009-2015), Michael Mukasey (2007-2009), Alberto Gonzales (2005-2007), John Ashcroft (2001-2005), Janet Reno (1993-2001), Dick Thornburgh (1988-1991), Ed Meese (1985-1988), etc.

Barr, however, seems to be a particularly spectacular and sordid case. As George H. W. Bush’s most notorious CIA insider from 1973 to 1977, and as the AG from 1991 to 1993, Barr wreaked havoc, flaunted the rule of law, and proved himself to be one of the CIA/Deep State’s greatest and most ruthless champions and protectors.  In fact, his modus operandi is a great deal like that of his close friend, Robert Mueller. Before becoming Attorney General in 1991, Barr held numerous other posts within the Department of Justice (DOJ), including serving as Deputy Attorney General.

The CIA, Congress and Covert Operations

The issue of notification of Congress about imminent clandestine activities was at the heart of the Iran-Contra scandal when President Ronald Reagan and CIA Director William Casey specifically ordered that lawmakers be kept in the dark about the infamous, covert arms-for-hostages deals with Iran.

Barr was by no means alone in pushing these views, the documents show. Other notable proponents during the Iran-Contra aftermath included then-Congressman Dick Cheney and John R. Bolton, who was also at the Justice Department.  After Cheney became defense secretary, he continued to press for extraordinarily broad Executive Branch authority, advising then-President George H. W. Bush to veto the Senate’s intelligence appropriations bill on the grounds it “attacked” presidential prerogatives – resulting in the only known such veto since the CIA’s creation.  Link

Spook Air Moves to Ohio

Previously documented was Mr. Barr’s involvement with the CIA, the Iran-Contra scandal, the covert arms-for-hostages deals with Iran and Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton’s sellout to the CIA.

Arkansas was great for Iran Contra, but it was a wealthy Ohio businessman and his close associate that helped attract the CIA to the Buckeye State. Those men were billionaire philanthropist Leslie Wexner and Jeffrey Epstein.  Wexner owns The Limited and Victoria’s Secret, and during this period, he had entrusted all of his money to his longtime friend, Jeffrey Epstein, a secretive financier.

Wexner and his company had a relationship with the CIA and Southern Air Transport (SAT) which was directly owned and used by the CIA for covert operations from 1960-1973.  SAT was intimately involved in the Iran-Contra affair, having been used to funnel weapons and drugs to and from the Nicaraguan Contras under the guise of delivering “humanitarian aid.”

Ohio gave lucrative tax incentives to SAT for a promised 300 new jobs they’d bring to Columbus that never transpired.  Columbus Free Press editor, Bob Fitrakis noted that in addition to Wexner the other main figures who were key in securing SAT’s relocation to Ohio were Alan D. Fiers Jr., a former chief of the CIA Central American Task Force, and retired Air Force Major General Richard Secord, head of air logistics for SAT’s covert action in Laos between 1966 and 1968, while the company was still known as Air America. Secord was also the air logistics coordinator in the illegal Contra resupply network for Oliver North during Iran-Contra.

Fiers was later pardoned by George H. W. Bush with help from then AG Bill Barr.

William Safire on AG Barr

Back in 1992, the first time Bill Barr was U.S. attorney general, New York Times writer William Safire referred to him as “Coverup-General Barr” because of his role in burying evidence of then-President George H. W. Bush’s involvement in “Iraq-gate” and “Iran-Contra.”  Iraq-gate was essentially the Bush administration using the agriculture department and banking to illegally divert funds to build up Saddam Hussein’s military after the Iraq-Iran war, including selling him weapons of mass destruction.  This was a huge scandal that Safire was involved in covering.

Barr has been the go-to guy for protecting a president, covering up scandals, and obstructing investigations. In August 1992, Safire wrote about Barr’s refusal to appoint an independent counsel to investigate what he called Iraq-gate.  Safire lasered in on what he thought was “the Bush Administration’s fraudulent use of public funds, its sustained deception of Congress and its obstruction of justice.”

Another independent counsel, Lawrence Walsh, had been named to investigate the Iran-contra affair in 1986 and would infuriate Republicans when he issued high profile indictments on the eve of the 1992 election.

AG Barr was already covering up for Bush, Weinberger, Elliott Abrams, former assistant secretary of state; Robert C. McFarlane, former national security adviser, and former CIA officials Clair E. George, Alan D. Fiers and Duane Clarridge and others from the Reagan administration.

Elliott Abrams; George H. W. Bush; Caspar Weinberger; William Barr (AP/Getty/Salon)

On October 19, 1992, Safire wrote of Barr’s unwillingness to appoint an independent counsel to look into Iraq-gate, “Why does the Coverup-General resist independent investigation? Because he knows where it may lead: to Dick Thornburgh, James Baker, Clayton Yeutter, Brent Scowcroft and himself (the people who organized the sale of WMDs to Saddam). He vainly hopes to be able to head it off, or at least be able to use the threat of firing to negotiate a deal.”

Three months later, Safire revisited the issue after Barr “handpicked a whitewasher” who would successfully filibuster the probe until after the election.  Barr pushed hard for last minute pardons for six individuals caught up in the investigation, including former defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger.

Lawrence Walsh had been appointed to investigate the Iran-Contra activities of the Reagan administration and determine if crimes had been committed.  But the pardons by Barr aborted Weinberger’s trial and virtually eliminated what was left of Walsh’s investigation.  Walsh denounced the pardons and stated that doing so “undermines the principle that no man is above the law.”

Walsh’s tenure effectively discredited the independent counsel law in the eyes of both parties.

In Safire’s article, Justice Corrupts Justice, he accused Barr of not only rigging the cover-up, but of being one of the criminals who could be prosecuted.

John Bolton

John Bolton has always been a war hawk, one who promoted funding for the military industrial complex.  As such, I am thrilled that our President fired him.

Bolton has made a career out of defying Congress. During the Iran-Contra investigations, he refused to comply with Congressional demands for records. Bolton also believed that the Independent Counsel law was unconstitutional and did everything he could do preempt Congress’s efforts to investigate Iran-Contra. Bolton has no record of building up and reforming institutions. He defies laws, believes in might makes right, and has worked to undermine the system of checks and balances that is key to America’s representative republic.

The Inslaw/Promis Octopus

Inslaw Inc. is an information technology firm which developed the famous Promis software. A bankruptcy court determined Inslaw was defrauded of its intellectual property rights. Hillary Clinton was the intellectual property lawyer for the company that illegally marketed the software worldwide. Mary Jacoby, wife of Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, is the daughter of a major investor in the company Hillary Clinton represented that marketed the stolen software.

The Promis software is a National Crime Information Center (NCIC)-type tracking technology incorporating numerous databases such as court records, financial

institutions, and utility companies. Inslaw was forced into bankruptcy in 1985 because the US Justice Department which contracted to purchase it, reneged on its obligations. Pirated versions of the software were sold by the US intelligence community worldwide to 88 foreign intelligence agencies, and other organizations such as banks. The program included a “backdoor” for US intelligence to hack into.

Once the original version of Promis was delivered, the DOJ handed off a copy to the CIA which subcontracted Wackenhut Corp. to develop the “backdoor.” Wackenhut hired a technical and electronics whiz-kid, Michael Riconosciuto as its Research Director. A child prodigy who built an argon laser at 16, invented the electrostatic bomb, and published his Riconosciuto Italian to English dictionary still in use by most online translators among his many other inventions, Riconosciuto was put to work designing the covert “backdoor” for the co-opted Promis program. The work was done at a facility on the Cabazon Indian Reservation in Indio California. Another modification would take place in Little Rock, Arkansas, to tailor the Promis software for use by banks.

In October 1991, Barr appointed then retired Democratic Chicago judge Nicholas Bua as special counsel in the Inslaw scandal. Few people understand the full ramifications of Promis software, and the undetectable spying apparatus placed in foreign computers. In 1989, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jack Brooks, D-TX, launched a three-year investigation into the Inslaw affair. In the resulting report, the Committee suggested that among others, Edwin Meese, while presidential counselor and later as attorney general, and Democrat D. Lowell Jensen a former assistant and deputy attorney general and former US district judge in San Francisco, conspired to steal Promis software from Bill Hamilton’s company, Inslaw.

Bua’s 1993 report found the DOJ of no wrong doing in the matter, despite a 12-year lawsuit by Inslaw, regarding the government theft of their software.  One journalist, Danny Casolaro, died as he attempted to tell the story and boxes of documents relating to the case were destroyed, stolen, or conveniently “lost” by the DOJ. Software piracy, conspiracy, cover-up, stonewalling, covert action…just another decade at the corrupt DOJ.

Barr’s Blanket Immunity for Federal Agents

Barr told the New York Times in 1993 that he was not directly involved in the Ruby Ridge operation. Two years later, the Washington Post revealed that “top officials of the Bush Justice Department had at least 20 phone contacts concerning Ruby Ridge in the 24 hours before Vicki Weaver was shot,” including two calls involving Barr.

Barr spent plenty of time organizing former Attorneys General and others to support “an FBI sniper in defending against criminal charges in connection with the Ruby Ridge incident.” Barr also “assisted in framing legal arguments advanced in the district court and the subsequent appeal to the Ninth Circuit.”  He called this, “serving the disadvantaged” pro-bono charitable work, (for FBI sniper, Lon Horiuchi, who already had a federally-paid law firm defending him) that helped tamp down one of the biggest scandals during Barr’s time as Attorney General from 1991 to early 1993.

Barr was responsible for both the U.S. Marshals Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, two federal agencies whose misconduct at Ruby Ridge “helped to weaken the bond of trust that must exist between ordinary Americans and our law enforcement agencies,” according to a 1995 Senate Judiciary Committee report.

When Boundary County, Idaho filed criminal charges against Horiuchi, Barr sprang to action seeking immunity for FBI snipers. He spearheaded efforts to sway the court to dismiss all charges because holding a sniper liable would “severely undermine, if not cripple, the ability of future attorneys general to rely on such specialized units in moments of crisis such as hostage taking and terrorist acts.”

Federal Judge Alex Kozinski warned in his dissent of a new James Bond “007 standard for the use of deadly force” against American citizens, stating, “A group of FBI agents formulated rules of engagement that permitted their colleagues to hide in the bushes and gun down men who posed no immediate threat.  Such wartime rules are patently unconstitutional for a police action.”  Link

BCCI Banking Scandal

The Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) was a shadowy but very real institution with connections to governments and intelligence services all over the world. BCCI’s owners specialized in evading regulators so that they could speculate and bribe with the depositors’ money. As the fraud mounted and spread, law enforcement officials and bank regulators the world over discovered what the CIA had been trying to hide.

Tampa’s federal prosecutors launched an investigation of money laundering in 1991.  The District Attorney of Manhattan investigated a broad array of bank activities and received zero cooperation from Justice Department and CIA.  And Barr sat on the influential deputies committee of the National Security Council, which controlled the paperwork.

“We couldn’t get records. We couldn’t get witnesses. We could barely get a meeting,” said John Moscow, the lead BCCI prosecutor in Manhattan.

Barr was up for confirmation as attorney general. Moscow said he heard that Democrats on the Judiciary Committee made Barr promise to let the BCCI investigation go ahead.  Trouble was, the big shots were indicted, but got away and Barr did not press Pakistan for their extradition, nor did his successors in the Clinton administration.

Conclusion

AG Barr appears to be someone who would protect the Deep State, not the law, and the Barr family history of Marxism is more than troubling.  The move from extreme leftism to rightwing conservatism resembles the liberal establishment takeover of the old right Republican Constitutionalists by Trotskyite Irving Kristol (father of Bill) and William F. Buckley, CIA Agent, Council on Foreign Relations member, and Yale Skull and Bones member.

That takeover neutralized the strong Republican support for our Constitutional God given freedoms and squelched the desire to fight the enemies of our Republic.  The ultimate question is…will the DOJ enemies of freedom ever truly meet justice?!

Rule of Law or Coverup General?  You decide.