Mueller No Closer At Making A Case Against Trump Than He Was A Year Ago.

On Friday afternoon, the Mueller team and the Special Prosecutors Office for the Southern District of New York submitted a series of memos dealing with their investigation on Russian collusion, obstruction, and campaign illegalities.  In response, the left wing media went abuzz citing the damning implications of the release. One article by Erica Orden and Marshall Cohen of CNN claimed that “Federal prosecutors said for the first time Friday that Michael Cohen acted at the direction of Donald Trump when the former fixer committed two election-related crimes. . . ” It also claimed that the memos “exposed deeper entanglements than previously known between Trump, his campaign apparatus and the Russian government, . . .” including a claim of “‘political synergy'” between Moscow and Cohen.  Meanwhile, The New York Times headlined a prosecutorial charge that “Trump Directed Illegal Payments During Campaign.”

In fact, the memos contained little by way of new material, and some of the cited comments were actually mere corollary references to the President with little indication of illegality on his part.

The memos, available at The Federalist Pages Library, are part of the ongoing prosecutorial wrangling against Trump allies Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen.  In Cohen’s case, the two memos represent sentencing recommendations by the prosecutors from the Southern District of New York and Robert Mueller.  The federal prosecutors recommended “a substantial term of imprisonment” for Cohen while Mueller was much more cryptic stating only that the sentence should “reflect the fact that lying to federal investigators has real consequences, especially where the defendant lied to investigators about critical facts, in an investigation of national importance.”

But of more interest to the media were the comments implicating Cohen in Russian collusion or campaign finance violations on behalf of, or in coordination with, the President of the United States.  And although the press is doing its best to spin the published comments, in point of fact, no such allegations were made.

First, any objective analysis of these memos must acknowledge that neither refers to the actions of President Trump.  They specifically discuss and detail the actions of Michael Cohen.  In those instances where Trump is mentioned, the references are made solely with regard to the Cohen’s actions.  The prosecutor’s memo spends some time discussing potential campaign financing violations by Candidate Trump from the standpoint of Michael Cohen.  The allegations made regarding the President, if any, are actually those made by Cohen. In other words, there is no independent evidence presented that President Trump actually did anything wrong. There are contemporaneous comments made by Cohen where he claimed he was acting on behalf of candidate Trump and that he was facilitating Trump’s campaign, but these are hearsay comments made by a discredited party sounding like nothing more than boastful and hollow fluffery.

The references to potential Cohen participation in illegal campaign activity present no new insights or information regarding any potential violations on the part of Candidate Trump.  The memos spend a considerable time detailing the previously disclosed events surrounding alleged payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal.  But the narrative provides no new details on the events nor does it provide any information regarding any orders from Candidate Trump.  More importantly, the memo does nothing to address the issue of intent on the part of Candidate Trump, a necessary element in any case regarding campaign-finance violations.  Specifically, the memo does nothing to clarify whether Candidate Trump desired to silence the women to keep him from falling into a negative light with his wife and in his business dealings, or whether this was primarily a campaign concern as would be required in a successful prosecution of Trump.

The second issue discussed in the Mueller memo is Cohen’s involvement in Trump’s dealings with the Russians and the possibility of cooperation between the two in influencing the outcome of the presidential election.  Here, the memos offered no evidence that such activities took place.  As a matter of fact, they dealt only with Trump’s legal real estate dealings with Russian nationals.

The Manafort memorandum is even less helpful to a potential case against President Trump because it is so heavily redacted. Just as in the Cohen memos, it deals not provide allegations against Trump.  Specifically, the memo makes the case that Manafort engaged in numerous lies after his plea agreement in 2018.

Despite the paucity of information regarding the President and any wrongdoing on his part, the media are doing everything in their power to divine implications that simply do not exist.  CNN’s and The New York Times’ comments regarding the President having directed Cohen to commit election related crimes is simply not true.  The claim comes from a sentence in the prosecutors’ memo detailing an admission by Cohen.  Specifically, the memo says, “In Particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination and at the direction of Individual 1.”  (Individual 1 in the memo is Candidate Trump.)  As is clearly evident, this sentence provides no independent evidence that President Trump actually directed the payments in question.  Rather, it is merely a recitation of the claim made by the already discredited Michael Cohen.  And even if Candidate Trump did direct the payments in question, one cannot conclude based on the information gathered, that the payments were illegal as CNN prematurely asserts.

The comment of “political synergy” alluded to by CNN is even more deceitful.  This one comes from the Mueller memo describing a Russian national repeatedly offering Cohen the opportunity to arrange for “‘political synergy’ and ‘synergy on a government level,'” an invitation that Mueller specifies Cohen “never follow[ed] up on.”

In the end, the media’s enthusiasm over the contents of these memos is overplayed, once again demonstrating their zeal to go after the President no matter how fictitious an allegation may be.  Although Friday’s claim by the President that he had been completely vindicated by the contents of the memos is overly enthusiastic, to say the least, the media’s claim that these memos contained anything threatening against the President is downright unfounded.

Once again, we will have to wait for the production of further documents on the part of federal prosecutors before a definitive conclusion can be made.  But this much can be gleaned.  With the information available, Mueller is no closer to establishing a case against Trump today, than he was one year ago.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist Pages. The featured photo is by Joel & Jasmin Førestbird on Unsplash.

Cohen, Manafort Developments Don’t Reveal Any Illegal Conduct or Collusion by Trump, His Campaign

Amid the media hysteria over Michael Cohen’s guilty plea and discussions between the lawyers representing Paul Manafort and President Donald Trump, it’s important to understand from a legal standpoint what this means—and what it does not.

We don’t know what other evidence special counsel Robert Mueller may have that hasn’t yet been disclosed. But the evidence disclosed to date—including in Cohen’s plea deal—still doesn’t reveal any illegal conduct by Trump or his campaign or any collusion with the Russian government to change the outcome of the 2016 election. There is nothing illegal or unethical about discussions and sharing of information between lawyers representing individuals who may be the focus of the same prosecutor.

Cohen pleaded guilty to one count of lying to Congress. What was he lying about? For the past 30 years, the Trump real estate organization has been trying to negotiate a deal to build a marquee property in Moscow. There is certainly nothing unusual or untoward about that.

The criminal information filed by the special counsel describes the false statements that Cohen now admits he made. Cohen originally told Congress that the negotiations he was involved in over that deal ended in January 2016 and that they did not involve Trump himself. He now admits that the negotiations didn’t end until June 2016 (the deal was never consummated), and that he did brief individuals within the Trump Organization, including Trump, about the negotiations.

Cohen also stated that he never planned to travel to Russia for the hotel deal, nor did he ask Trump to travel there. He also swore to Congress that he had reached out to the press secretary for the Russian president, but that he did “not recall” whether he received a response. These statements were also false, thus constituting a federal crime of lying to Congress.

No one should minimize the seriousness of lying under oath to Congress. During the guilty plea before the district court judge, Cohen said, “I made these statements to be consistent with Individual-1’s political messaging and to be loyal to Individual 1.”

So Cohen lied to be loyal to Trump (Individual 1 presumably). But it’s important to understand that the underlying conduct that Cohen was lying about—negotiating a real estate deal—is not illegal or unlawful in and of itself, whether you’re working to get something built in New York City or Moscow.

Furthermore, there is no federal law that tells individuals who own a business and run for federal office, whether it is the presidency or Congress, that they have to stop running their business, negotiating deals, or taking part in the other myriad details involved in being a business owner the moment they decide to run for office.

Yes, they have to avoid conflicts of interest, and cannot enrich themselves unlawfully once in office. But those laws kick in after someone is elected.

All of Cohen’s entreaties to get the real estate deal appear to have been perfectly legal, at least so far as we know.

If we assume that Cohen pleaded guilty this time because he really did lie to Congress, then the underlying conduct—talking to Russian officials about a possible real estate deal in Moscow and briefing individuals within the Trump Organization—is all lawful conduct. Does Cohen secretly have some other testimony that shows illegal activity? We don’t know, and there is nothing in the plea agreement that indicates one way or another.

We also don’t know what Cohen told Mueller during his seven proffer sessions that took place between August 2018 and Nov. 20, 2018, as noted in the plea agreement. We do know that Trump submitted his written responses to Mueller on Nov. 20, and the Cohen guilty plea took place after that, leading one to conclude that Mueller was waiting for the president’s written answers before unveiling Cohen’s latest guilty plea. Where this leads is difficult to tell.

By the way, it should be noted that Cohen faced a maximum of five years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000; the plea agreement with Mueller says that the special prosecutor is recommending no more than six months in prison and a maximum fine of only $9,500.

The media has also been full of stories claiming the special counsel is upset that the lawyers representing Manafort have apparently been briefing the lawyers representing Trump about their discussions with Mueller and implying that there is something nefarious in such sharing of information. There is nothing illegal or unethical about lawyers with different clients sharing such information.

The extensive, 17-page plea agreement that Manafort entered into with Mueller on Sept. 14 has no provision of any kind barring Manafort or his lawyers from briefing the president’s lawyers on their discussions with Mueller. There is an entire page and a half detailing the cooperation that Manafort has to provide to the special counsel, but nowhere does it say that Manafort is prohibited from sharing information about that cooperation.

In fact, Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s lawyer, says he has joint defense agreements with 32 potential witnesses in the special counsel’s investigation, including Manafort. Some legal experts say that agreement should have ended when Manafort pleaded guilty, but as long as Manafort’s lawyer is simply providing information to Giuliani and there is no effort to tamper with a witness or obstruct justice, there is no unlawful behavior in such sharing of information (although it is unusual).

Of course, Manafort, who was convicted for criminal violations of the law related to his consulting business that had nothing to do with his brief participation in the Trump campaign, has more serious problems.

On Nov. 26, Mueller filed a pleading with the federal court in the District of Columbia claiming that Manafort has breached his plea deal by “lying” to the FBI and the special counsel “on a variety of subject matters.” Those “subject matters” are not detailed in the filing; instead, the special counsel says he will outline what those “lies” are when he files a “detailed sentencing” report to the court.

So far, after a year and a half of the special counsel investigation, we’ve had multiple indictments of Russians for trying—with no coordination with any Americans—to use social media and the internet to encourage social unrest in America in 2016. We had various indictments for criminal activity unrelated to the Trump campaign and for lying to Congress and federal investigators over conduct that was itself lawful.

But we still have had no indictments that have revealed any evidence about the issue the special counsel was supposed to investigate—whether there was any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. The latest developments with Cohen and Manafort add very little to answering that ultimate question. We’re still waiting.

Originally published by Fox News

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Hans von Spakovsky

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research. Twitter: .


The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now


EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: Go Nakamura/ZUMA Press/Newscom.

VIDEO: In Nevada, 2019 Will Be the Year of the Gun Grabber

Gun control is new Nevada Governor Sisolak’s top priority. Nevada Firearms Coalition President Don Turner joins Dana Loesch to weigh in.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with video and images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Josh Rocklage on Unsplash.

The Paris Riots Are Really About Macrón’s Globalism

Yesterday, I watched an incredibly insightful interview by Christianne Amanpour with the Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto, a link to which I have posted in our new and growing Library.  Szijjarto demonstrated incredible composure as he warded off repeated assaults from Amanpour on Hungarian nationalism and the country’s immigration policies.  And I also noticed one other thing; no one is rioting in Budapest.

As previously reported in “The Federalist Pages,” the Paris, gilet jaunes riots, so called because of the yellow vests worn by demonstrators, are a direct result of President Emmanuel Macrón’s decision to raise fuel taxes by the equivalent of 0.25¢ per gallon on gasoline that already costs the equivalent of $6.00 per gallon. Macrón’s decision is openly based on his perceived need to cut down on gas consumption in order to fight off global warming.  The reality is that France accounts for about 2% of the world’s oil consumption, and it is already second only to the United States in nuclear power production.  So, to say that Macrón’s fuel tax is going to make any difference in the world’s carbon footprint defies reality.

There must be another reason that drives Macrón to raising fuel taxes.

Macrón is a globalist.  More importantly, Macrón is strongly pro-European Union.  It is very possible that his policy positions on global warming and carbon footprints are overtures designed to appease the interests of the members of the European Union in an effort to strengthen his position there in anticipation of a post-presidential position.

But Macrón has been too eager to abandon the interests of his own constituency.  Macrón is viewed as the president of the rich, and his green tax incentives are not seen by the French as altruistic efforts for the betterment of the world order, but rather as a self-indulgent effort by the President of the rich.  French citizens appropriately view his fuel taxes as disproportionately impacting the poor and middle classes, a perception confirmed by the New York Times in its recent report on the French’s reaction to the fuel tax.  In fact in a poll conducted on Saturday, after the initiation of the French riots, gilet jaunes carried a 72% approval rating among the French.  Scenes of the French police and firemen removing their covers in solidarity with the demonstrators that have been flowing through social media validate that impression.

It is interesting that these events should come in the heels of Macrón’s harsh criticisms of President Trump and his strongly “nationalistic” views.  In his zeal to criticize the American President, Macrón has actually revealed a much more threatening truth about his priorities to the French people, Macrón does not value the importance of representing the interests of France in the world stage.  In fact, he would rather have France suffer through painful measures such as exorbitant green taxes to appease the needs of others over the needs of the French.

Indeed, in making his case, Macrón openly conflated the context in which President Trump uses the word “nationalism.” President Trump’s “nationalism” is philosophy upholding the societal benefits of the nation-state in international and domestic policies.  Macrón’s contention that that the term “nationalism” even as used by Trump, denoted the arrogant, ethnocentric view of believing in the superiority one’s race even if it means the eradication of all others.

It is clear, that Trump’s call for a healthy sense of nationalism and patriotism is inconsistent with the false charge made by President Macrón at the 100 years anniversary of the Armistice ending World War I.

After having failed to make the case against President Trump, the implication of Macrón’s globalist philosophies and the lack of regional representation they beget played themselves out in a hostile and painful manner in the City of Lights, which has lately become the City of Bonfires.

Yes, the gilet jaunesriots are about abusive tax policies.  They are also about ramming a green agenda down the throats of the people when they can ill afford to comply despite the futility of the actions they are being asked to undertake.  But they are also an anti-antinationalist movement that recognizes the precarious position in which a population is placed when its leader does not uphold his or her nation’s priorities.

It is evident that Hungary recognizes this truth, much to Christiane Amanpour’s chagrin.  And France has not, much to the chagrin of its own citizenry.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist Pages. The featured photo is by Dorian Hurst on Unsplash.

The Left’s Election Day Analysis: If We Lost, They Must’ve Cheated

A disturbing trend is emerging from the political left: When their candidates lose elections, rather than accept lawful defeat, they denounce the election itself.

In 2016, they explained away President Donald Trump’s victory as the product of Russian meddling. Now, they are blaming election losses in Florida and Georgia on “voter suppression” and other sinister acts.

In Florida, Democrat gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum walked back his election night concession, claiming “tens of thousands of votes have yet to be counted,” and told supporters that a “vote denied is justice denied.”

Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, described the Georgia gubernatorial race as biased against Democrat Stacey Abrams, claiming that if Abrams “had a fair election, she already would have won.” Sen. Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, announced that Abrams’ apparent defeat was a sure sign that Republicans “stole” her election.

Sure enough, when the final tally gave the victory to Republican Brian Kemp, Abrams refused to concede, because “concession means to acknowledge an action is right, true or proper.” Instead, Abrams blamed her defeat on Kemp’s supposed “suppression of the people’s democratic right to vote.”

Such pronouncements are creating a dangerous perception within liberal ranks that electoral defeat automatically equals electoral theft. For years, the left has denounced election integrity measures as tantamount to disenfranchisement. Now they are saying the same thing about electoral defeats.

This sort of rhetoric can have profound—and dangerous—consequences. Democracy works only when the people have confidence that the electoral process is free and fair, and the outcome is valid.

Sometimes, to be sure, this is not the case.

The Heritage Foundation election fraud database presently has 1,147 proven instances of fraud. Several of these cases involve elections that were overturned because enough fraudulent ballots had been cast to alter the outcome.

But there is a key distinction between those cases and liberals’ new accusations: proof.

Winning a court case to invalidate an election on the basis of fraud requires gathering significant evidence, and demonstrating, for example, that ballots were tampered with, that voters were bribed or coerced, or that elections officials rigged the results. Convicting someone on criminal election fraud charges requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

It’s a high bar to meet, leagues beyond the reckless and unsubstantiated allegations erupting after the Florida and Georgia elections.

Consider the facts.

After a machine recount, in the Florida gubernatorial race, Ron DeSantis’ 33,683 vote lead over Gillum had hardly moved at all.

And in Georgia, the left’s claims that Kemp was overseeing insidious vote suppression efforts seem nonsensical, given that voter turnout actually skyrocketed.

According to FiveThirtyEight.com, 55 percent of all eligible Georgia voters cast a ballot: “21 points higher than the state’s 1982-2014 average. That was the biggest change from the average of any state.” Exit polls indicate that minority turnout in the state may also have set records.

Still, Abrams declared to supporters that “democracy failed Georgia.”

Not quite. A more apt summation of the election would be that “liberals are failing democracy.”

Telling voters that elections are only fair when their party wins sets up every election to be discounted by one side or the other. It foments distrust and dissension, and it feeds the vitriol that already pervades so many aspects of modern politics.

Some political strategists might hope that de-legitimizing the electoral process will frighten and enrage the liberal base, increase turnout, and pay dividends in 2020. If true, then the left’s cynical gamble on “voter suppression” rhetoric would be a great irony.

But for all the temptations of that approach, we can and should hope that the rhetoric of the last few weeks—overheated, baseless, and reckless as it has been—will fall by the wayside.

Even today, in an age of division and zero-sum politics, there remains something more important than winning elections: keeping our democracy.

Originally published in The Washington Times

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Jason Snead

Jason Snead is a senior policy analyst in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read his research. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Ballot Harvesting,’ California Dems’ Latest Election Stealing Tool

If You’re Looking For The Documented Evidence Of Voter Fraud In Broward County, Here It Is – The Washington Standard


The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now


EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: Al Diaz/TNS/Newscom.

A Marriage Message Made in Taiwan

Taiwan was supposed to be the first place in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage. Then, they asked voters. And like countries the world over, the island’s leaders got the same answer: No.

Of the 10 questions on the Taiwanese ballot, none got more attention than the five dealing with LGBT “rights.” “Do you agree that marriage defined in The Civil Code should be restricted to the union between one man and one woman?” voters were asked. An overwhelming portion of the country — 70.1 percent — said yes. Of course, you’ll have a hard time finding the actual number in American newspapers, since our media is doing its best to ignore the landslide. But the message from the country off the east coast of China could not be clearer: there is no significant international movement toward same-sex marriage.

Some people might see the results and think the island has a massive Christian population. They’d be wrong. Less than five percent of the country are Protestants or Catholics. And although they were vocal about their opinion on the issue, the fact of the matter is, most of the world’s population knows how unnatural the idea is. Until 2015, when the Supreme Court forced same-sex on America, LGBT activists here at home insisted the U.S. was outside the mainstream. But the irony is, we’re only outside of the mainstream now that it’s legal! There are 195 countries on this planet, and only 27 of them allow same-sex marriage. That’s 13 percent — hardly the stuff of global consensus.

Besides, not even global consensus is a substitute for truth. And as the Archbishop John Hung Shan-chuan of Taipei told his church’s leaders, no law can change God’s design for marriage. While the Church does not condone discrimination, he said, “We cannot support same-sex ‘marriage’ and same-sex unions,” he insisted. “The legalization is… not in line with our teachings.”

Seven thousand miles away in America, the vote is having an interesting effect on our own debate. In a country where natural marriage is still the popular view, it’s become difficult — if not impossible — to voice those views without backlash. Scott Chen, who was educated in Taiwan, found that out when he posted a message about the vote in Chinese. “Some people think that marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman, I think so too, but that’s your own business.” You can imagine how well that would be taken by the LGBT movement if Chen were an average businessman. They’d demand his resignation. The problem is, Chen isn’t just an average businessman. Three months ago, he was named president of an app facilitating same-sex dating. For how much longer, after this backlash, no one knows.

Chen tried to defend himself. “I said marriage is a holy matrimony between a man and a woman is based on my own personal experience,” he said. “I am a straight man married to a woman I love and I have two beautiful daughters I love from the marriage. This is how I feel about my marriage. Different people have their different feelings about their marriages. You can’t deny my feelings about my marriage.”

Now, we expect that kind of backtracking from a lot of people in corporate America. The problem for believers, however, is that some Christians are doing the same thing. They become so intimidated by the cultural bullies that they put the fear of man above the fear of God. They shrink back and go silent on truth that is found not only in the Bible, but history and science as well. If Christians, who know the truth and are called to speak the truth ignore the truth, then what hope do we have? As a church in this country, we need a clarion call for courage. In a culture where 62 percent of student conservatives are too afraid to share their ideas in class, America is in a crisis situation.

Fortunately, this country has a president who, when it comes to doing and saying the tough things, refuses to be intimidated. That kind of courage breeds courage. It only takes one person — an Isabella Chow — doing something radically brave, to help others find their voice. And before you know it, people like Isabella won’t be standing alone, because tens of thousands of people will be standing with them and behind them, inspired by their bravery. We need more Isabellas in this country — and if we’re going to change anything, we need them now.


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLES:

Bathroom Policy Needs Some Remodeling

The Skype’s the Limit for Abortion

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

The Incoming Congress May Look Diverse, but Diversity of Thought Is Dwindling

The headlines about the incoming 116th Congress scream that our representation has never been so “young,” so “blue,” so “diverse.”

If diversity is about how people look, this Congress is very diverse. It’s a fact that there has never been so great a number of representatives who are women and people of color. There are 124 women, 55 blacks, 43 Latinos, and 15 Asians.

But if diversity means diversity of thought, it’s practically nonexistent.

Of the 124 women, 105 are Democrats. Of the 55 blacks, all are Democrats. Of the 43 Latinos, 34 are Democrats. Of the 15 Asians, 14 are Democrats.

The celebration about alleged diversity is really a celebration of one, uniform voice on the left, dressed in different colors, calling in unison for moving America further toward socialism and secular humanism.

All the politics of today’s Democratic Party, which is as far left as it has ever been, is about how people look and where they come from. Once we called this prejudice or stereotyping. Now we call it progressivism.

This is anything but Martin Luther King’s famous dream that his children would one day be judged by “the content of their character and not the color of their skin.”

It takes a certain blindness to miss the irony in these politicians of the left, who call for honoring and empowering individuals, and choose to do this by making them less free.

They claim to enhance individual dignity by expanding government to dictate our health care, how we save and retire, our relationship with our employer, how and what we can say to others and what they can say to us, and just about every detail of our private lives and decisions.

How has it become so lost in our country that the way we dignify individuals is by believing in them, by granting them freedom to take responsibility for their own life?

In this election, Republicans won a national majority only from white voters. Hispanics voted 69 percent for Democrats; blacks, 90 percent; and Asians, 77 percent.

Minority Americans have bought the lie that personal freedom is not in their interest—that government should run their lives. This is meaningful to us all because they represent the growth demographics of the nation.

According to recent analysis from the Brookings Institution, white America will be in the minority by 2045. However, by 2027, just eight years from now, the majority of Americans 29 and under will be non-white.

The socialists, the secular humanists, know time is on their side. It’s a waiting game for them.

The new Democrat House has only one thing in mind—biding its time to inflict maximum damage on President Donald Trump in order to lay the groundwork for whomever it nominates for president in 2020. So expect a very noisy two years.

What can Republicans do? Get far more aggressive in reaching into these minority communities about what losing or gaining freedom will mean to them. Republicans have a very important story to tell that is not reaching these communities.

Countries that are not free don’t grow, because all the activity is about transferring wealth—not creating it.

The progressive politics of blame, dependence, and envy make the well-connected rich and keep impoverished people poor. It’s why over the last 50 years, many black politicians have gotten wealthy while the gap in average household income between whites and blacks is 50 percent greater today than it was in 1970.

Republicans and all Americans who care about bequeathing a free nation to their children and grandchildren need to think long and hard about how to communicate the importance of freedom to Americans of color.

It’s our only hope of not losing our country to the left forever.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Star Parker

Star Parker is a columnist for The Daily Signal and president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Religion of Leftism


The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now


EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters/Newscom.

France’s Tax Revolt: What Separates the Yellow Vests from America’s Tea Party

At first glance, the French yellow vests and American Tea Party seem quite similar, but once you look closely, the resemblance disappears.


France is seeing large-scale protests against massive hikes in petrol prices, sparked by tax increases. Is the anti-tax uprising sustainable or bound to disappear?

In an effort to make its case on climate change, the government under French president Emmanuel Macron has significantly increased the TICPE, an acronym which stands for “interior tax on the consumption of energy products.” An increase of up to 12 percent is supposed to curb CO2 emissions and get the country on target to fulfill its objectives, set out in the Paris Climate Accord (which the United States has pulled out of under President Trump).

Petrol prices in the République, which were already much higher than in its neighboring countries, skyrocketed despite the current level of cheap oil. On a website set up by the French government in an effort to help consumers compare prices, this becomes very visible: in the Paris region, a liter of petrol can cost up to €1.90 ($2.15). For my American friends who may be less familiar with the metric system, that’s $8.13 per gallon.

As a result, the gilets jaunes (yellow vests) arose out of civil society. They aren’t associated with any political party, but they are surely angry, contesting sky-high taxation in France, and the political class is unwilling to listen to them. Protest marches often occur on motorways, where the yellow vests block the streets to get attention for their cause. The high-visibility security vests they wear are symbolic for a cry for help and a desperate attempt to gain attention. However, unannounced protests on motorways also had their price: one woman was killed, and hundreds injured in protests that were held on motorways not closed down by police.

Some protests have turned violent in city centers, where particularly large crowds are clashing with police forces.

“We shouldn’t underestimate the impact of these images of the Champs-Élysées […] with battle scenes that were broadcast by the media in France and abroad,” government spokesman Benjamin Griveaux told a news briefing. “Behind this anger there is obviously something deeper and which we must answer, because this anger, these anxieties have existed for a long time.”

President Macron reacted to the protest by calling for the rule of law to be protected. His government had already introduced a special energy subsidy for those in need, in order to cope with the tax. However, this hasn’t managed to stop the anger of the yellow vests, who are bound to continue their protests.

Uncoordinated and Unpolitical

The yellow vests aren’t a political movement, even though their requests are political. However, they risk being politicized by letting themselves be integrated into France’s party political movements. This isn’t new: political parties are mastering the art of undermining legitimate movements and claiming them for themselves. Both France’s far-left and far-right believe that the yellow vests could be an essential electoral boost to them before the impending European elections in this coming May.

But even if we assume that this movement manages to resist the attempts of being swallowed by either political side, what future can it have in such a tax-friendly country? The yellow vests are no Tea Party: they lack the structure and ideological backing that fueled the Tea Party.

The yellow vests are certainly fed up, but one thing would likely differentiate them from American conservatives: the Tea Party understood that in order to cut taxes, you need to cut spending. In France however, expectations to win just as many people over on the promise of cutting spending are grim.

When president Macron talked about “slackers,” “people who are nothing,” and an “unreformable country,” Politico called it an “arrogance problem.” Surely, passing an elite school and doing banking for Rothschild bears that risk. Be that as it may, the essential question is how reformable France really is. People arguing to cut taxes is a wonderful thing, but it also needs to be offset with the belief that the government isn’t here to solve all of your problems. We’re not hearing that from the yellow vests.

France’s far-right under Marine Le Pen also argues for considerable cuts in income taxes and other taxes, which has given some on the American right reason to believe Le Pen would qualify as a US conservative. There again, cutting taxes without cutting spending is just going to shift the problem to debt and inflationary policies.

If the yellow vests want to become a movement that has an actual voice in the process of reforming France, then it needs to be ideologically sound.

France should either cheer on the Paris Climate Accord for its great virtue or burn tires over sky-high petrol taxes introduced to curb carbon emissions. You can’t really have both.

COLUMN BY

Bill Wirtz

Bill Wirtz

Bill Wirtz is a Young Voices Advocate. His work has been featured in several outlets, including Newsweek, Rare, RealClear, CityAM, Le Monde and Le Figaro. He also works as a Policy Analyst for the Consumer Choice Center.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is taken from the YouTube video posted by Huffington Post France.

VIDEO: Here’s Why Identity Politics Threaten America

Is there an answer to the problem of identity politics in America? For some, the “solution” is direct.

“We need to take on the oppression narrative,” conservative commentator Heather Mac Donald said at a Heritage Foundation gathering on Capitol Hill.

Americans need to “rebut” the idea “that every difference in American society today is the result by definition of discrimination,” Mac Donald said during the event Monday, called “Identity Politics Is a Threat to Society. Is There Anything We Can Do About It at This Point?

Without challenging this overarching narrative, the Manhattan Institute fellow said, “there is going to be no end to identity politics.”

The rise of identity politics has become a phenomenon not just in America, but in the West in general.

In many ways, debates over identity are defining and shaping the politics of our time and pose a unique challenge in particular to the United States, a vast, multi-ethnic country with potential identity fault lines that far exceed the more homogenous societies of the world.

Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation, and Mike Franc, director of D.C. programs at the Hoover Institution, brought together a diverse set of thinkers to hash out why identity politics is on the rise and how to address it.

Besides Mac Donald, they included John Fonte, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute; Peter Berkowitz, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution; Michael Lind, a visiting professor at the University of Texas at Austin; and Andrew Sullivan, a writer for New York magazine.

Each highlighted the problem.

Hudson’s Fonte outlined what has become the framework for identity politics on the left.

“Multiculturalism, the diversity project, and critical theory” are the three major cornerstones of this creed, Fonte said.

In a 2013 article in National Review, Fonte described the “diversity project” as: “[T]he ongoing effort to use federal power to impose proportional representation along race, gender, and ethnic lines in all aspects of American life.”

Multiculturalism comes in a hard version and a soft version, he said.

The soft version celebrates ethnic subcultures, examples being St. Patrick’s Day and Cinco de Mayo.

The hard version, Fonte said, has damaged society. He concisely summed up its tenets:

The United States is a multicultural society in which different cultures—African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans, Native Americans, and women—have their own values, histories, and identities separate from and sometimes in opposition to dominant Anglo, white, male culture.

This creed divides America into many peoples and has become the dominant ethos taught in American schools.

The diversity project’s demand for statistical equality for groups, or “group proportionalism,” as Fonte calls it, is another integral element of identity politics. But taken to its logical extent, the diversity project is incompatible with a free society, he said.

There is simply no way to create perfect, equal representation of all groups in all fields, the Hudson Institute scholar said. Any attempt to do so would require state coercion on a massive scale.

Finally, Fonte said, critical theory—which explains the difference in group outcomes by classifying groups as privileged or marginalized—further undermines free society because it directly opposes the concept of “liberal, democratic jurisprudence.” Individual justice is subordinated to social justice—the oppressors and the oppressed.

These concepts fundamentally undermine our republic, Fonte said, and while he had no answer to solve the threat, he said a return to patriotism and national identity was a better way forward.

Hoover’s Berkowitz reiterated the obsession of identity politics with “race, class, and gender.”

These classifications become the essence of who a person is, and subordinate individual differences and individual justice.

“Group rights are distributed on the basis of the discrimination or oppression that the group to which you belong has suffered,” Berkowitz said.

Thus, he said, victimhood becomes a “virtue” and a moral status symbol demonstrating that one deserves greater political power.

Distinctions exist between the postmodernist ideologies of the 1980s and 1990s and the early 21st century, he said. A key feature defining the identity politics of today is that it has moved on from the relativism of earlier eras and become dogmatic in its certainties.

Identity politics adherents on the left, for example, are now certain in their assessment that the West—including America—is racist and sexist.

Dissent from this narrative is taken as “an act of violence, an expression of racism and hatred,” Berkowitz said.

These ideas not only have become dominant on college campuses, he said, but are a threat to the fundamental nature of liberal societies. They cannot coexist with concepts like free speech, due process, and limited government.

American universities won’t counteract the identity politics creed, Berkowitz said, and so Americans who oppose it need to find outside solutions if they want to preserve their free society.

Berkowitz, who has written extensively about restoring the value of liberal education, said such solutions may come through alternative paths to education at the K-12 level—homeschooling and charter schools—as well as more programs to provide alternative curricula to parents and young people.

Lind spoke about how identity politics is becoming a flashpoint for the most fundamental divides not only in the U.S., but throughout the West.

Half of America—mostly in the rural regions and exurbs—accepts and lives out the concept of the “melting pot,” while the other half—in urban environments—embraces and lives with predominant multiculturalism, Lind said.

This city vs. country divide sets this era apart from earlier ones where region was more of a factor.

For most of American history, the concept of the melting pot has worked, but Lind said he is pessimistic for its future because of demography.

“The native fertility rate in Western societies is below replacement … we need to have replacement immigration of some kind in order to prevent the population from just collapsing,” Lind said.

However, the continually low birth rates in these societies will put pressure on them to increase immigration, he said, and so feed the constant political base for multiculturalism.

Mac Donald, also a contributor to City Journal, said people of “courage” need to confront the ideology of identity politics directly for the sake of the nation’s future.

She summed up what she said is the crux of of the debate and the oppression narrative:

The main driver is race—women are sort of a fast second place—but the main driver of all this is the lingering racial disparities, and we both need to close them and be honest about what’s driving them.

I would say family breakdown is the biggest driver and other behavioral disparities and culture [are also drivers]. Those need to be closed because if not, the oppression narrative is going to be with us to our enormous misfortune.

Sullivan said that while identity politics has existed in the past—notably in the 1990s—it’s “different now.”

People debated the concepts of identity politics in earlier eras, and often vehemently opposed them, but now identity politics has taken over “all teaching in the humanities” and has been fully embraced by an entire generation of “the elite,” the writer said.

Sullivan, an early supporter of same-sex marriage and President Barack Obama, said that it’s “staggering” how the ideas of identity politics have been universally accepted by the young elite, without question.

These ideas have spread beyond the college campus, Sullivan wrote earlier this year, and entered the mainstream of debate in America.

“It is staggering how people under the age of 30 buy all of this, have never even regarded it as questionable, that it’s become completely routine to believe these things,” Sullivan said.

Sullivan attributed this, in part, to parenting.

Parents tried so hard to create safe spaces for their children, he said, that the children were simply unable to handle disagreement or anything that made them feel unsafe.

Sullivan also said social media fuels surface-level hot takes and “virtue signaling,” rather than deeper thought.

What’s remarkable, he said, is that identity victimhood politics comes at a time when many of these groups are thriving more than ever before in history.

“We should talk about the successes that have occurred without this stuff,” Sullivan said. “In fact, I sometimes wonder whether this stuff is a function of having succeeded, because you’re terrified you’re going to lose the struggle you always lived with and you have nothing to do with your life.”

COLUMN BY

Portrait of Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman is an editor and commentary writer for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Send an email to Jarrett. Twitter: @JarrettStepman.


The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now


EDITORS NOTE: This column with video and images is republished with permission. Photo: John Rudoff/Sipa USA/Newscom.

Cindy Hyde-Smith Breaks Mississippi’s Glass Ceiling As She Becomes The State’s First Female Elected To Congress

Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith fended off her Democratic challenger, Mike Espy, on Tuesday by winning the election to retain her seat as junior U.S. senator to the state of Mississippi.

Hyde-Smith and Espy have been in a closely watched race since Nov. 6 when the Mississippi Senate election resulted in a runoff between the two candidates.

Republican candidate for U.S. Senate Cindy Hyde-Smith is introduced by President Donald Trump during a rally at the Tupelo Regional Airport, November 26, 2018 in Tupelo, Mississippi. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Republican candidate for U.S. Senate Cindy Hyde-Smith is introduced by President Donald Trump during a rally at the Tupelo Regional Airport, November 26, 2018 in Tupelo, Mississippi. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

The race between the Senate hopefuls became contentious after Democrats and left-wing groups highlighted racial division in the deep red state and when issues of racism flooded the Senate news cycle.

Hyde-Smith fueled the fire in early November after she said in jest that she would “be on the front row” if a man she was campaigning with invited her to a public hanging. The comment, although taken out of context, was seized upon.

During a debate, Hyde-Smith apologized for offending anyone with her remarks and repeatedly denied any ill-will or racial implications. However, she subsequently faced scrutiny after a photograph emerged of her wearing a replica of a Confederate hat while visiting the Jefferson Davis Presidential Library.

President Donald Trump again endorsed Hyde-Smith on Sunday and held two campaign rallies in Mississippi the following day in a last-ditch rallying effort ahead of polls opening. Trump tweeted that she is “an outstanding person who “is strong on the Border, Crime, Military, our great Vets, Healthcare [and] the [Second Amendment]” and that she is “needed in D.C.”

Hyde-Smith was appointed to the U.S. Senate in April 2018 to serve out the remainder of Republican Sen. Thad Cochran’s term after his resignation. The appointment made Hyde-Smith the first woman to represent the state of Mississippi in Congress, and Tuesday’s win made her the first woman elected to Congress in the state.

The Mississippi runoff election concludes the 2018 senatorial midterms, officially providing Republicans with a three-seat advantage for the 116th Congress.

COLUMN BY

Molly Prince | Politics Reporter

Follow Molly @mollyfprinceSend tips to molly@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

RELATED VIDEO: Cindy Hyde-Smith’s Victory Speech after Victory in Mississippi Runoff Election.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

The Real ‘Voter Suppression’ in 2018 Came from Big Tech

MS voters ignored media’s ‘racist’ label

Leading Up To The Mississippi Runoff, Democrats Make It All About Racial Identity

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column with images is republished with permission. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

As Mississippi runoff approaches, could colleges sway results?

UPDATE: Republican Hyde-Smith wins Mississippi Senate runoff

  • With the Mississippi Senate runoff election just days away, young voter turnout is expected to hold a lot of weight.
  • How are young voters, particularly those in college, likely to vote? The political donations of college employees could offer some insight.

With the Mississippi runoff election just days away, the young voter turnout is expected to hold a lot of weight. Senate candidates Cindy Hyde-Smith and Mark Epsy will likely need the young vote to secure the election on Tuesday.

College faculty and administrators’ influence on voting students may very well sway the election. Campus Reform analyses of several Mississippi colleges show that students are exposed to far more politically active, Democrat-supporting faculty and administrators than Republican supporting ones.

Ole Miss

At the University of Mississippi, locally known as Ole Miss, 7.8 percent of donations were given by employees to Republican politicians or political organizations, while 92.2 percent donated to Democrats.

While Republicans received higher value donations, only 15 Ole Miss employees donated, compared to the 177 employees who gave to Democrats.

Seven Ole Miss faculty members donated $60,064 to Republican causes between Jan. 1, 2017 and Oct. 22, 2018, while 107 faculty members donated $48,799.77 to Democrat organizations and politicians.

Only eleven Ole Miss administrators made political donations. No administrators donated to Republicans, but rather to Democrat organizations like Randy Wadkins’ congressional campaign, which Wadkins lost.

University of Southern Mississippi

Republican Senatorial candidate Cindy Hyde-Smith attended the small public research university in the late 1970s before her time in politics. However, the current disparity amongst politically active university employees shows a strong lean against Republicanism. Only 0.8 percent of university faculty donated to Republican organizations while 99.2 percent of faculty gave to Democrats.

In total, 94.4 percent of University of Southern Mississippi employee donations were given to Democrats or Democrat organizations, while just 5.6 percent of employees donated to Republicans.

Campus student group, Southern Miss Common Cause, has recently condemned Hyde-Smith for several comments made on the campaign trail over the past several months. The group has called for Hyde-Smith’s resignation and informally banned her from campus, according to WDAM-TV.

Hyde-Smith was reported to have made comments in favor of voter suppression by making it more difficult for college students to vote as they tend to be more liberal. Hyde-Smith’s campaign has since claimed the comment was a joke, according to Politico.

Hyde-Smith also made a joke about being “on the first row” at a “public hanging” if a supporter invited her, The Hill reported. The comment has received criticism from both sides of the political aisle.

Mississippi State

Of the faculty at Mississippi State, 98.1 percent donated to Democrat organizations, like Act Blue and Swing Left, while only 1.9 percent of those who donated gave to Republican organizations.

In total, 92.05 percent of Mississippi State employees, who donated politically, gave to Democrats while 7.95 gave to Republicans.

For the purposes of this data, Campus Reform defined “faculty” as employees of the college that have direct instructional contact with students, such as professors, teachers, and instructors. “Administrators” were defined as employees who manage programming or are responsible for students and faculty, such as department chairs, deans, presidents, and provosts.

Campus Reform sorted individual donors using their stated position at the college. For example, if the individual donor noted that they were a “professor of literary theory,” they were designated as a faculty member. If an individual noted that they were employed as an “executive director,” they were designated as an administrator. In the event an employee’s title was ambiguous and could not be confirmed, they were marked as general employees, but not sorted into faculty or administration categories. Campus Reform used a variation of keyword searches to cull data specific to the University of Mississippi, University of Southern Mississippi, and Mississippi State University employees.

Campus Reform used the most recent FEC donor records from Jan. 1, 2017 to Oct. 22, 2018.

COLUMN BY

Grace Gottschling

GRACE GOTTSCHLING

Investigative Reporter

Grace Gottschling is the Investigative Reporter for Campus Reform. She is a recent graduate of The College of New Jersey and has experience traveling across the country to engage and train others in pro-life apologetics. Grace manages research and Freedom of Information Act records requests for Campus Reform.

RELATED ARTICLES:

EXCLUSIVE REPORT: Fla. midterm results in limbo, majority of UMiami admin., faculty donate to Dems

EXCLUSIVE REPORT: 98.4 percent of Mizzou admin, 97.6 percent of faculty donate to Dems

EXCLUSIVE REPORT: 100 percent of Univ. of Oregon admin, 99.95 percent of faculty donate to Dems

Midterms Show How GOP Can — And Did — Win Over Minority Moms

For all of Florida’s squeaker election controversies, the state’s Republicans showed this cycle how conservatives can actually start picking up substantial black and Hispanic votes — and not by pandering, but by promoting conservative principles.

Namely, school choice for parents — which is very popular with black moms.

It has become apparent that white Republican Ron DeSantis likely won the Florida gubernatorial election against black Democrat Andrew Gillum because about 100,000 more black women voted for him than was expected. And considerably more voted for him than voted for Republican Rick Scott in his U.S. Senate campaign as school choice is more of a state-level issue than a national one.

About 650,000 black women voted in Florida. Of that total, 18% chose DeSantis, according to CNN’s exit poll of 3,000 voters. The same exit poll found that Scott received only 9 percent of their vote. A little higher than expected, but nothing like DeSantis’. And DeSantis’ support among black women was more than twice GOP candidates’ average support nationally among black women of 7%.

(School choice was also key to getting DeSantis’ support among Hispanic voters at a surprisingly high 44%.)

That 100,000 votes easily was the difference in the race decided by 41,000 votes. But many of these women then voted for Democrat Bill Nelson for Senate. What to make of this ticket splitting vote?

School choice.

Florida has strong, well-funded school choice programs. The state is a leader in school choice and in fighting for poor and minorities to have a shot outside of being trapped in failing urban schools. (Thank you, then Gov. Jeb Bush.) Condoleezza Rice has called school choice “the civil rights issue of our time.” She obviously knows what of she speaks.

More than 100,000 low-income Florida students take advantage of the state’s Step Up For Students program, which grants tax-credit funded scholarships to attend private schools — corporations can choose to not pay a portion of their taxes and instead direct that money to funding school choice for needy families. Hundreds of thousands more students use the state’s 650 charter schools.

Most of the students in the Step Up For Students program are minority kids and their parents (typically mothers) are registered Democrats and normally vote straight ticket.

These moms see the value of the school choice voucher program for their children and are willing to vote for the gubernatorial candidate most committed to protecting and strengthening the programs. William Mattox in the Wall Street Journal called them “school choice moms” — like the vaunted soccer moms and safety moms of earlier times.

These school choice moms almost assuredly carried Rick Scott to victory four years ago as he too was a big supporter of school choice.

More than 10,000 of these Step Up kids and their moms went to Tallahassee in 2016 to protest a lawsuit filed by the state teachers’ union to kill the school choice and its funding mechanism. It was the largest school choice rally in American history and it was heavily minority.

Andrew Gillum, Mayor of Tallahassee, ignored their pleas and sided — as do virtually all Democrats — with the teachers unions, who deliver a lot of PAC money to campaigns and can put people to work on the ground. He paid the price, as did Scott’s Democratic opponent four years ago.

Every Republican Governor and gubernatorial candidate should take note; and every GOP candidate learn that solid conservative principles rightly applied work. Pandering is not necessary.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. The featured photo is by Bruno Nascimento on Unsplash.

Still the Smartest Guy in the Room

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.

The Blue Wave that the leftist media has been predicting for a year now turned out to be a blue puddle, with even their most aggressive spokesperson, former House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, making nice and wanting to make deals with the man who sits in the Oval Office.

And Republicans still control the Senate and can still boast that President Trump is solely responsible for:

  • Two rock-ribbed conservative justices on the Supreme Court (for the next 40 years!),
  • A booming economy,
  • Sky-high employment of women, blacks, Hispanics, and young people,
  • A significantly strengthened military,
  • Equitable foreign-trade deals,
  • And the beginning of The Wall, which promises to stop the rising tide of illegal aliens and sanctuary cities and the punishing price they cost hard-working Americans.

PLOTTING ANOTHER COUP

After President Trump’s annihilating defeat of Hillary Clinton in the November 2016 election––306 decisive Electoral votes to Hillary’s paltry 232––Americans witnessed an unprecedented reaction from what used to be called the loyal opposition. It was not the requisite graciousness of the disappointed loser. Nor was it the anticipated anger and frustration of those who knew their political philosophy and programs were about to be overturned.

Instead, when the new president was elected––and even before that, on the very day in June of 2015 that he announced his candidacy––the Grand Poobahs of D.C. who always considered themselves the smartest guys in the room by virtue of their educations, lofty positions, fancy credentials, grandiose senses of entitlement, and vaunted self-regard, got together and decided that:

  1. They reviled the results of the election and the loss of the prestigious jobs they believed they’d maintain under a Democrat chief executive,
  2. They feared that a Trump administration would discover the vast corruption of the previous Obama regime and act to prosecute the criminals involved,
  3. They believed it was the job of these far-left socialists, communists, and jihadist sympathizers from Obama’s Federal Bureau of Investigation, Obama’s Department of Justice, Obama’s Central Intelligence Agency, Obama’s National Security Council, et al, to destroy the Trump candidacy and, failing that, his presidency.
  4. They resolved to put their brain trust together, their collective professional experiences, and do anything and everything in their power to depose or criminalize or impeach a duly elected President Trump.

And they fervently believed in their ability to actualize this plan because they had already successfully executed a coup d’état only eight years before, ferreting Barack Obama––of dubious American citizenship and the paltriest of credentials––into the core of America’s body politic, concealing his past history, enlisting their reliable media whores to savage anyone who questioned his eligibility and even his very competence, and counting on their Hollywood stooges to use their vaseline camera trick to give the Obama persona a gorgeous glow.

The plot was hatched, and as Rudy Giuliani, one of the president’s lawyers, told TV host Sean Hannity in mid-August, ex-CIA director John Brennan was behind the entire bogus investigation into the alleged collusion of the Trump presidential campaign with Russian operatives.

The entire salacious sham is spelled out here in graphic detail by Forbes’ reporter Paul Roderick Gregory.

However, with Pres. Trump’s ascension to the presidency, they dreaded––with good reason––that their carefully-constructed House of Cards would be dismantled by a seasoned chief executive who loathed their visceral antipathy to the notions of American exceptionalism, a powerful military, booming capitalism, the sanctity of the U.S. Constitution, and borders that protected America against foreign invasion, et al.

In fact, the multi-billionaire George Soros, the mad genius behind so many of these anti-American philosophies and the chief financier behind a huge number of leftwing organizations which help elected Democrats (and many RINOS––Republicans in Name Only) and also those with seditious and/or treasonous agendas, recently admitted as much to The Washington Post, saying that President Trump has almost destroyed the New World Order, and “that he (Soros) did not foresee Trump’s meteoric rise to power.”

According to Zerohedge.com, Mr. Soros “actually has a reason to feel that way because Trump has single-handedly presided over the dismantlement of the Liberal-Globalist world order that Mr. Soros has worked for decades to build. In a simple spree of tweets, and presiding over the return of [Judeo]-Christian morals, ethics, and values in American society, ideas that are absolutely anathema to the atheist billionaire,” the president has literally decimated the Soros vision.

Boo hoo!

CAST OF CHARACTERS

My personal belief is that the entire Obama regime––indeed the entire country, the entire world––was run by  George Soros, with the brainy Valerie Jarrett as his personal emissary. In the coup he effected, the wily hedge-fund mega-mogul anointed Mr. Obama the titular head of what now appears to have been a collusion-riven criminal enterprise.

And make no mistake, the fish always stinks from the head. Today, the faux former “president” Barack Obama is still running around the world talking amiably to despots and, recently in Africa, admitting that he was born not in the United States but in––ta da––Kenya! Exactly why “Birthers” like me thought that, according to the U.S. Constitution, he was ineligible to even think about running for the presidency, much less occupying the Oval Office fraudulently for eight years!

Who are the henchmen the poseur Obama chose to run his corrupt regime, the “smart guys” who contrived the phony Steele Dossier and who orchestrated the plot to destroy the Trump candidacy and then presidency? We can start with the poseur himself.

THE NOT-SO-SMART SMART GUYS

  • Barack Obama, former state senator from Illinois, former “president” of the United States: supposedly educated at Occidental College, Columbia University, Harvard Law School (but every transcript and diploma––if, in fact, they exist––sealed forever!).
  • Valerie Jarrett, senior advisor to Barack Obama: Stanford University, University of Michigan Law School.
  • John Brennan, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (2013 to 2017), former Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and Assistant to Barack Obama: Fordham University, master’s from University of Texas at Austin. Oh, and also voted for the Communist Party candidate in the 1976 presidential election!
  • James Comey, former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (2013-2017): College of William and Mary, University of Chicago Law School.
  • Peter Strzok II, former Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division of the FBI: bachelor and master’s degrees from Georgetown University,
  • Andrew McCabe, former Deputy Director of the FBI (2016 to 2018): Duke University, Washington University in St. Louis Law School.
  • Rod Rosenstein, United States Deputy Attorney General: Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard Law School,
  • James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence: University of Maryland, master’s from St. Mary’s University in Texas.
  • Hillary Clinton, former first lady of Arkansas, former first lady of the United States, former U.S. senator from New York, former Secretary of State: Wellesley College; Yale University Law School.
  • Sally Yates, U.S. States Attorney and U.S. Deputy Attorney General under Mr. Obama: U. of Georgia undergrad and law school and executive editor of Georgia Law Review.
  • Susan Rice, former National Security Advisor (2013 to 2017), U.S. diplomat, Brookings Institution fellow, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, staff of the Nat. Security Council and Asst. Sec. of State for African Affairs (under President Clinton): Stanford Univ (Phi Beta Kappa), Master’s and Doctorate degrees from New College, Oxford (in England).
  • Bruce Ohr, former associate deputy attorney general under Mr. Obama, Harvard (degree in physics), Harvard Law School.

DISTAFF COLLABORATORS

And let us not forget the wives of these Deep State colluders, as scrupulously documented by journalist Marilyn Barnewall in her must-read article, “Deep State Husbands.”

Barnewell tells us about the central roles played by Bruce Ohr’s wife Nellie Ohr: (Harvard and Radcliffe Colleges with a major in Russian History and Literature, Master’s and Ph.D. from Stanford Univ.). But Ms. Nellie just revealed that she would refuse to testify because of spousal privilege or some such nonsense. If she has nothing to hide, why on earth wouldn’t she testify?

Then there is Peter Strzok’s wife, Melissa Hodgman, who according to Barnewell, “must be admired for being very quiet as her husband’s romantic episode with Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyer Lisa Page has been media-blasted on front pages world-wide. Or perhaps the Page episode was part of a plot?”

Ms. Hodgman-Strzok’s career boost happened at precisely the time the FBI needed someone at the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) to, if need be, control access to any illicit contributions or other transactions from publicly-traded entities (like governments and corporations) involving the Clinton Foundation.”

And let us not forget the wife of Asst. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Lisa H. Barsoomian (called the “Guardian of the Deep State’s Secrets Gate, and as an expert in destroying evidence, or “the cleaner”).

According to Barnewell, Barsoomian “has represented Robert Mueller three times, James Comey five times, Barack Obama 45 times, Kathleen Sebelius 56 times, Bill Clinton 40 times and Hillary Clinton 17 times.  Another source says that between 1998 and 2017 Barsoomian herself represented the FBI at least five times.”

This is the short list, but there are many other like-minded collaborators. Hillary Clinton (Wellesley, Yale Law School) is way up there, her mission in life to bring down the legal, legitimate, fairly-won presidency of Donald J. Trump, the guy who permanently wiped her off the political map.

Look at all their fancy credentials. I have… including the oh-so-impressive degrees of the executives and reporters from The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun Times, on and on and on.

I’ve also researched the degrees and advanced degrees of the men and women who fancy themselves anchors and commenters and reporters on MSNBC and CNN and the leftist networks ABC, NBC, CBS, and also PBS and radio’s NPR, and that is not to omit the career leftists at Fox, like Chris Wallace and Shepard Smith (and, I suspect, Bret Baier and Brit Hume), who consistently fail to conceal their anti-Trump bias.

All the Ivy League schools these leftists attended, as well as the London School of Economics, the graduate schools of Stanford and Cornell and U. of Chicago and the Columbia School of Journalism, on and on, should be deeply ashamed of the colossal and deeply dishonest and biased and sometimes sociopaths they graduated!

All of them wrote and talked on and on for months and months on end about Bad Trump and Good Democrats and all of their predictions fell far short of the Blue Wave they predicted!

WHAT HAPPENED

In the midterm vote the other day, Americans told the aggressive, arrogant and vociferous left that they failed to seize the ultimate reins of power because:

  • The pink pussy hats didn’t work.
  • Hollywood didn’t work.
  • The bought-and-paid-for demonstrations didn’t work.
  • The pajama boy college snowflake meltdowns didn’t work.
  • The fake dossier and the Russian-collusion thing didn’t work.
  • The creepy porn lawyer didn’t work.
  • The Kavanaugh hit job didn’t work.
  • The racist allegations didn’t work.
  • The illegal-alien invading army from Honduras isn’t working.
  • Oprah didn’t work.
  • The New York Times didn’t work.
  • The billions poured into their campaigns didn’t work.
  • On and on and on and on.

WHAT DID WORK

November 6, 2018, will go down in history as the day the American electorate affirmed America’s legacy that our brilliant Founding Fathers established 242 years ago, and that the American public has now opted for once again––a balance of power––with the lion’s share remaining with the president!

And who accomplished this stunning feat? None other than President Donald J. Trump, who single-handedly wrested the reins of power from the previous thug regime which had effectively contaminated our country’s most esteemed agencies––the FBI, CIA, NSA, the Pentagon, Homeland Security, et al––and implanted hundreds of far-left judges, as well as an entire industry of media whores, far too many of whom were and are:

  • Anti-American.
  • Anti-Semitic.
  • Against the U.S. Constitution.
  • Against a strong American military.
  • Against free speech.
  • Against gun rights.
  • Against fair trade.
  • Against American law enforcement.
  • Against secure borders.
  • Again, on and on and on and on and on.

THE SMART SET––REALLY?

There is no doubt that the immense number of people who attempted to impeach, indict, or generally bring down the Trump presidency were of the upper-crust of America’s intelligentsia––educated, sophisticated, seasoned in the nefarious ways of Washington D.C., and ferocious in their mission to cover their own crimes by eliminating the one person––President Trump–– who could and would expose them and call for his Attorney General to indict them, prosecute them, find them guilty, and imprison them.

No problem, they all thought. We are smart and he is, well, not so smart.

But ha ha ha on all of these misguided egomaniacs. In spite of the massive, collective effort all of them made over the past three years to bring down our chief executive and Commander-in-Chief, they now have to deal with the cold hard fact that President Donald J. Trump––who has formidable education credentials himself––is indeed the smartest guy in the room!

Watch out!

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

Prof: Nobody in GOP ‘more than three handshakes away from a Nazi’

  • Hostos Community College professor Angus Johnston said that “there’s nobody in the contemporary GOP who’s more than three handshakes away from a Nazi.”
  • The professor previously expressed joy when Democrats did not provide financial aid when vandals threw bricks through windows of a Nebraska GOP office.

A New York professor asserted on Monday that there is “nobody” in the current Republican party who is “more than three handshakes away from a Nazi.”

Angus Johnston, a professor at Hostos Community College, part of the City University of New York, made the statement in a response to recent reports that Republican Kris Kobach, who President Donald Trump endorsed for Kansas governor accepted donations from white nationalists.

“There’s nobody in the contemporary GOP who’s more than three handshakes away from a Nazi.”    

“There’s nobody in the contemporary GOP who’s more than three handshakes away from a Nazi,” Johnston said, who describes himself as an “advocate of American student activism.”

The professor referenced Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King, whose recent campaign ad was widely criticized as racist.

“I’m convinced that this is the biggest reason the Republican Party has been so reluctant to repudiate Steve King, even as the costs of embracing him have risen,” Johnston said. “They’re scared to death of the precedent.”

But the professor did not substantiate his claim beyond Kobach and King.

Johnston expressed delight earlier in 2018 when neighboring Democrats did not offer financial help to the Lincoln, Nebr. GOP office after vandals threw bricks through the office windows, The Daily Caller News Foundation reported. He called this lack of action “the most hopeful sign [he’d] seen in months.”

In addition to teaching college courses, Johnston supports left-wing “student activism.”  On his website studentactivism.net, students can find door-knocking and campaign tips, as well as order forms for stickers that read “Fight Fascism.” Johnston says he has had thousands of stickers made in order to fill the demand. Although he bills the stickers as “free,” the fine print indicates that he expects to be compensated for his efforts.

“Well, there’s no set charge per sticker, but don’t make me a chump,” Johnston’s website reads. “I’m going to put the first chunk of cash I receive directly into buying more stickers, and I’m hoping this works out well enough to be a model that I can use again in the future without draining my bank account. In other words, if you send me a dollar and ask for five hundred stickers, that’s not going to be sustainable.”

Campus Reform reached out to Johnston for comment but did not receive a response in time for publication.

COLUMN BY

Celine Ryan

CELINE RYAN

California Senior Campus Correspondent

Celine Ryan is a California Senior Campus Correspondent, and reports on liberal bias and abuse on campus for Campus Reform. Celine is a sophomore at Cuesta College, where she serves as president of Young Americans for Liberty.

RELATED ARTICLES:

NAU profs label Trump a ‘neo-fascist,’ ‘rapist in chief’

Quinnipiac removes ‘Punch Nazis’ professor from website

Prof asks students to compare Trump, Nazi policies

So What’s Up With These Judges?

So what’s up with these judges? You are either with is or against us. We are wining but the battles rage on as Trump is leading a peaceful overthrow of the shadow government and deep state. This is America’s second revolution. One such group, funded in part by George Soros, is David Brock’s Media Matters. Back in February 2017 I received a leaked document by Media Matters titled, “Democracy Matters A Strategic Plan for Action”. I will attempt to write a series of articles on this but I encourage you to request a copy of this report and I can e-mail you the PDF, it is a large file.

Resisting Trump

The Document goes on to state how they will fight every day for the progressive movement. The document states they will resist the normalization of Donald Trump, his every conflict of interest, his every bit of cronyism, his every move towards authoritarianism, his every subversion of our democratic systems and principles, his every radical departure of foreign and domestic policy of norms. The document in its opening statement says that they will contest every effort, at every level of government to limit rights, rescind protections, entrench inequality, redistribute wealth upwards,or in any other way fundamentally undermine the tenants of egalitarianism that must serve as the bedrock of our democracy. This explains many things. This document was prepared upon the nomination of Trump and is in full swing today.

Conclusion

I will attempt to write a series of articles on this but I encourage you to request a copy of this 44 page report and I can e-mail you the PDF, it is a large file. E-mail your request to John@JohnMichaelChambers.com and I will send it to you. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. By knowing this information you can make some sense of the madness, know what evil we are dealing with and combat this on social media. The good news, is that in spite of it all, we are winning and they are on the run as President Trump goes on the offense against the enemies within in 2019.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Sebastian Pichler on Unsplash