Texas: Five People Sentenced for Multi-million Healthcare Fraud; Nigerians Among Them

/in , , /by

As I have said on many previous occasions, I hope the Trump Administration is gathering their successful fraud-busting cases together to use as examples of what the Trump team is doing for us—finding and punishing those ripping off the US taxpayer!

At every rally he should be giving an update on how much fraud he is uncovering and busting!

The Medicaid fraud, Medicare fraud, Food stamp fraud have been doing great damage to the US Treasury and often there is a ‘new American’ component that makes it even more egregious.

We welcome immigrants and then they rip us off!

Normally we are never told if a convicted criminal is a new American, but this story has a mention at the end.

More news about how we lost $4.5 million (this time!) to Medicaid/Medicare fraud.

From KRGV TV Rio Grand Valley,

5 People Sentenced in Health Care Fraud Case

MISSION – Attorney General Ken Paxton’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit assisted the feds to convict five people in two health care fraud cases.

Five people cheated Medicaid and Medicare out of nearly $4.5 million.

“By billing Medicare and Medicaid for services never provided, these individuals and their companies diverted healthcare dollars from the most vulnerable among us and defrauded taxpayers,” Attorney General Paxton said.

The owner of A&C Medical Supply LLC in Mission pleaded guilty to health care fraud and aggravated identity theft for stealing over $900,000 from Medicaid.

Andres Aly Alvarez was sentenced Thursday to two and a half years in prison.

The unit worked together with the U.S. Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General on the case, which was prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in McAllen.

Four people with Garland-based Elder Care Home Health Services were convicted for defrauding Medicaid and Medicare of more than $3.5 million.

This includes owner Loveth Isidaehomen, the director of nursing Tutu Kudiratu Etti, co-owner Celestine Tony Okwilagwe.

All were given a prison sentence of at least five years – Okwilagwe was sentenced to nearly 16 years in prison followed by an immediate deportation to Nigeria.

The four co-conspirators were ordered to pay more than $3.5 million in restitution. [What are the odds that the money is long gone—to Africa!—ed]

Celestine Tony Okwilagwe will spend 16 years in the slammer before being deported to Nigeria.

No time for more details, but you can learn more here and here about these crooks.

By the way, some involved in the fraud were Nigerian Olympic athletes.  And, if you check out those two links you will see that some of the Nigerians were barred from participating in the Medicare/Medicaid programs and figured a way around it (until they were caught by the Trump healthcare fraud busters.)

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission.

Unions Keep Deducting Dues Without Consent, Teachers Say

/in , , , , /by

Just a few weeks before school let out last May, unexpected visitors showed up in Bethany Mendez’s classroom.

They didn’t come to discuss the nuts and bolts of education or the work the teacher was doing to assist young students with learning disabilities.

Instead, the visitors wanted to know why she was leaving the teachers union, and if she fully understood the ramifications of resigning her membership.

“This made me very angry and upset to actually have them come to my classroom during instructional time during the day,” Mendez told The Daily Signal in an interview. “I thought the meeting was regarding a student who might have to go into one of my classes. But these were union representatives who showed up in my classroom to question me as to why I was leaving the union.”

Mendez teaches elementary school students with learning disabilities in California’s Fremont Unified School District.

Since she had her own bouts with dyslexia when she was roughly the same age as her students, Mendez explains, she became motivated to become a teacher and devote herself to assisting children who require specialized instruction.

For union officials to interrupt her instructional time, Mendez thought, was inappropriate and overly intrusive.

“I struggled with dyslexia when I was little, and that was due to a vision problem,” Mendez, 35, said. “But I was able to have surgery to fix it. For a lot of these kids, it’s a brain-wiring issue and it involves how their brain interprets visual information. My goal is to help children learn and to avoid the embarrassment of not being able to read in the third and fourth grades. I’m passionate about helping kids to bridge that gap.”

“It would be fine to have a friendly conversation outside of class, but to actually have two people come to my class while I was teaching and ask these questions I thought was a little offensive,” she said. “They asked if I knew what I was doing and if I knew what I would be giving up. My answer is I think everyone should have a choice to either opt in or opt out of joining the union.”

Suit Claims Unions Circumvent High Court

Last June, in a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down mandatory union dues and fees for public sector workers.

In their decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, the justices said “agency shop” laws requiring nonunion government workers to pay union fees violate the First Amendment rights of workers who object to the political agenda of public employee unions.

In March, Mendez, joined with four other teachers to file a class-action lawsuit in federal court against the California Teachers Association and several local affiliates, alleging that the teachers unions continued to deduct dues from their paychecks in violation of the Supreme Court’s Janus ruling.

The lawsuit also names the National Education Association, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, local school districts, and local unions as defendants.

Contrary to what union officials have argued, the teachers who signed union membership cards last year did not provide the California Teachers Association or local affiliates with “affirmative consent” to deduct dues, Mariah Gondeiro, a lawyer with the Freedom Foundation who represents the suing teachers, told The Daily Signal.

“These membership forms don’t include sufficient waiver language as required under Janus,” Gondeiro said, adding:

The unions are arguing they can lock people into these contracts because they signed these forms. But they don’t tell employees that they have an option to not fund the union. They don’t tell people that they are leaving out important facts. The teachers can’t consent to something they didn’t know about, and they did not know their rights.

The Daily Signal sought comment on the lawsuit from the California Teachers Association and the National Education Association.

Frank Wells, a communications official with the California Teachers Association, responded in an email.

“This is just another lawsuit from the Freedom Foundation to continue their attack on public education and public employees,” Wells said. “Their backers have a lot of money to spend so it’s likely these and other attacks will continue. I’d follow the money. That is the real story here.”

The National Education Association did not respond to requests for comment.

The Daily Signal also sought comment on the lawsuit and specific allegations from two local unions, the Fremont Unified District Teachers Association and the Hayward Education Association, by phone and email.

Hayward union officials referred a reporter to the state union, while the Fremont local acknowledged the request for comment and said it would be forwarded to the local’s president.

The Daily Signal also asked the California Teachers Association’s Wells whether he would like to respond on behalf of the local unions. He had not commented further at publication time.

Supreme Court and ‘Affirmative Consent’

Under the high court’s Janus ruling, teachers and other public employees must offer “affirmative consent” before a union may withhold fees from their paychecks, Gondeiro said.

In his opinion for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said automatic deduction of union fees from a nonmember’s wages without consent violates free speech rights.

Freedom Foundation, a free market think tank based in Washington state, filed an amicus brief in the Janus case asking the Supreme Court to outlaw “opt out” arrangements that put the burden on nonmembers to halt collection of union fees from their paychecks.

Public employees must make a deliberate choice to “opt in” to paying union fees, Alito said on behalf of the court majority, writing:

Neither an agency fee nor any other payment to the union may be deducted from a nonmember’s wages, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay. By agreeing to pay, nonmembers are waiving their First Amendment rights, and such a waiver cannot be presumed.

The Janus ruling affects about 5 million government employees in 22 states who no longer are required either to join a union or pay related fees as a condition of employment.

Mark Janus, a child support specialist at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, was the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit and gave the case its name.

“The opt-in requirement is something the Freedom Foundation really advocated for before Janus was decided,” Gondeiro said, adding:

The reason why is because unions are in a powerful position, and history shows they take advantage of vulnerable workers. So we wanted to make sure that the court put the burden on these powerful entities to obtain workers’ affirmative consent. Because if we didn’t, then they would just have taken advantage of workers, which they have done in the past. What’s remarkable is that even with the burden being put on the unions, they are still trying to circumvent the law.

‘All About Janus’

“I didn’t know anything about the Janus case and didn’t know that it was a possibility,” Mendez said. “I also didn’t understand why we needed to reconfirm membership. The forms didn’t make sense to me, because the dues already came out of our paychecks. But now I see that this was all about Janus.”

Union officials eventually persuaded Mendez to sign the “membership recommitment form,” which she did on June 4, 2018, just a few days before the end of the school year and a few weeks before the high court’s Janus ruling.

She had received a text message from local union officials urging her to sign up until the last few days of school.

“I was told we needed to stand 100% together to defeat a law that would destroy unions,” Mendez said:

That’s the information I got. I’m not anti-union. I think they do some good, especially my local union. I’m pro-individual rights and pro-teacher. But what I was told was not the truth. Janus does not destroy all unions. They [union leaders] did not provide us with an opportunity for informed consent, and that’s what this case is about.

Mendez says she attempted to opt out last fall from the California Teachers Association and her local union.

But there was a catch. Because Mendez signed the membership recommitment form, union representatives informed the teacher that she was locked in until this coming June. The form contained “fine print” and “a clause” that said teachers could withdraw from membership only during a 30-day window beginning when they signed the form.

$10 Refund for Political Activity

Audrey Stewart, a fellow plaintiff who teaches in Hayward Unified School District, says she is familiar with the tactics unions use to keep dues and fees flowing in from teachers who prefer not to be members.

Stewart said she also has a hard time believing that her union spends only about $10 a year on politics.

Stewart, a teacher for 30 years, told The Daily Signal that she often has found herself in a hostile work environment because she differs with the political stance of teachers unions on a range of issues.

“I don’t want to pay for the unions’ politics,” she said. “I always said they could represent me as far as employment is concerned, but they shouldn’t have a place in my political life.”

Although unions were required to refund nonchargeable political expenditures that weren’t part of the collective bargaining process even before the Janus ruling, Stewart isn’t convinced the amount of her refunds measure up with what the unions actually spend on politics.

“They have been issuing this $5 bill to me twice a year, and I have to go down to the office of my local union and pick it up because that’s what they are claiming is the [refundable] amount spent for political purposes,” Stewart said. “So, they are saying it’s basically $10 a year they spend on politics. This is really a joke. This has been going on for 30 years, and I find it odd that it’s never increased either. It’s always a cash payment in an envelope.”

Stewart says she signed her membership recommitment form on May 9, 2018, at the behest of union officials. The form said it was necessary for her and other teachers to sign to support colleagues.

“There was no rhyme or reason to these recommitment cards,” she said. “I signed it because I was told it was to support my fellow teachers. But I later told my union representative that I found this recommitment form awfully suspicious because they front-loaded this knowing this [Janus] case was coming and it might not go in their favor, and they have locked these teachers in. I don’t even know if this recommitment form was a legal membership document.”

Gondeiro, the lawyer with Freedom Foundation, told The Daily Signal that the forms signed by teachers last year should not pass legal muster.

“What we are doing with the class-action suit is we are trying to illustrate what affirmative consent looks like,” she said, adding:

We are trying to take Janus to an extra step because apparently the unions can’t abide by the law. So, we want to put in plain text what type of notice they have to give workers, because they need all the direction they can get. We want in the contract that they have a right to not financially support the union, and [that] by signing the agreement they are waiving their First Amendment rights. If they don’t include that type of language in the contract, there is no affirmative consent.

Gondeiro also said the unions are making it difficult for teachers who have become aware of their rights to opt out, using restrictive window periods and other cumbersome requirements that involve writing letters to union representatives and payroll personnel saying they want to leave the union and stop automatic deduction of dues.

“I sent letters to the California Teachers Association and to my local telling them I was going to opt out,” Stewart said. “They wrote back to me to thank me for my inquiry. But I wasn’t inquiring, I was telling them I was leaving.”

Stewart, who teaches at both the elementary and high school levels, told The Daily Signal that “strange incidents” took place after she made it clear she wanted to leave the union.

Her elementary school classroom was “ransacked” several times after hours in February, Stewart said, and around this time she was “verbally attacked” by a union leader while walking up a path to the high school.

The lead plaintiff in the teachers’ lawsuit says she wants to make a clean break.

Mendez, who is entering her 13th year as a teacher, says she had wanted to withdraw from the California Teachers Association, but until recently was content with her local union.

“The CTA has always misrepresented me, but I was willing to stay in the local union,” she said. “But after they [the local union] withheld information, misled us, and accepted poor salary and benefits in my district, I wanted out of both the state and local union.”

The local unions and school districts named in the lawsuit include Fremont Unified District Teachers Association, Valley Center-Pauma Teachers Association, Hayward Education Association, Tustin Education Association, and the Fremont, Valley Center-Pauma, Hayward, and Tustin unified school districts.

COLUMN BY

Kevin Mooney

Kevin Mooney is an investigative reporter for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Kevin. Twitter: @KevinMooneyDC.

RELATED ARTICLES:

This Mom Is Fighting Her Kids’ School District’s LGBT Indoctrination

California Bill Would Turn College Health Centers Into Abortion Clinics

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission.

New York Is Illegally Targeting the NRA, Trump Says

/in , , , , /by

President Donald Trump on Monday called the New York state attorney general’s newly announced probe of the National Rifle Association illegal, and an expert on laws regarding nonprofits contends that the probe is at minimum improper.

Trump said it was a concerted effort to “take down and destroy” the NRA.

“When a state attorney general uses the power vested in the attorney general’s office to improperly use [it] against organizations for political purposes, it could be illegal,” Cleta Mitchell, a Washington lawyer who advises nonprofits and was co-counsel to the NRA in a 2002 Supreme Court case, told The Daily Signal.

“The NRA, in court, would have a good predicate to argue political bias against the organization to show that hostility toward the organization’s existence,” Mitchell said.

Over the weekend, the attorney general’s office announced it commenced an investigation into the NRA’s nonprofit status and would be subpoenaing financial records.

The announcement came in the midst of turmoil in the organization, after the NRA ousted Oliver North as president in what became a public dispute between North and NRA Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre. North reportedly said he was forced out because he alleged financial improprieties.

New York state has taken separate action against the finances of Carry Guard, the NRA’s branded insurance program.

Even the liberal American Civil Liberties Union filed a brief on behalf of the NRA last year that argued New York “indisputably targeted the NRA and similar groups based on their ‘gun promotion’ advocacy.”

The ACLU brief continued: “It is important to note that, however controversial it may be, ‘gun promotion’ is core political speech, entitled to the same constitutional protection as speech advocating for reproductive rights, marijuana legalization, or financial deregulation.”

New York Attorney General Letitia James pledged as a Democratic candidate for the office to “use the constitutional power as an attorney general to regulate charities, that includes the NRA, to investigate their legitimacy,” it noted.

The new probe could be entirely legitimate, but it faces questions because of New York’s past actions, said Amy Swearer, a senior legal policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation.

“State AGs certainly have a duty to investigate credible allegations of financial misconduct by nonprofits incorporated in their states,” Swearer told The Daily Signal. “At this point, it’s unclear what evidence exists that might threaten the NRA’s nonprofit status, but this type of investigation is not in and of itself unlawful.”

She continued:

Unfortunately, as the president alluded, New York has a long history of taking actions against the NRA to silence the organization’s pro-Second Amendment voice, and even the ACLU has come to the NRA’s defense over recent unconstitutional attempts by New York to stifle the organization financially.

Because of the state’s history of taking unconstitutional and bad-faith actions against the NRA, a dark cloud of suspicion will justifiably continue to hang over what might otherwise be a justified and good-faith investigation.

The NRA is clearly working through some internal problems, and the president is right to suggest that this distracts the organization from what it does best—working to strengthen the Second Amendment against those who would rather destroy its protections.

Trump tweeted on Monday that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the attorney general “are illegally using the state’s legal apparatus to take down and destroy this very important organization.”

The president said the NRA “must get its act together quickly, stop the internal fighting.”

An NRA spokesman did not respond to phone and email inquiries for this article.

The New York attorney general’s office responded to the president Monday.

“Attorney General Letitia James is focused on enforcing the rule of law. In any case we pursue, we will follow the facts wherever they may lead,” the office said in a public statement. “We wish the president would share our respect for the law.”

The New York attorney general’s office has subpoenaed banks for financial records related to the Trump Organization, the president’s business, and is suing the Trump Foundation charity.

“This is the same office that has gone after the Trump Foundation,” Mitchell said. “The attorney general obviously has a pattern and practice of going after an organization it does not like.”

COLUMN BY

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission.

Madame Secretary, “At this point it makes a very big difference.”

/in , /by

During a January 23, 2013, Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing Hillary Clinton was questioned about the September 11, 2012 bombing of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The Benghazi anniversary attack occurred while Clinton was Obama’s Secretary of State during the final months of Romney’s presidential bid to unseat Obama and just two months before the November presidential elections.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee was conducting a review of the Benghazi attack that killed four Americans including U.S. Ambassador J. Chris Stevens. During questioning by Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI), Hillary Clinton famously said, “At this point what difference does it make?” Let’s find out.

The transcript of the hearing recorded on C-SPAN shows Sen. Johnson repeatedly asking Clinton about the story coming out of Obama’s White House that the Benghazi attack was a response to protests outside the Consulate and an anti-Islam video posted on YouTube.

Johnson: No, again, we were misled (5:02 on C-SPAN) that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that — an assault sprang out of that — and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that.

Clinton: With all due respect (5:16 on C-SPAN tape), the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC (intelligence community) has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.

Johnson: OK. Thank you, Madame Secretary.

After numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests made by Judicial Watch for documents related to the Benghazi attacks, on May 15, 2014 Judicial Watch sued the U.S. Department of State and U.S. Department of Defense for their failure to comply with FOIA requests. The judge ruled in favor of Judicial Watch and ordered that the papers be released.

On May 18, 2015 Judicial Watch published a stunning report that the Department of Defense and Department of State documents clearly showed that the Obama administration knew that Al-Qaeda terrorists had planned the Benghazi attack 10 days in advance.

So, Hillary Clinton knowingly lied to Senator Johnson on January 23, 2013 during the Senate hearings. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Susan Rice knowingly lied repeatedly to the American public by insisting that an anti-Islam video was the cause of a spontaneous protest that turned violent and sparked the Benghazi attack. Lies. Lies. Lies.

Filmmaker Nakoula Bassely Nakoula, an Egyptian-born Coptic Christian, posted a short anti-Islam video “Innocence of Muslims” on YouTube. His video was falsely blamed for the Benghazi attack and used deceitfully by Obama and his administration to dupe the American people and hide their own culpability. Nakoula was shamed, incarcerated, and threatened with death by Obama’s White House. He now lives in a homeless shelter in California.

More lies. Wikipedia continues to disingenuously maintain that Nakoula’s film sparked the Benghazi attack. The section on “Arrest and imprisonment” begins with, “Following the violent reactions to the video . . .” The section concludes with one interesting fact verified by Reuters – that on November 28, 2012, two days before the Muslim-Brotherhood government of Obama-favored Mohamed al-Morsi was ousted, an Egyptian court sentenced Nakoula to death in absentia for defaming Islam.

That brings us to the Muslim-Brotherhood connection to the attack on Benghazi.

The stunning Judicial Watch report was published on 5.18.15 – four years ago. Its revelations were jaw-dropping then but even more relevant now as the dots connecting Obama to Hillary’s private email server and Benghazi are also connecting Obama and Hillary to the Muslim Brotherhood and the unlawful FISA warrants used to spy on Donald Trump.

From the Judicial Watch report:

“A Defense Department document from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), dated September 12, 2012, the day after the Benghazi attack, details that the attack on the compound had been carefully planned by the BOCAR terrorist group ‘to kill as many Americans as possible.’ The document was sent to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Obama White House National Security Council. The heavily redacted Defense Department ‘information report’ says that the attack on the Benghazi facility ‘was planned and executed by The Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman (BOCAR).’ The group subscribes to ‘Al-Queda ideologies.'”

In this Defense Department document Abdul Baset known as AZUZ, the leader of BOCAR, is blamed for the attack on Benghazi – NOT Nakoula Bassely Nakoula.

Further, from a separate Judicial Watch lawsuit, the State Department produced a different document created the morning after the Benghazi attack by Hillary Clinton’s offices that made no mention of videos or demonstrations, “Four COM personnel were killed and three wounded in an attack by dozens of fighters on the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi beginning approximately 1550 Eastern Time . . .”

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch concludes:

“If the American people had known the truth – that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and other top administration officials knew that the Benghazi attack was an al-Qaeda terrorist attack from the get-go – and yet lied and covered up this fact – Mitt Romney might very well be president. And why would the Obama administration continue to support the Muslim Brotherhood even after it knew it was tied to the Benghazi terrorist attack and to al-Qaeda? . . . These documents show that the Benghazi cover-up has continued for years and is only unraveling through our independent lawsuits. The Benghazi scandal just got a whole lot worse for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.”

Hillary’s Benghazi lies and cover-up protected Obama’s 2012 presidential candidacy and made her Obama’s legacy candidate for 2016. Obama’s lies and cover-up protected Hillary’s presidential bid and his own political malfeasance and ideological connection to the Muslim Brotherhood. Hillary’s private email server was an off-the-books carrier of classified information that protected Hillary, Obama, Rice, and every other Obama administration official implicated in the Benghazi attack and its cover-up including the aftermath of securing FISA warrants through unverified foreign intelligence sources to spy on the the Trump campaign.

Tony Shaffer, former senior intelligence officer in the U.S. Army, explains the unprecedented corruption and shocking abuse of FISA by Obama’s FBI to spy on the Trump campaign in a stunning interview with Jan Jekielek from American Thought Leaders. Tony Shaffer describes what was done by the Obama administration but the question remains – WHY?

Journalist Joan Swirsky provides the answer. In her stunning 4.23.19 article, “Prison, anyone?” she identifies the nine words uttered by then Candidate Trump during a campaign debate that launched the shocking coup attempt against a sitting president of the United States. “If I were president, Hillary would be in jail.” These nine words are the key to everything – they unlock the Benghazi cover-up the FISA abuses, Spygate, Russiagate, the partisan Mueller investigation, and the ongoing hysterical screams by Democrats to impeach President Trump.

When the unthinkable happened and Candidate Trump was elected president, the Strok/Page insurance policy was launched to overthrow President Trump because if Hillary goes to jail so does Obama and his collaborators – the entire house of cards collapses and the enormity of the coup attempt against sitting President Trump is explained and exposed.

Madame Secretary, “At this point it makes a very big difference.”

EDITORS NOTE: This Goudsmit Pundicity column is republished with permission.

Trump Just Ditched a UN Arms Treaty, and He Was Right to Do It

/in , , , , , /by

On Friday, at the annual meeting of the National Rifle Association, President Donald Trump announced that he was un-signing the Arms Trade Treaty. As he put it, “The United Nations will soon receive a formal notice that America is rejecting this treaty.”

He then pulled out a pen and, in front of the entire audience, signed a message asking the Senate to end its consideration of the treaty.

I have followed the Arms Trade Treaty closely since 2009, before the formal negotiations for it even began. The treaty purports to require nations to regulate the conventional arms trade. President Barack Obama signed it in 2013, but the U.S. never ratified it.

I have no doubt that the president has made the correct decision—and no doubt that he will be hammered for it by the progressive left, who loves to praise the treaty as much as it enjoys blaming the United States.

If you would like to read my argument against the treaty, it’s here. More importantly, the White House has released a short statement explaining the president’s decision. It is a model of clarity and accuracy. I doubt that the treaty’s friends will have any time for it, but that is their loss. I would love to see them try to rebut it.

A few points about the White House’s statement:

  1. It notes that the Arms Trade Treaty is “being opened for amendment in 2020 and there are potential proposals that the United States cannot support.” That is correct. The main such proposal was floated last summer at another U.N. gathering on conventional arms. It involves bringing ammunition fully into the Arms Trade Treaty, meaning that the U.S. would have to track or trace the billions of bullets that are sold internationally. The U.S. opposed this last summer because it is utterly impractical.
  2. The White House states that the treaty provides “a platform for those who would seek to constrain our ability to sell arms to our allies and partners.” That is true. Virtually every activist supporting the Arms Trade Treaty proclaims, at the top of their lungs, that it is about stopping U.S. arms sales.
  3. It points out that the treaty has “a track record of … being used by groups to try and overturn sovereign national decisions on arms exports.” That is quite right. The statement notes that the British government—which, idiotically, led the push for the Arms Trade Treaty—has gotten its just desserts by being repeatedly sued by activists in the name of the treaty.
  4. In its only mention of the Second Amendment, the White House states that, by un-signing, the president has ensured that the treaty “will not become a platform to threaten Americans’ Second Amendment rights.” The treaty’s supporters love to argue that it has nothing to do with curbing the Second Amendment. What they don’t mention is that many opponents of the treaty—myself included—urged them privately to make that clear in the treaty text. They refused to do so. The treaty is not a gun grab, but it is precisely what the White House says it is: a platform that gun control activists could potentially do great damage with.
  5. Finally, the White House notes that major arms exporters like Russia and China are not in the Arms Trade Treaty, and that “[t]he [treaty] cannot achieve its chief objective of addressing irresponsible arms transfers if these major arms exporters are not subject to it at all.” That is precisely what the Obama administration said as far back as 2010. It is also indisputably true.

I could not have written the White House’s statement any better. It is a slam dunk. I commend the White House for its decision, and for explaining it effectively and correctly.

This is not the end of the story of the Arms Trade Treaty. It still has 101 state parties around the world. The U.S. needs to follow up this decision to un-sign by pulling all U.S. funding from the treaty. And there are other bad treaties and institutions of the same type as the Arms Trade Treaty. We should quit them, too.

Most fundamentally, while it’s excellent to quit bad treaties, it’s even better not to let them get made in the first place. Far too often, the U.S. finds itself in the position of a hockey goaltender, who just has to stand there and stop shots. If you just let the other guy keep shooting, sooner or later you’re going to get scored on.

We need to take hold of the puck, skate down the ice, and put some pressure on the other side.

But first things first. The White House has made the right call on the Arms Trade Treaty, and it’s made the right call for the right reasons.

COMMENTARY BY

Ted Bromund

Ted R. Bromund, Ph.D., is the Margaret Thatcher senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Read his research. Twitter: .

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission.

VIDEO: Trump Jokes to NRA, I Didn’t Need a Gun to Stop Attempted ‘Coup’ Against My Presidency

/in , , , , , , , /by

President Donald Trump joked during the National Rifle Association (NRA) annual meeting on Friday that he doesn’t need a gun to stop the attempted “coup” against his presidency.

“Every day of my administration we are taking power out of Washington, D.C., and returning it to the American people — where it belongs. And you see it now better than ever with all of the resignations of bad apples,” the president said.

“They tried for a coup, didn’t work out so well,” he added, presumably referring to the investigation into alleged Russia collusion and the FBI’s attempts to spy on his campaign.

WATCH: 

As the crowd of NRA members cheered, Trump slipped in a joke: “And I didn’t need a gun for that one, did I?”

The audience responded with laughter.

“We’re looking at things you wouldn’t believe possible in our country: corruption at the highest level,” Trump continued. “A disgrace. Spying, surveillance, trying for an overthrow. And we caught ’em. We caught ’em.’

Trump told Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Thursday night that he plans to declassify scores of FBI documents related to the Russia probe, including FISA warrant applications against Carter Page and pages of notes of interviews with Bruce Ohr.

COLUMN BY

Amber Athey

White House Correspondent. Follow Amber on Twitter

RELATED ARTICLE: Barr: ‘I Think Spying Did Occur’ Against Trump Campaign

VIDEO: Sanders & Harris Endorse Boston Marathon murderer be allowed to vote while in prison

/in , , , , , /by

Boston Marathon jihad murderer Dzhokhar Tsarnaev showed the “opposite of remorse” when he was captured.

He had the black flag of jihad on his wall and posed for a picture with one finger raised — the sign that the Islamic State and other jihad groups use to signify the absolute Islamic monotheism for which they are doing violence.

Whose interests would his vote serve? Not those of Americans.

“Sanders & Harris Think Boston Marathon Bomber Should Be Allowed to Vote While in Prison,” by Corwin Parks, MRC TV, April 23, 2019.

RELATED VIDEO: Bernie Says Incarcerated Felons Should Have Right To Vote.

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column with video is republished with permission.

This Supreme Court Case Threatens the Left’s View of Group Identity, Victimhood

/in , , , , , , , /by

Oral arguments heard at the Supreme Court Tuesday were ostensibly about whether the 2020 census could include a question about citizenship.

But don’t be fooled. The reason this case rocketed to the Supreme Court and has been so hotly contested is that the debate hinges, at bottom, on two starkly different visions of America.

In one vision, what matters is loyalty to and affiliation with a nation-state that is self-contained, independent, civic, and colorbind. In the other vision, priority is given to one’s membership in a subnational group that is based on subjective self-identity (like race or sexual orientation), and association with that group yields benefits and preferences in everything, from hiring to contracting, employment, housing, and even electoral redistricting.

The divide essentially comes down to a commitment to America as a nation vs. a commitment to one’s subgroup and the hierarchy of victimhood.

This is one of the great debates of our time—not just here, but around the world.

Whatever the Supreme Court decides—and an opinion is needed by summer if the Census Bureau is to meet its deadline of printing millions of forms—rest assured that this debate will not go away any time soon.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the death of the nation-state seem to have been greatly exaggerated. Despite pressure from above—from sovereignty-draining, transnational institutions like the United Nations and the European Union—and from below, i.e., from identity groups based on race, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability status, and anything else that can confer conceptual victimhood (and thus special rights) on an individual, the nation-state has shown remarkable resilience.

Defenders of the nation-state remind us that democracy, the rule of law, self-determination, liberty, and everything else Americans and like-minded people hold dear depend on territorially and culturally defined nation-states. Its opponents like to portray the nation-state as archaic, unnecessary, and a gateway to authoritarianism, if not worse.

The Trump administration has championed the sovereignist view, and in 2017 recognized the importance of citizenship by requesting that a question on citizenship be added to the 2020 census.

Progressive groups have left no stone unturned in their bid to frustrate the administration on this front. Notably, these same groups defend a panoply of other census questions that divide Americans by sex, ethnicity, and race.

These groups argue that the citizenship question would depress responses among certain marginalized groups, especially Hispanics. Yet the Census Bureau says it has no credible evidence that the question would affect the quality of the data.

Dozens of progressive organizations brought suit in New York, joined by 18 states and the District of Columbia. They won in district court in New York, thus the case Tuesday was Department of Commerce v. New York.

The hearing Tuesday did not in the least devote itself to these large questions of nationhood, sovereignty, and the like. Instead, there was a lot of technical and statistical back-and-forth between liberal justices and United States Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who represented the administration, and between the conservative justices and New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood; Dale Ho, the lawyer for the New York plaintiffs; and Douglas Letter, the lawyer who represented the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives. All of these latter individuals argued against including the citizenship question.

It is difficult, as usual, to predict which way a court will go. Ho did his side no favors by admitting at one point that, yes, the Trump administration is right that citizenship data is needed to enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

At issue is the fact that the Voting Rights Act does indeed call, in some places, for drawing districts where at least 50 percent of the voting population are members of a racial or ethnic minority.

Ho, perhaps unwittingly, made the case that “if the minority group has relatively low citizenship rates, for example, as is the case with Hispanic populations in some circumstances, then you need citizenship data to make sure that you’re drawing a district in which minority voters are, in fact, a majority of the population.”

That data is now provided by the American Community Survey, a smaller census product that goes out to fewer households. But some states, ironically including some of those suing the Trump administration, have complained that that data is not reliable.

Justice Neil Gorsuch thus jumped on Ho’s argument and pointed out that “some of the states who are now respondents before us have in litigation, including in this court, argued that [American Community Survey] data should not be relied upon for purposes of citizenship or other purposes, that the census data is more accurate. What do we do about that? It seems to me like you kind of put the government in a bit of a catch 22.”

It is the unified left that is in a catch 22, however—and the Voting Rights Act, as it is currently interpreted, put it there. The left does not mind (it in fact loves) the racial gerrymandering that is aided by census questions on ethnicity, race, and so forth. But because what is actually needed is voters, the administration can now say it needs citizenship data, since only citizens are allowed to vote.

The left is terrified by this prospect. It now realizes that available citizenship data will allow jurisdictions to apportion and redistrict seats according to voter, or citizen population, not total population, as they are constitutionally entitled to do. That would, for example, prevent liberal districts from swelling their numbers by adding populations of non-voting noncitizens or even illegal immigrants.

This essentially means citizenship data on the American nation itself—not arbitrary subgroups—would determine the shape of the House of Representatives, and the number and composition of electoral votes at election time. Our elections would more accurately represent the America that really exists, not the faux America envisioned by intersectional activists.

To win this issue, not just in the Supreme Court, but in the all-important court of public opinion, those who believe in the nation-state must constantly make the case that its view of the nation is nonracial, but instead is truly inclusive and colorblind. We must show that the other vision leads to balkanization, conflict, and ultimately, national splintering.

COMMENTARY BY

Mike Gonzalez

Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation, is a widely experienced international correspondent, commentator, and editor who has reported from Asia, Europe, and Latin America. He served in the George W. Bush administration, first at the Securities and Exchange Commission and then at the State Department, and is the author of “A Race for the Future: How Conservatives Can Break the Liberal Monopoly on Hispanic Americans.”Read his research. Twitter: .

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission.

Why AG Barr Must Confront the Deep State

/in , , , /by

Due to her amazing job taking care of our home, 9 birds, 2 cats, one greyhound and me, my wife Mary has not followed the intricate details of the Mueller/deep state silent coup to end Trump’s presidency.

Mary asked, “Is Mueller a good guy or a bad guy?”

To prevent her eyes from glazing over, I kept it simple. Mueller is a bad guy. He could have concluded in two weeks that Trump did not collude with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary Clinton. And yet, Mueller dragged out his bogus investigation for over two years which dramatically harmed Trump’s approval numbers and even may have caused Republicans to lose the house.

Then, Mary asked, “Why won’t AG William Barr comply with Democrats’ demand that he release the Mueller report unredacted?”

I explained, redacted means taking a marker and blacking out information unrelated to the investigation. During the course of an FBI investigation, personal information about your life will surface. It is unfair and illegal to go public with your personal information if it has nothing to do with the charges against you.

Therefore, Barr would be breaking the law if he released the Mueller report unredacted. Embarrassing dirt was exposed during the Bill Clinton sex sandals investigation. Democrats wanted to make sure such details would not be made public again. They passed a law that future investigations must be redacted. Now, Democrats are demanding that Barr break their own law.

Fake news media and Democrats know the law prevents Barr from releasing the unredacted Mueller report. And yet, Democrats are absurdly viciously attacking and seeking to destroy Barr, flooding the airwaves with their lies that Barr is illegally protecting Trump. Democrats know they can lie to the American people about Barr because fake news media will cover for them.

The Mueller report found no evidence of Trump collusion with Russia. And yet, Democrats, the deep state and fake news media intend to continue promoting their lie that Trump colluded and obstructed justice all the way to the 2020 presidential election.

Exposing their repulsive arrogance and sense of superiority, John Brennan, James Clapper, Adam Schiff, James Comey and Obama minions are moving full speed ahead with their treasonous quest to remove Trump from office. These evil people are using fake news media to sell their lie that Trump is guilty of obstruction for simply confronting their lie-filled attempts to over-through his presidency. They expected Trump to behave like a typical wimpy passive Republican and allow them to destroy him.

AG William Barr must follow through with holding them accountable to save Trump’s presidency and the rule of law in America. The only thing that is going to stop the deep state’s Terminator cyborg focus on removing Trump from the White House is a powerful political punch in the face by Barr.

Bullies are cowards. As a black kid growing up in the mean projects of Baltimore, bullies took my lunch money. Cousin Jimmy confronted them with a threat of personal destruction if they dared to bother me again. They complied. Cousin Jimmy also taught me the power and wisdom of having a strong military. Washington DC is full of cowardly bullies, hellbent on undermining the will and best interest of the American people.

These bad players in the deep state have no fear of punishment for their treason. Barr must push them back on their heels, forcing them to go on defense.

When Barr probes deep into the deep state’s outrageous, unprecedented and illegal attempt to reverse the 2016 election, all the cockroaches will run, exposed by the light of truth and justice. That will be a glorious thing to see; a great day for America.

Supreme Court to Hear Cases Involving Firings of Gay, Transgender Employees

/in , , , , , , , /by

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear three cases centered on whether federal law against discrimination in employment applies to sexual orientation and gender identity.

After hearing Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, the high court will decide whether the words “because of … sex,” found in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, also forbid employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. The court consolidated Bostock with a similar case, Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda.

The high court also will hear arguments in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission before ruling on whether Title VII as worded bars discrimination against transgender individuals.

Title VII specifically prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It does not mention lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender Americans.

Lower federal courts came to conflicting decisions in Bostock, in which a child welfare worker said he was fired for being gay, and Zarda, in which a sky-diving instructor argued the same.

The Atlanta-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit decided that Title VII doesn’t prohibit “discharge for homosexuality,” while the New York-based 2nd Circuit ruled for the instructor, saying that discrimination based on sexual orientation “is motivated, at least in part, by sex and is thus a subset of sex discrimination.”

In Harris Funeral Homes, a funeral director in Michigan was fired by the family-owned business after disclosing a transition from man to woman, which also involved dressing as a woman.

The Cincinnati-based Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit sided with the employee, concluding: “Discrimination ‘because of sex’ inherently includes discrimination against employees because of a change in their sex.”

While many liberals see the Supreme Court as poised to restrict LGBT rights, conservatives argue that federal law doesn’t go as far as activists claim.

“There is a reason why, for the past 25 years, activists have tried to legislatively amend federal civil rights law to include ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity.’ That reason is simple: because it doesn’t include those categories,” Heritage Foundation scholar Ryan T. Anderson said, adding:

Courts should not do what activists have failed to do: Redefine ‘sex’ to mean ‘sexual orientation and gender identity.’ Doing so not only gets the law wrong, it also has serious negative consequences for women’s equality, safety, and privacy.

The Christian legal aid group Alliance Defending Freedom last fall petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the funeral home case, arguing that only Congress may rewrite a federal statute to allow a male employee who identifies as female to dress in women’s clothing in violation of a company dress code.

Although a federal district judge decided in the employer’s favor, on appeal the 6th Circuit sided with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the agency’s lawsuit against Harris Funeral Homes, and Alliance Defending Freedom hopes to reverse that outcome at the high court.

“Neither government agencies nor the courts have authority to rewrite federal law by replacing ‘sex’ with ‘gender identity’—a change with widespread consequences for everyone,” John Bursch, the organization’s vice president of appellate advocacy, said.

“Businesses have the right to rely on what the law is—not what government agencies want it to be—when they create and enforce employment policies,” Bursch said.

COLUMN BY

Ken McIntyre

Ken McIntyre, a 30-year veteran of national and local newspapers, serves as senior editor at The Daily Signal and The Heritage Foundation’s Marilyn and Fred Guardabassi Fellow in Media and Public Policy Studies. Send an email to Ken. Twitter: @KenMac55.

RELATED ARTICLE: Thousands of Boy Scout Leaders Face New Child Sex Allegations; Names Expected to Be Released Tuesday | NBC New York

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission.

Dear Democrats: Prison, anyone?

/in , , , , , , /by

Just a few months ago, in an article entitled “Still the Smartest Guy in the Room,” I wrote the following about President Trump:

Well, whaddaya know? In the midterm elections of November 6, 2018, the American people rewarded the president—for only the third time in almost a hundred years—with a net gain of three and possibly four Senate seats, lost half the House seats that his predecessor lost, and left the radical leftwing Democrats not rejoicing at their meager gains, but still chomping at the bit to bring down the president who has effectively destroyed everything they believed in, worked for, and thought they achieved over the past 75 years.

Yes, President Trump posed a mortal threat to the Left’s very raison d’être––a globalist one-world order controlled by them! And so way back in 2015, when he announced his intention to run for the presidency, the “connected” guys of the D.C. swamp ––to use the vocabulary of the mob––decided to pool their formidable resources to “clip” the billionaire business mogul, if not physically (although I wouldn’t put it that past them), then by proving that their manufactured fiction of candidate Trump’s collusion with Russia to win the presidency was, in fact, true and therefore impeachable.

In that article, I listed all the fanatical Detectives Javert––the top dogs at our top-secret intelligence agencies (and many of their wives who also played central roles)––and elaborated on their impressive credentials, privileged educations, vast experience, and, oh, their appointments to high office by the former occupant of the Oval Office, Barack Obama.

Don’t forget––the fish always stinks from the head!

THE WITCH HUNT

Special Counsel Robert Mueller took his time––more than two years––as he hired almost two-dozen partisan Democrats (who contributed to the Obama and Clinton campaigns) to join his “objective” truth-finding effort. Here is a breakdown of the invasive colonoscopy he performed on the President of the United States.

  • Over 675-days,
  • Over $30 million dollars,
  • Over 2,800 subpoenas,
  • Over 500 warrants,
  • Over 500 witness interviews, including those whose lives were ruined for offenses unrelated to President Trump,
  • Over a million documents submitted by the White House.

The net result, as we all now know––the president committed no collusion and no obstruction, although the Regressives who continue to pursue some bogus crime––I refer to the obsessed Representatives Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Adam Schiff (D-CA), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and a few others, who, as they say, can’t let go!

But why? Most of these people once figuratively kissed the ring of businessman Donald Trump when he was a Democrat and they groveled for the campaign cash he generously doled out and lusted for an invitation to play golf with the mega-mogul or to dine in the company of his exquisite wife at the palatial Mar-a-Lago resort or at numerous other residences, including his Manhattan penthouse in Trump Tower.

Why then the wild-eyed, ferocious animosity when he announced for the presidency and––to their horror––was elected America’s 45th president?

IT’S NOT ABOUT THE BENJAMINS, BABY!

In most cases in politics, when you peel back the layers of the onion, it’s all about the money. But not in this case.

And it’s not about the bogus excuse that Hillary lost the election. Most people can’t stand the woman. While some women would have reflexively voted for any person with the right plumbing, who can take feminists seriously anymore, now that they’ve embraced infanticide as a “human right”? In truth, most people cringed throughout Hillary’s coughing-fit, seizure-plagued, issue-impoverished campaign and were––and are––happy, finally, to have her off the national stage.

And it wasn’t candidate Trump’s “treatment” of women or his locker-room talk, when Americans had already endured eight years of Bill Clinton spitting in Hillary’s face every day with his serial philandering or, without his Secret Service detail flying 26 times on the “Lolita Express” to Jeffrey Epstein’s private island.

And it wasn’t the right-of-center platform candidate Trump was running on because Democrats had already raised to an art form the softening up and watering down of other Republican presidents’ wish lists. And they’d already succeeded in inflicting Americans with socialized medicine (Obamacare) and socialized education (Common Core), with degrading our military, contaminating the public imagination with the hoax of global warming, and actualizing the Cloward-Piven strategy to overload the welfare system by establishing Sanctuary Cities with the  goal of segueing from socialism to their preferred system of government, communism.

And it wasn’t about the power of the media to shape/influence/determine public opinion. As I wrote in a former article, “Media Whores,” people who have the conceit to call themselves journalists are really employees who take direct orders from their employers. Today, only six media empires rule radio, TV and print publications––five of them run by globalists and only one by soon-to-retire conservative Rupert Murdoch (Fox TV, the NY Post, the Wall St. Journal, et al)––and now by his liberal sons, Lachlan and James…hence the unfortunate leftist infiltration of Fox.

And it wasn’t even my original theory, which was that Mr. Trump threatened to disrupt the globalists’ One World Order. The powers-that-be in the D.C. swamp are too arrogant and narcissistic to entertain the notion that a single individual could upset their decades-old, carefully constructed apple cart.

None of these things inspired the predatory animus of the Democrats that we’ve witnessed for the past three years. Instead, as candidate Trump’s campaign proceeded and he summarily withered “Low-energy Jeb,” “Lyin’ Ted,” “Little Marco,” “Crooked Hillary,” “Crazy Bernie,” “Pocahontas,” on and on, a cold chill began to rise in the ranks of the left: Nothing can touch this guy!

They knew that the brash billionaire certainly couldn’t be bought by lobbyists or Arabs––Qatar is but one dramatic and damning example––like so many of our legislators have been.

They saw that even before the election he could single-handedly destroy a hot career like Megyn Kelly’s.

And nothing they threw at him succeeded in denting the natural ebullience and epic energy that infuriates them to this day.

THE COUP DE GRÁCE

And then it happened! The Kiss of Death, so to speak––the nine words that locked the Regressives in combat with candidate and then President Trump forever.

It was in early October of 2016 when Mr. Trump was engaged in one of the campaign’s many debates that he said the following: “If I were president, Hillary would be in jail.”

That was it––simple as that!

Now you know what this three-year safari for Big Game has been all about! It’s been about all the deeply corrupt––indeed criminal––swamp creatures creating so much chaos, so many dirt roads, so many bogus accusations and innuendos and tabloid headlines in order to keep the real collusion experts and the real obstructers of justice out of the spotlight, out of the courthouse, and out of Leavenworth!

There are so many crimes––or potential crimes––involved in what the Obama White House orchestrated through his Justice Department and FBI (among other departments) that it’s impossible to list them all.

In a stunning analysis in the World Tribune entitled Justice: Suddenly, the hunters have become the hunted, historian Victor Davis Hanson is quoted as saying that those “who cried the loudest about leaking, collusion, lying, and obstruction are themselves soon very likely to be accused of just those crimes.” Among them, Hanson lists the following:

  • James Comey: The former FBI director falsely testified that the Steele dossier was not the main basis for obtaining FISA court warrants. On at least 245 occasions, Comey swore under oath that he either did not know, or could not remember, when asked direct questions about his conduct at the FBI. He likely lied when he testified that he did not conclude his assessment of the Clinton illegal email use before he had even interviewed Clinton, an assertion contradicted by his own written report. I guess his credo and modus operandi are reflected in the subtitle of his recent autobiography A Higher Loyalty: “Truth, Lies, and Leadership.”
  • Andrew McCabe: The former FBI deputy director currently is under criminal referral for lying to federal investigators about leaking to the media. He and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein each have accused each other of not telling the whole truth about their shared caper of trying to force President Trump out of office by invoking the 25th Amendment.
  • James Clapper: The former director of national intelligence has admitted to lying under oath to Congress – and since lied about his earlier admission of that lying. His recent sworn congressional testimony of not having leaked information about the Steele dossier to the media is again likely to be untrue, given that Clapper had admitted to speaking to CNN’s Jake Tapper about the dossier’s contents. CNN, remember, would in turn go on to hire the mendacious Clapper as an analyst. And once on air, Clapper would insist that Trump was both a Russian asset and thus guilty of collusion crimes greater than those of Watergate. Lies. All lies.
  • John Brennan: The former CIA director has admitted to lying under oath to Congress on two occasions. He may well face further legal exposure. When he lost his security clearance, he repeatedly lied that Trump was guilty of collusion, however that non-crime is defined. And as the Mueller probe wound down, Brennan with pseudo-authority and trumped-up hints of phony access to secret intelligence sources deceitfully assured the nation that Trump within days would face indictment – perhaps along with his family members.
  • Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills: The Hillary Clinton aides likely also lied to FBI investigators when they claimed they had no knowledge while working at the State Department that their boss was using an illegal private email server. In fact, they had read her communications on it and actually inquired about its efficacy.
  • Samantha Power: The former UN ambassador in her last year in office requested on more than 260 occasions to unmask names of Americans monitored by the government. Yet Power later claimed that most of these requests were not made by her. And yet she either does not know or does not cite who exactly used her name to make such requests during the election cycle. In any case, no one has come forward to admit to the improper use of Power’s name to request the hundreds of unmaskings.
  • Susan Rice: The former Obama national security adviser could have made a number of unmasking requests in Power’s name, although she initially denied making any requests in her own name – a lie she immediately amended. Rice, remember, repeatedly lied on national television about the cause and origins of the Benghazi attack, denied there were cash payments for hostages in the Iran deal, misled about the conduct of Beau Bergdahl, and prevaricated over the existence and destruction of weapons of mass destruction in Syria.
  • Bruce Ohr, the former deputy attorney general did not tell the truth on a federal written disclosure required by law when he omitted the key fact that his wife Nellie worked on Christopher Steele’s Fusion GPS dossier. Ohr’s testimony that he completely briefed key FBI officials on the dossier in July or August 2016 is not compatible to what former FBI attorney Lisa Page has testified to concerning the dates of her own knowledge of the Steele material.

Hanson has also written at length about the bogus Obstruction of Justice accusation, the illegally obtained FISA warrants, the phony Steele dossier paid for by Hillary Clinton, the fishy “coincidental” meeting of Bill Clinton with AG Loretta Lynch on a Phoenix airport tarmac, and the wrongness of Andrew McCabe, Ron Rosenstein, and so many others ever having been in charge of investigations that smacked of conflicts of interest and other malfeasances––all worthy of criminal investigation and, from what I’ve read, indictment!

And that is not to omit the destruction of 33,000 e-mails by Ms. Hillary, and the much more egregious and criminal issue of Benghazi!

MEANWHILE, BACK IN REALITY….

President Trump has been rightfully credited with 289 amazing accomplishments,  including:

  • A booming economy.
  • Blacks, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, women and youth are enjoying higher employment than any time in the past 50 years!
  • ISIS is in its death throes.
  • Members of NATO are finally paying their fair share.
  • Our military is flourishing.
  • Investments are flowing back to the U.S.
  • Deregulation has helped our economy explode!
  • Healthcare, combating opioid abuse, and infrastructure programs are on the front burner.
  • Confirmation of more S. Circuit Court judges, two dozen U. S. Circuit Court judges, and two Supreme Court judges confirmed.
  • On and on and on and on.

For President Trump’s deranged enemies, I suggest hiring good attorneys and hoping for decent obituaries in the now-tabloid NY Times.

For the rest of us, get out the popcorn!

Colorado “Man” Charged with Deliberately Running Down White Children

/in , , , , /by

So why is there a virtual media blackout of the story?

Oh, there is some media coverage like the bare-bones story about what happened on April 5th, but no interest outside of the early reports from local media.

In fact, there is more news about why there isn’t any news on the cable networks and elsewhere.

And, where is the New York Times or the Washington Post on what sure looks like a “hate crime?”

Of course one of my major questions is about the immigration status (nationality?) of the “Aurora man” now behind bars.

Is he simply an “African-American,” or is he a NEW African-American?

Here is the latest story from local CBS news (hat tip: Linda),

ARAPAHOE COUNTY, Colo. (CBS4) — An Aurora man arrested in connection to a hit-and-run collision which took place on April 5 is facing additional charges.

Oghaleoghene Atuno, 21, was arrested on suspicion of using his vehicle to run over two boys, ages 11 and 12.

Additional charges include attempted murder, child abuse and driving with an expired license.

One boy was so badly injured, his skull was fractured. Law enforcement said security footage from the area showed Atuno circling the cul-de-sac several times before allegedly hitting the boys, one of whom was Josh Piazza. The boys were walking on the sidewalk.

State Patrol used surveillance video from homes and schools to identify the vehicle in the incident.

After the image was released to the public, someone reported a similar vehicle at an apartment complex.

The vehicle matched the description, and belonged to Atuno’s mother, an arrest affidavit said.

When law enforcement questioned Atuno, he confessed to the hit-and-run, according to the affidavit. When asked why he left the scene, law enforcement said Atuno claimed to be scared.

A motive for the incident was not released, or identified by law enforcement in their report.

Go here for the news clip.

Atuno is being held on $250,000 bail.

One website wonders where is the “hate crime” label and asks us to imagine this scenario:

Imagine if a Caucasian man had circled around an African-American neighborhood searching for targets before running over two African-American children. The press would be clamoring all over itself about it being a hate crime.

We know it would be 24/7 coverage on cable news!

If the mainstream media continues to play favorites, so obvious this morning in the coverage of the Islamic terror attack on Christians in Sri Lanka yesterday (compared to the mosque attack in New Zealand recently), we (and the President!) will continue with the “fake news” label.

If anyone sees any news about whether Atuno is a ‘new American,’ please send it my way!  But, I think the likely outcome is that this case disappears down a black hole.

VIDEO: Historic Events Now Begin — Trump on the Offense

/in , , , , , /by

No Collusion No Obstruction

Well, well well, what we have all been waiting for has finally now begun. I for one, have written about this subject for over two years and knew that this day would arrive. No collusion, no obstruction, game over.

Historic events now begin as Trump goes on the offense. Yes, of course we know that the Democrats and the fake news will continue to challenge and go after President Trump on a never ending list of baseless, useless attacks as we know their mission is to de-legitimize this president and our movement for freedom. We know their mission is to remove President Trump from office and to see that Trump is not re-elected in 2020. They will continue on this pathway, attempting to accomplish this by any means whatsoever. Why? Because those guilty of treason, crimes and misdemeanors have everything to lose, thus the frenzied panic we now see before us. They will do whatever they can to double down on the Mueller Report, pursue obstruction and then impeachment with a vengeance, and go after tax returns and who knows what else they will conjure up. Why? Because they know they have been caught. They know they will soon be held accountable. They will rat each other out and eat each other alive. I suspect real suicides and individuals “suicided” over time. The fake news, Hollywood, corrupt elected officials, individuals in the DOJ, FBI, CIA and the deep state apparatus at large, are in meltdown mode. Those who scream the loudest have the most to lose, and there are quite a few noise makers. They are panicking as President Trump and the patriots are now on the offense. Soon, like in a matter of a few short weeks at best, they will lose control over the narrative as Trump goes on the offense. Game over. As always, stay alert for more false flags. Get the popcorn, enjoy the show, it’s a great time to be an American!

Trump on the Offense

With an estimated 93,000 federal sealed indictments prepared against the global deep state syndicate, which includes many elected officials, this will create a cascading avalanche like never seen before in our political history. Everything I talked about on June 13, 2018 in the article I wrote titled Scale of Discovery & Action They are on the Run, particularly steps six, seven and eight has arrived and are now unfolding. What can we look forward to in the coming weeks and months ahead? De-classification. President Trump when asked by Sean Hannity about FISA and the de-class in an interview dated March 27, 2019, the President stated that “I do, I have plans to declassify and release”.  Trump went on to discuss Hillary Clinton in the Hannity interview and indicated he will go after Clinton now as well. So what else can we expect? In the end, Clinton’s, Bush’s and Obama’s will all be held accountable. Lyndsey Graham is pursuing hearings as well for former FBI agents like Comey, McCabe and others. Devin Nunezhas submitted eight criminal referrals to AG Barr with more on the way. And Julian Assange? Can’t wait for this hero to reveal much of what the world needs to hear as soon as he gets in court. He may be the only one who has lived to testify against the Clinton’s.

Conclusion

And so, probes, hearings, subpoenas, indictments, grand juries, trials, as well as the resuming of the military tribunals are what will soon dominate world news. The tens of millions of dollars that GITMO has received will prove to have been well spent. Yes, Trump and team is changing the narrative. Military tribunals you say? This subject I wrote about as well back on August 12, 2017. Yes that’s right, military tribunals. Two individuals have already had their tribunals. John McCain and George Herbert Walker Bush. Oh yeah, and what did the founding fathers say the punishment is for elected officials found guilty of treason, high crimes and misdemeanors? Execution. I’ll let you connect the dots on that. If this subject matter is foreign to you, I suggest you change the channel. Venezuelans are starving for food (thanks to socialism), while Americans are starving for truth. Get on board. Get some skin in the game. I have provided but a few resources below to help guide you. And soon it will be easy for you as all the world will see. From dark to light.

Like what you have just read? Help awaken others. Share this article.

Related Articles

John’s Video Commentary

America’s Starvation for Truth

You Have Little Faith – Trust The Plan

Calm Down and Enjoy the Ride!

Relax Trump Has the Goods

Pedophilia the Achilles Heel of the Deep State

Related Resources

Q – The Plan To Save The World REMASTERED

[DS] Code Words, Panic In DC, Patriots In Control – Episode 1846b

The Great Awakening

Two Thirds Of Congress Just Indicted For Trafficking

What is Q?

Trump directs release of declassified surveillance warrant on Russia probe. What happens now?

Q Drops

The Mueller Dossier is a ‘cover up’ for the DC criminals

Q Proofs

Deep State War Landscape Changes w/ Dave Janda (1of2)

QAnon is coming form the Trump Administration

CORRUPTION and TREASON: Robert David Steele Exposes The Deep State’s Agenda

We are the Plan

KEVIN SHIPP – SHADOW GOVERNMENT, THE DEEP STATE UNMASK

VIDEO: President Trump Vindicated

/in , , , , , /by

President Trump has been vindicated. The Mueller investigation failed to find any evidence to support the big lie that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government and failed miserably to prove any obstruction.

We’re pleased that Attorney General Barr saw through the 448-page smear of President Trump by highlighting the simple conclusion that there is no collusion and no obstruction.

Neither Mueller, the Obama FBI, DOJ, CIA, State Department, nor the Deep State ever had a good-faith basis to pursue President Trump on Russia collusion. Russia collusion wasn’t just a hoax, it was criminal abuse, which is why Judicial Watch has fought and will continue to fight for Russiagate documents in federal court.

The targeting of President Trump served to protect Hillary Clinton and her enablers/co-conspirators in Obama administration from prosecution. Attorney General Barr can begin restoring the credibility of the Justice Department by finally initiating a thorough investigation of the Clinton email and related pay-to-play scandals and the abuses behind the targeting of President Trump.

We have long called for the shutdown of the Mueller special counsel operation and have pursued dozens of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits in connection with the illicit targeting and other abuses of President Trump. Judicial Watch FOIA litigation exposed, for example:

  • The Dossier-based Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant applications targeting President Trump
  • Eleven FBI payments to Christopher Steele
  • FBI firing of Steele
  • Extensive DOJ (Ohr) collusion w/Steele, Simpson, Fusion GPS
  • No court hearings by defrauded FISA courts before warrants were issued
  • Anti-Trump bias by Mueller deputy Andrew Weissmann

You can be sure your Judicial Watch will continue to “investigate the investigators”! We already have over 40 FOIA lawsuits on Obama/Clinton/Deep State effort to illegally spy on and overthrow President Trump. This assault on our Republic is the worst corruption scandal in American history and Judicial Watch is on it – no matter what Congress or the Justice Department does.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Can the Media Survive Mueller?

Judicial Watch Statement on the Mueller Report

Mueller’s Report Speaks Volumes

Mueller Shouldn’t Have Taken the Job

U.S. Intelligence Institutionally Politicized Toward Democrats

EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch column with video is republished with permission.

PODCAST: Mueller Report Proves Russian Collusion Claim Is a Hoax

/in , , , , /by

The Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky analyzes the redacted report about the findings from special counsel Robert Mueller, and why it’s time to investigate why President Donald Trump was ever suspected of collusion in the first place. Read the transcript, posted below, or listen to the interview in the podcast:

We also cover these stories:

  • Democrats are trying to get Mueller to testify in May.
  • North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper vetoed a bill that protects the lives of abortion survivors.
  • New York City is actually losing residents for the first time in recent years.

The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunes, SoundCloud, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com. Enjoy the show!

Kate Trinko: Joining us today to discuss the newly released Mueller Report is Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky, a legal expert. Hans, have you looked at the report? What are your takeaways?

Hans von Spakovsky: Yes, I’ve been skimming through it all day, putting my speed-reading lessons to work.

Trinko: It’s only 400 or so pages, right?

von Spakovsky: Right. The key thing that I get out of it is that, remember when the Attorney General William Barr sent his letter to Congress in which he basically gave what the conclusions of the report were? One, there was no evidence of any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government and two, there was no obstruction of justice.

There were a lot of claims by Democrats, including people like Jerry Nadler, who’s head of the Judiciary Committee, that, “Oh, well, we don’t believe you. We think you’re leaving things out.”

Well, reading through the report, it’s very clear that Barr was 100% accurate in his summary of it and that the two-volume report—half of which is the Russian collusion claim, the other half is the obstruction of justice claim.

No one can read that and come to any conclusion other than the whole Russian collusion claim was a hoax. There was just nothing to that at all. And none of the actions that were taken by the president could be considered obstruction of justice.

Now, it’s very clear when you read it, and you see they relate some of the internal conversations in meetings at the White House about this, it’s clear the president was very angry. But that is a sentiment that I think most people would share if they’ve been falsely accused of a crime and that’s exactly the situation here.

The key thing is that he took no official actions of any kind that could in any way actually be considered obstruction of justice.

Daniel Davis: Yeah. On that point, the report says that he gave orders to do things that were not obeyed, so Mueller says, quote, “The president’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the person declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.”

So it’s kind of a moot point then because it didn’t happen, but is that even a crime if he tried to get them to break the law but they didn’t?

von Spakovsky: No, I don’t think so, particularly because, and this is something that General Barr and others have talked about, is that it’s very clear when you read the report that he had no corrupt intent.

And what I mean by that is it’s one thing if you act because you’re innocent and you don’t believe the government should be investigating you because you haven’t committed a crime. That’s very different from having a corrupt intent to interfere with an investigation because, in fact, you did commit a crime and you want to cover it up.

Davis: So legally there’s a distinction there?

von Spakovsky: There is a distinction and they talk about the fact that the president’s anger over this makes it clear to General Barr that there was no corrupt intent with any of his hot talk, if I can call it that, over what Bob Mueller and others were doing.

And again, key point there, remember there were no restrictions placed on Bob Mueller. He had all the resources he needed, he had 19 lawyers, 40 FBI agents, and he did a very comprehensive, wide-ranging investigation.

I’ve already heard some folks claiming, “Well, he didn’t have everything he needed to do a complete investigation.” Again, that’s just not correct.

Trinko: The report says that President Trump did try to remove Mueller, or presumably a special council, but that people didn’t follow his orders … it didn’t happen. Is that telling or significant?

von Spakovsky: I don’t think so when it comes down to the obstruction of justice charge. It didn’t happen and the investigation was completely and thoroughly done. So again, I just don’t see how you could bring an obstruction of justice charge and the attorney general agrees with that assessment.

Davis: The report also said that Trump was asked a lot of written questions by Mueller and that Mueller was sort of unsatisfied with those answers.

I’ll just read from the report here. Mueller says, “The President stated on more than 30 occasions that he does not recall or remember or have an independent recollection of information called for by the questions. Other answers were incomplete or imprecise.”

It sounds like maybe he just got good legal advice.

von Spakovsky: It could be, and so what that Mueller wasn’t satisfied with that? That’s just Mueller’s claim. He hasn’t proved in a court of law that somehow those answers were untruthful. So again, I don’t pay much attention to accusations by a prosecutor who in the end concludes there’s not enough evidence for a prosecution.

Trinko: Liberals are calling for Mueller to testify before Congress—

von Spakovsky: Right.

Trinko: … in May. Is that a good idea? Is that something he should do? What do you think?

von Spakovsky: Well, he can do it, but if Democrats think they’re going to somehow get something out of it more than they’ve already gotten in his report, I think they’re going to be sadly disappointed.

If they believe that Mueller’s going to come up with some kind of smoking gun that’s not in the report, I just don’t believe that. I think Mueller put everything he could into that report and they’re just not going to discover anything else.

Trinko: That’s a real problem for all the liberals with the Mueller tattoos and all that other stuff, there’s going to be no smoking gun.

Davis: But it seems like there’s enough in this report for both sides to really build a narrative. Trump clearly has the no collusion and no criminal charges, no indictment, but Democrats do have what seemed like the president potentially trying to undermine the investigation, although that didn’t happen. What do you think is the political fallout?

von Spakovsky: I actually don’t think, from the standpoint of an ordinary American, that there’s going to be much fallout because I think the ordinary American will look at what happened and say, “Boy, if I was falsely accused of a crime in my neighborhood or at my work, I would have been just as angry and just as frustrated as the president.” And I also probably would have wanted to tell off the prosecutor who was investigating me with no valid reason to do so.

Davis: In light of the fact that they found no collusion despite two years of efforts, a huge amount of manpower, and financial resources, frankly, applied this, they’re talking about looking into further the spying on the Trump campaign and how this whole thing began.

Do you think there needs to be much more of a investigation and why they even thought there was collusion to investigate in the first place?

von Spakovsky: The answer to that is yes, and the reason being that people should not forget that this did not start off as a regular law enforcement investigation, it started off as a counterintelligence operation. Because, in fact, what the FBI did is they went to the secret FISA Court. That’s the court set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

That’s the court that our intelligence agencies and the FBI go to when they suspect there’s a foreign spy in the United States and they want to, for example, initiate secret electronic surveillance.

There are certain evidentiary standards you have to meet to justify that and never before in the history of the United States has a counterintelligence operation been opened, sanctioned by a court against a presidential campaign.

And now that we know that in fact there was no basis for the claims that were being made and the claims that were used to open up the investigation, we need to find out: Was there actually a sufficient basis? Was there sufficient evidence for them to open up the investigation?

If there wasn’t, then people at the FBI and DOJ abused their law enforcement powers and not only do they need to be punished for that, but we need to be sure that never happens again.

Davis: As Sen. Lindsey Graham has pointed out, usually when those FISA investigations happen, it’s to protect the American entities and they will notify them and say, “Hey, these Russians or whoever are trying to spy on you,” but that never happens. So, it certainly allows for the possibility that there was some foul play.

von Spakovsky: Yeah. I have to say I heard the senator say that and I have to agree with him, that makes what happened highly suspicious to me.

If the FBI had knowledge that Russians were contacting the campaign, and as we now know in many efforts, there were many efforts where they were disguising themselves and trying to fool folks into not realizing they were Russian, why didn’t they go to the campaign and warn them about it?

Davis: Right. So how does this investigation into the FISA warrant happen? Does the attorney general now launch this or does Senator Graham have a special investigation?

von Spakovsky: Well, they both could happen at the same time because obviously the Senate and the House intelligence committees, and the judiciary committees, potentially, have jurisdiction over this.

But, in fact, if I was the attorney general, I would appoint a special inside task force. Not a special council, but a group of lawyers on the inside who can take a look at this and examine all the documents, interview the FBI agents and original DOJ lawyers involved, and find out did they actually have a real basis for opening up the investigation?

Trinko: Hans, thanks so much for making time and pulling away from the 400-page tome to talk to us today.

von Spakovsky: Sure, thanks for having me.

PODCAST BY

Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko is editor-in-chief of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal Podcast. Send an email to Katrina. Twitter: @KatrinaTrinko.

Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis is the commentary editor of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal podcast. Send an email to Daniel. Twitter: @JDaniel_Davis.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Russian Collusion’ a Giant Smokescreen to Obscure DNC Leaker?

Publisher of DCLeaks Contradicts the Mueller Report

Key Takeaways From the Mueller Report on Trump and Russia

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal podcast and column is republished with permission.

Copyright © 2024 DrRichSwier.com LLC. A Florida Cooperation. All rights reserved. The DrRichSwier.com is a not-for-profit news forum for intelligent Conservative commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own. Republishing of columns on this website requires the permission of both the author and editor. For more information contact: drswier@gmail.com.