Posts

American Airlines to Begin Furloughing 19,000 Workers After Pelosi Fails to Agree to Deal with Mnuchin

Democrats must be dancing naked in the forest. This is their dream – misery, sorrow, unemployment, hardship.

Tens of thousands of job cuts were announced over a 24-hour period, from banks to oil giants, to Disney.

American Airlines to Begin Furloughing 19,000 Workers After Pelosi Fails to Agree to Deal with Mnuchin

American Airlines said it will begin furloughing 19,000 workers after lawmakers and the White House can’t agree on a coronavirus relief deal.

The major airlines have held off on layoffs and mass furloughs under the terms of a $25 billion payroll support program Congress passed in March. The deal was aimed at helping the airlines cope with shutdowns, quarantines, and a crash in bookings, but at the time it was passed, lawmakers believed demand for air travel would recover in a few months.

The March legislation’s ban on cutting jobs expires October 1. Demand for air travel has recovered a bit since the depths of March and April, but passenger volume remains 70 percent below pre-pandemic levels.

Airline executives say they simply cannot avoid eliminating jobs and furloughing employees without a new round of relief from Congress.

American Airlines Chief Executive Doug Parker said in a letter to employees that he stood ready to reverse the furloughs if lawmakers reach a deal, according to Reuters.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said on Fox News on Thursday that talks with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had made progress, but no deal has been reached. Democrats have resisted reaching a deal with Republicans, with some Democratic politicians and strategists worried that any deal to boost the economy might help Trump’s re-election efforts. Some liberal activists oppose any deals with the Trump administration under any circumstances.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called a proposed $2.2 trillion coronavirus relief package from the Democrats “outlandish.”

President Trump has told Capitol Hill Republicans that he would prefer a bill that spent more than the earlier Republican proposal that was rejected by Democrats to no deal at all.

Airlines spent the last several months furiously lobbying lawmakers for a second round of $25 billion of payroll support that would avoid job cuts until the end of March.

United has said it will eliminate more than 13,000 jobs if there is no deal.

RELATED ARTICLES:

CIA Director Gina Haspel Is Blocking Declassification Of Remaining Russigate Documents

Following first debate, Jewish groups again disgrace themselves by attacking the pro-Jewish Trump

Wife of Boston Marathon hero said Biden touched her in ‘an inappropriate and uncomfortable way’

Hot mic catches Pennsylvania’s Dem governor, state rep laughing about ‘political theater’ of masks​​

BET Billioniare Founder, Robert Johnson is Going to vote for Trump, ‘I know what Trump will do, Positive Things for African Americans’

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ®All rights reserved.

Kayleigh McEnany plays video of Pelosi getting her hair done on a loop during press conference

Watch! Speaker Pelosi is holding up $1.3 trillion dollars in aid for American families who desperately need it. All while she gets her hair done, and gorges herself on gourmet ice cream. Only the American people can put a stop to this open corruption, by voting the Democrats out of office in November.

Kayleigh McEnany plays video of Pelosi getting her hair done on a loop during press conference

By Washington Examiner, September 3, 2020

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany played the video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a salon on a loop during Thursday’s press conference.

“We found Nancy Pelosi going into her hair salon. We will be playing the video on loop for all of you to see during the duration of this introduction … Apparently, the rules do not apply to Speaker Nancy Pelosi,” McEnany said.

Pelosi was recorded in a salon in San Francisco at the end of last month, despite coronavirus restrictions keeping such establishments closed from March until Sept. 1.

“It was a slap in the face that she went in, you know, that she feels that she can just go and get her stuff done while no one else can go in, and I can’t work,” salon owner Erica Kious told Fox News this week.

“We have been shut down for so long, not just me, but most of the small businesses, and I just can’t — it’s a feeling — a feeling of being deflated, helpless, and honestly beaten down,” Kious said.

Pelosi has also addressed the video, calling it a “setup” and demanding an apology.

“I take responsibility for trusting the word of the neighborhood salon that I have been to many times,” Pelosi told reporters Wednesday. “When they said they could accommodate people one at a time, and we can set up that time, I trusted that.”


HAVE A TIP WE SHOULD KNOW? YOUR ANONYMITY IS NEVER COMPROMISED. EMAIL TIPS@THEGELLERREPORT.COM


RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

TRUMP PEACE: Kosovo to normalize ties with Israel, Serbia to move embassy to Jerusalem

Report: Bahrain next to announce normalization with Israel

Dallas Muslim pleads GUILTY to terrorism charge, faces 20 years

San Francisco State’s ethnicities department to host documented ‘Palestinian’ jihad-terrorist

Pompeo blasts ‘broken and corrupt’ International Criminal Court, sanctions prosecutors

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

VIDEO: After Demanding She Open, Pelosi Throws Salon Owner Under Bus, “It Was a Set-Up” “Apologize”

WATCH:

The selfish ogre said, “I take responsibility for trusting the word of the neighborhood salon that I’ve been to…many times…It was a setup, and I take responsibility for falling for a setup.”

Backgrounder: Maskless Nancy ‘Antoinette’ Pelosi forces shutdown San Fran hair salon to open to do her hair, in violation of despotic COVID rules, owner calls it ‘slap in the face’

Pelosi: I Was ‘Set Up’ For Embarrassing Salon Visit Violating COVID Orders

By: Jordan Davidson, The Federalist, September 3, 2020:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi demanded an apology from her “neighborhood salon” on Wednesday after claiming she was “set up” during a visit to get her hair done despite COVID-19 lockdown mandates ordering salons closed.

“I take responsibility for trusting the word of the neighborhood salon that I’ve been to…many times…It was a setup, and I take responsibility for falling for a setup,” Pelosi said.

“I think that this salon owes me an apology, for setting me up,” she added.


HAVE A TIP WE SHOULD KNOW? YOUR ANONYMITY IS NEVER COMPROMISED. EMAIL TIPS@THEGELLERREPORT.COM


RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Self-Proclaimed Antifa Member Could Be The Next Portland Mayor

Governor Brown extends COVID-19 state of emergency until ELECTION DAY

President Trump visits Kenosha, Wisconsin: “President Trump Saved Kenosha”

Attorney General Barr: Soros And Cohorts Pumping Billions Into Mail-In Vote Effort

More than 36 street gangs in Chicago reportedly vow to shoot on sight any cop who has a weapon drawn in public

Elite Private School Caves To Antisemitic Demands by Black Lives Matter

Antifa ‘commander’ cried in ‘fetal position’ after being caught with flamethrower, grenades on way to protest

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

Top Pelosi Staffer Registered As ‘Foreign Agent’ to Lobby For Chinese State Media Outlet

The one entity the Democrats won’t serve or represent are the American people. Democrat party of treason.

EXCLUSIVE: Top Pelosi Staffer Registered As ‘Foreign Agent’ to Lobby For Chinese State Media Outlet

By: Natalie Winters, August 13, 2020

Brendan Daly, former Communications Director for Nancy Pelosi and a political appointee of the Obama administration, is a registered foreign agent who provided the Chinese Communist Party’s premier state-run media outlet China Central Television Network with “strategic counsel” as it expanded into the United States, The National Pulse can reveal.

During his tenure as Executive Vice President at Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide, Daly secured a contract between the lobbying behemoth and China Central Television Network (CCTV).

Specifically, the firm helped the state-run propaganda outfit CCTV expand into American homes by “providing strategic counsel, identify relevant parties to communications activities, and media relations to support the launch of CCTV America.”

“Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide will work with CCTV America to communicate to the American public that CCTV America will provide compelling, comprehensive, and balanced news programming from an Asian perspective that is relevant to a global audience,” the 2012 filing in accordance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) noted.

Per CCTV’s FARA registration, however, the outlet is “supervised, owned, directed, controlled, financed, and subsidized” entirely by the Chinese Communist Party.
Pelosi accompanied by Daly, pictured on her right

Email correspondence from Daly identifies him as taking the lead on the account, as he spoke with CCTV’s American representative on the phone.

He also provided the outlet with a memo detailing Ogilvy’s strategy on the count, detailing how to best bridge the gap between American homes and Chinese Communist Party propaganda:

The memo, sent from Daly, outlines how Ogilvy would provide CCTV with comprehensive support, including “influencer engagement” and “media relations support,” to achieve the “overall message that CCTV Americas is the source for business news in and with China, with credentialed, experienced and trusted journalists doing in-depth stories and reporting.”

“We are excited about the prospect of working with you to help establish CCTV Americas as the program to watch to succeed in an interconnected global economy,” the email concludes.

CCTV has been identified by Freedom House think tank as a “long-standing weapon in Beijing’s arsenal of repression” whose mission “is to attack designated enemies of the Communist Party,” chiefly the U.S.

Daly informed fellow employees that CCTV had hired Ogilvy, noting the CCP-funded outlet would pay the firm $15,000 monthly for three months.

“China Central Television is the national television station of the People’s Republic of China. CCTV America is the bureau located in Washington DC.

CCTV falls under the supervision of the State Administration of Radio, Film, and Television which is in turn subordinate to the State Council of the People’s Republic Of China,” the FARA registration noted, placing Daly on the payroll of the Chinese Communist Party.


Have a tip we should know? Your anonymity is NEVER compromised. Email tips@thegellerreport.com


RELATED ARTICLES:

President Trump’s Younger Brother Has Died

CLINTON CORRUPTION: Crooked Hillary says she’s ready to serve in a Biden administration and help ‘fix’

Terror World Body: UN Security Council rejects US resolution to extend Iran arms embargo

NO QUESTIONS: Biden-Harris Refuse to Take Questions at Presser

USPS warns 46 states it cannot guarantee mail-in ballots will arrive in time for election

First Time In Their History, New York Police Union Announces Their Presidential Endorsement – TRUMP

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

House passes bill repealing all of Trump’s travel bans and preventing future presidents from enacting similar bans

This is insane: “the No Ban Act would repeal all of Trump’s travel bans and would prevent future presidents from enacting similar broad bans based on national origin.”

So future Presidents would not even be able to ban people entering the United States from a country with which the U.S. was at war.

Note also that this bill is an attempt to end the “Muslim ban,” which does not exist. What does exist is a ban on immigration from several countries, most but by no means all of which are Muslim, that cannot or will not provide accurate information about prospective immigrants. The list of countries was devised during the Obama administration, while Biden was Vice President. Most Muslim countries have no such restrictions. To characterize this, as the hopelessly compromised Judy Chu does here, as “driven by prejudice,” is irrational and dangerous, as it casts a legitimate national security measure as hateful, a line of argumentation that would ultimately make it impossible for the United States to do anything to defend itself at all.

The suicidal, anti-American Left becomes more open about its priorities and intentions by the day.

“Trump accuses Democrats of going ‘Stone Cold Left — Venezuela on steroids!,’” by Marisa Schultz, Fox News, July 25, 2020:

President Trump Saturday lashed out at House Democrats who this week passed a repeal of his travel ban, claiming the party has gone “Stone Cold Left.”

In a morning tweet, Trump said his travel ban that initially targeted predominantly Muslim-majority countries and was expanded after court challenges was a “big win” and “successfully keeps very bad and dangerous people out of our great country.”

“The Dems have gone Stone Cold Left — Venezuela on steroids!” Trump tweeted.

The House Wednesday passed “The No Ban Act” on a mainly party-line vote of 233-183. Two Republicans — Reps. Will Hurd of Texas and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania — joined with Democrats.

The legislation was hailed as a long-awaited victory for Muslim Americans and civil rights groups who had been protesting Trump’s travel ban since 2017.

But the victory was expected to be short-lived. The Senate has no plans to take it up, and Trump would surely veto the check on his authority. Trump said Saturday the legislation “hopefully, will be DEAD in the Senate!”…

The No Ban Act would repeal all of Trump’s travel bans and would prevent future presidents from enacting similar broad bans based on national origin….

“This ban never had anything to do with national security; it was always driven by prejudice,” said bill sponsor Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif….

“This is not a Muslim ban,” said Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz. “This is a legitimate travel restriction implemented for the safety of this nation.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Azerbaijanis scream “jihad” in front of Armenian Embassy in Washington, DC, Azerbaijanis attack Armenians in Moscow

Arizona: Muslima used coronavirus relief check to send money to al-Qaeda to “kill Americans”

Minnesota: Muslim migrant sends drone parts to Hizballah

Hamas Women’s Movement chief: ‘Our conflict with the Zionist enemy is a matter of faith, not of borders’

Head of UK’s Largest Muslim Charity Called Jews “Grandchildren of Monkeys and Pigs”

ISIS in India: “Keep yourselves armed at all times to never miss a chance to kill as many Kaffirs as you can”

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

Nancy Pelosi Claims Israeli ‘Annexation’ Will Harm American Security Interests

The story of her astonishing claim is at the Jerusalem Post here:

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said on Thursday that she is “concerned” about a possible Israeli move to annex parts of the West Bank.

“Unilateral annexation puts the future at risk and undermines US national security interests,” she said in a webinar hosted by the Jewish Democratic Council of America (JDCA). “It undermines our national security interests and decades of bipartisan policy. We always want it to be bipartisan,” she continued.

The extension of Israel’s sovereignty to the “West Bank” – the name Jordan gave in 1950 to those parts of Judea and Samaria it had managed to hold onto during the 1948-49 war – is based on the Palestine Mandate itself. That Mandate assigned to the future Jewish state all of the land from Mt. Hermon in the north, to the Red Sea in the south, and from the Jordan River in the west, to the Mediterranean in the east. At the end of Arab-Israeli hostilities in 1949, the Jordanian army remained in possession of part of Judea and Samaria; Jordan renamed that territory the “West Bank” in order to efface the Jewish connection to the land, much as the Romans nearly 2000 years before had replaced the name “Judea” with “Palestine.” When Israel took possession of the “West Bank” after the Six-Day War, this did not create its legal, historic, and moral claim to land where Jews had lived for 3,500 years, but allowed the Jewish state to finally enforce its preexisting claim.

A second, and independent source for the Jewish claim to extend its sovereignty to a considerable part of the “West Bank” is U.N. Resolution 242.

The chief drafter of Resolution 242 was Lord Caradon (Hugh M. Foot), the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations from 1964-1970. At the time of the Resolution’s discussion and subsequent unanimous passage, and on many occasions since, Lord Caradon always insisted that the phrase “from the territories” quite deliberately did not mean “all the territories,” but merely some of the territories:

Much play has been made of the fact that we didn’t say “the” territories or “all the” territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if we had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend.

On another occasion, to an interviewer from the Journal of Palestine Studies (Spring-Summer 1976), he again insisted on the deliberateness of the wording. He was asked:

The basis for any settlement will be United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, of which you were the architect. Would you say there is a contradiction between the part of the resolution that stresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and that which calls for Israeli withdrawal from “occupied territories,” but not from “the occupied territories”?

Nota bene: “from territories occupied” is not the same thing as “from occupied territories” – the first is neutral, the second a loaded description. Lord Caradon answered:

“I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.

“Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong.”

Note how Lord Caradon says that “you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it,” with that “merely” applying to Jordan, but not to Israel, because of the Mandate’s explicit provisions allocating the territory known now as the “West Bank” to the Jewish state. Note, too, the firmness of his dismissal of the 1967 lines as nothing more than “where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948,” that is, nothing more than armistice lines and not internationally recognized borders.

Does Speaker Pelosi understand the legal, historic, and moral claims of Israel to Judea and Samaria (a/k/a the “West Bank)”? Does she understand the intent of the Mandate for Palestine, in recognizing those claims, and does she have a firm understanding of the territory that was included by the League of Nations in that Mandate? Does she comprehend, as well, the meaning of U.N. Resolution 242, which allows Israel to make territorial adjustments to ensure its own security? Is she aware that an American military mission, sent to Israel by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on the orders of President Johnson, to study what territories, at a minimum, Israel would have to retain after the Six-Day War, reported back that Israel would need to keep the Jordan Valley and parts of the West Bank in order to slow down, or prevent, a possible invasion force from the east that could cut Israel in two at its narrowest point; within the 1949 armistice lines, Israel was only nine miles wide from Qalqilya to the sea.

Would comprehending the Mandate for Palestine (especially the Preamble, and Articles 4 and 6), and U.N. Resolution 242, make a difference to Nancy Pelosi? Would she be less quick to lecture Israel on not annexing territory in the West Bank, if she knew Israel had a perfect right to that territory – the Jordan Valley and the settlements – according to both the Mandate, and U.N. Resolution 242?

Pelosi’s bizarre claim is that any Israel “annexation” of territory would “harm America’s national security interests.” She has it exactly backwards. Any annexation by Israel of territory to which it is entitled, and which will increase the Jewish state’s ability to protect itself, will contribute to American national security. Deprived of control of the Jordan Valley, forced to surrender some of its settlements, Israel would be much more vulnerable to attack. And though Israel has never asked for a single American soldier to help defend it, unlike several Arab states, including Saudi Arabia and Lebanon, if it is squeezed back into something like the 1949 armistice lines – i.e., the pre-1967 lines which Abba Eban famously described as “the lines of Auschwitz” — that could make more likely the need, in some future war, for Israel to request American help. That’s not something either Israel, or America, wants. And if Israel were to be squeezed back into something like the 1949 armistice lines, and as a consequence was in danger, in case of war, of being cut in two by an invader from the East, does anyone doubt that if the Israelis ever felt their national survival was at stake, they would use some of their nuclear weapons as a last resort. Does Pelosi want to make such a possibility more likely?

Nancy Pelosi claims that Israel’s annexation of land in the West Bank will harm America’s national security interests; she has things backwards. The better able Israel is to defend itself, the less likely that it will ever have to ask for American aid. And what about the Arab states? Would they be angry with the United States if Israel held onto most or even all of the West Bank? We know that while the member states of the Arab League, for public consumption, have deplored Israeli “annexation,” behind the scenes several of these same states have expressed their support, more muted in some cases than in others, for the Trump Deal of the Century which allows for that Israeli annexation. The ambassadors of three Arab states — Bahrain, Oman, and the UAE – in a sign of support even attended the White House ceremony in which the Trump Plan was rolled out. Though Jordan has denounced any “annexation,” privately Jordanian officials have said they do not want the Palestinians to control the West Bank, for they fear a possible alliance of Palestinians on both sides of the Jordan against the Hashemite monarchy. Two other important Arab states, Egypt and, especially, Saudi Arabia, have lost interest in the “Palestinians” – Crown Prince Muhammad angrily told Mahmoud Abbas to “take whatever deal” he can that the Americans offer – and are more interested in Israeli help, including the sharing of its intelligence with them, in combating Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. When the Israelis were about to annex the Golan Heights, it was predicted that all hell would break loose in the Arab countries. Nothing happened. When Trump decided to move the American Embassy to Jerusalem, we were again warned that Arabs and Muslims would be inflamed. Again nothing of the sort occurred.

Now we are being assured that if Israel annexes the Jordan Valley and the settlements, the Arabs will this time really rise up. Why should we believe it? Even in the West Bank, where Mahmoud Abbas insists he has now torn up all agreements with Israel, on the ground there is still security cooperation between the P.A. and Israel. On May 20 it was reported that an unnamed senior Palestinian official sent messages to the Israel Defense Forces and the Shin Bet security service saying that some coordination would continue and that the Palestinian security organizations will continue to do their best to foil terror attacks against Israel. Even if cooperation really is ended, the official vowed that terror groups will not be permitted to act freely in areas under the control of the Palestinian Authority. So there is a lot less to Abbas’s threats to “end all cooperation with Israel” than meets the eye. Abbas knows how valuable is the intelligence the P.A. receives from Israel on its deadly rivals Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and their operatives in the West Bank. Will he really want to do without Israeli assistance that on several occasions has even helped to foil plots to murder him and his cronies?

What should Nancy Pelosi in decency do? She should study the Palestine Mandate and its maps. She should remember that even though the League of Nations dissolved in 1946, its successor organization, the United Nations, included in its Charter Article 80 (called the “Jewish people’s article”), which recognized the continuing validity of the Mandate for Palestine. And finally, she should study the text of U.N. Resolution 242, and the authoritative explanation of that text by its main drafter, Lord Caradon. Only when she has thoroughly digested the meaning of both the U.N. Resolution 242 and of the Mandate for Palestine, will she have earned the right to comment on what Israel “should” or “must” do.

She might then say, for example, that “I am well aware that Israel has a right to keep the entire West Bank if it so wishes. I do not challenge that right. But I challenge its wisdom. Wouldn’t it be better to keep the territories Israel currently controls, without a formal annexation that will merely serve to roil the Arab world?” I still think she’d be wrong, but at least she would no longer be outrageously, offensively, intolerably wrong.

The Speaker told participants that Democrats are taking “a great pride” in former president Barack Obama’s memorandum of understanding, which provides Israel with $38 billion worth of security assistance over a decade. “That’s our commitment. And we continue to have that,” she said. “It was signed in 2016 to help Israel defend itself in a variety of ways. And we stand committed to that, but we’re very concerned about what we see happening in terms of annexation.”

“I’m not a big fan of the Palestinian leadership in terms of their capability to be good negotiating partners,” she added. “I wish they could be better. But I think that everybody can be doing better in terms of that.” She also sent a barb to the Trump administration’s peace plan, saying that it has “nothing in common with the word peace or plan.”

Pelosi is “not a big fan of the Palestinian negotiating partners in terms of their capability to be good negotiating partners”? That’s a historic understatement. Mahmoud Abbas for the last twelve years refused outright to engage in any negotiations with Israel. He’s not been a “negotiating partner” at all. And in 2008, when he negotiated for the first and last time with the Israelis, he refused Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s offer of 94% of the West Bank, together with Israeli territory equivalent to 5.8% of the West Bank, and on top of that, Olmert also offered to relinquish Israeli control of the Old City to an international body. Abbas refused, and walked out. Pelosi should have told the truth: the Palestinians have shown themselves completely unwilling to seriously engage in negotiations with the Israelis.

Pelosi’s brusque dismissal of Trump’s peace plan — it has, she said, “nothing in common with the word peace or plan” – is intolerable. It is the first American effort that, had it been accepted, would have led to the creation of a Palestinian state, one which would include 97% of all the Palestinians living in the West Bank. For the first time in their history, the Palestinians would have a state. What’s more, according to the Trump Plan, the Palestinians would be given two large swathes of territory in Israel’s Negev, along the border with Egypt, to compensate for territory taken by Israel – as is its right under the Mandate – in the West Bank. Further, Gaza would be directly linked to the West Bank part of “Palestine” by traffic corridors. An enormous effort went into the Administration’s constructing a viable Arab state, consisting of contiguous territories in the West Bank where 97% of the Palestinians now live, and from which they would not have to move. Speaker Pelosi should look at all the work that went into carving out this state before so airily dismissing it.

Finally, in what is surely the most generous offer of aid in history, the Trump Administration promised that international donors would provide the state of Palestine with $50 billion dollars in aid; by comparison, the Marshall Plan allotted a total of $60 billion (in 2020 dollars) not for just one but for sixteen countries. Why does Nancy Pelosi say this carefully worked-out effort was not a “plan”? Has she looked at the maps, and seen with what care the Trump Administration managed to ensure that 97% of the Palestinians now in the West Bank would be included, in contiguous territories forming the state of Palestine, while 97% of the Israelis in the West Bank would be included, without having to move, in the state of Israel. It was a real feat of boundary-drawing. And why does Pelosi say the Trump Plan has nothing to do with “peace” when that is its main goal, to keep the peace between Palestinians and Israelis, by means of both the statehood and the prosperity– that $50 billion in aid — promised to the Palestinians, and through the demilitarization that would be required of the future state of “Palestine”?

American national security interests will not be harmed but enhanced if Israel and the Palestinians make peace, based on the Trump Plan, and if the Palestinians achieve a level of prosperity in their own state that they would not wish to endanger through war, while Israel’s deterrent power is increased by its permanent control, through annexation, of West Bank territories, and especially of the Jordan Valley, that can help prevent or slow down an invasion from the East. There may be a brief display of displeasure from the Arab street, if the Trump Plan is accepted, but in the corridors of power in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE, Bahrain, and Oman, there will be quiet satisfaction that the Trump Plan has put paid to Palestinian irredentism, given the Palestinians a state of their own, and imposed demilitarization on that state. Israel, more secure than ever, can continue to help them deal with their real worries – the Muslim Brotherhood, the assorted terror groups including Hezbollah (Iran’s proxy), and Hamas (which is merely a branch of the Brotherhood), and above all, Iran.

It is difficult for many Democrats to admit that something good might actually come out of the White House, where they long ago consigned its occupant to the outer darkness. And who has the time to read all that stuff – the Mandate for Palestine, U.N. Resolution 242, Article 80 of the U.N. Charter – or learn about the history of the non-existent negotiations between Mahmoud Abbas and several different Israeli leaders? Who has the time to find out what the Arab leaders really want, which is not always what they say they want? It’s a lot to ask. But try, Speaker Pelosi. Just try.

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

USA Today names Hamas-linked CAIR’s Nihad Awad one of “the most influential civil rights leaders of today”

Palestinian Authority: “Call out Allahu akbar and restore the glory of Khaibar,” site of massacre of Jews

The Evils of Islamic Law: the Death Penalty for Apostasy

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

Pelosi Attacks Trump For Protecting American Lives

Does expansion of entry restriction for aliens strengthen or weaken national security?


On January 31, 2020 the Department of Justice issued a press release, Fugitive Wanted by Iraq for Murder of Iraqi Police Officers Arrested in Arizona began with this passage:

A Phoenix-area resident, who is alleged to have been the leader of a group of Al-Qaeda terrorists in Al-Fallujah, Iraq, appeared today before a federal magistrate judge in Phoenix, Arizona in connection with proceedings to extradite him to the Republic of Iraq.  He is wanted to stand trial in Iraq for two charges of premeditated murder committed in 2006 in Al-Fallujah.

The arrest was announced by Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Michael Bailey for the District of Arizona.

An Iraqi judge issued a warrant for the arrest of Ali Yousif Ahmed Al-Nouri, 42, on murder charges.  The Government of Iraq subsequently requested Ahmed’s extradition from the United States.  In accordance with its treaty obligations to Iraq, the United States filed a complaint in Phoenix seeking a warrant for Ahmed’s arrest based on the extradition request.  U.S. Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle issued the warrant on January 29, 2020, and Ahmed was arrested the following day.

Subsequent news reports have indicated that Al-Nouri entered the United States as a refugee some ten years ago, was recently married and has been operating a driving school in Arizona.

That an alleged al-Qaeda terrorist and Iraqi fugitive, wanted for murder would enter the United States gives rise a long list of questions that includes the obvious and disconcerting question- was he here to participate in or support a terror attack?

That Al-Nouri was able to enter the United States as a refugee calls into focus the apparent failure of the vetting process that enabled him to legally enter the United States, provided the allegations made by the Iraqi government about him are true.

In point of fact, for decades, a long list of other terrorists were able to game the vetting process and the immigration benefits program to enter the U.S. and embed themselves in preparation for a deadly terror attack.

This brings us the fact that on the very same day that the DOJ announced the arrest of a suspected terrorists and international fugitive by the FBI, ICE and the U.S. Marshals Service, on January 31st, perhaps coincidentally, The Hill reported, Trump administration restricts travel from Nigeria and five other countries.  Here is an excerpt from that report:

The government will curb the ability of citizens of Nigeria, Myanmar, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Sudan and Tanzania to get certain immigration visas, according to officials with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and State Department, but it is not a blanket travel ban.”Because we have higher confidence that these six countries will be able to make improvements in their system in a reasonable period of time, we did not feel it would be proportionate to impose restrictions on all immigrant and non-immigration visas,” a DHS official said.

The official cited national security concerns as the reason for the restrictions, saying the governments of the six countries do not meet requirements for information-sharing and passport security.

President Trump was expected to sign a proclamation approving the restrictions on Friday afternoon, and it will go into effect on Feb. 22.

The actions of President Trump to tighten up the vetting process for alines entering the United States are, in reality, consistent with standing law and with the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

However, just hours after The Hill reported on the Trump administration’s expansion of the entry restriction for citizens of certain countries, The Hill reported, Pelosi: Trump’s expanded travel ban is ‘outrageous, un-American’ and threatens ‘rule of law’ and began this way:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) ripped President Trump’s expanded travel ban after he included six other countries to the list of those that will face increased travel restrictions.

“The Trump Administration’s expansion of its outrageous, un-American travel ban threatens our security, our values and the rule of law. The sweeping rule, barring more than 350 million individuals from predominantly African nations from traveling to the United States, is discrimination disguised as policy,” Pelosi said in a statement.

In reality the so-called “travel ban” is actually an “entry restriction” and, far from being illegal is actually one of many authorities provide to the President of the United States to protect national security and public safety.  Nevertheless, Speaker Pelosi falsely and recklessly claimed that somehow the President’s decision to use standing law to control the entry of aliens whose presence would pose a national security threat would do the precise opposite and supposedly threaten national security and the rule of law.

As I have noted in previous articles and testimony, under one of the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Specifically 8 U.S. Code § 1182: (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President the President has wide-ranging authority to suspend the entry of any and/or all aliens if he determines that their entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.  The term “detrimental to the interests of the United States” is as low a bar as could be imagined.

Here is that section of the Immigration and Nationality Act:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

This then raises the obvious and unavoidable questions that the mainstream media would never ask Ms Pelosi, how could she claim that is it illegal for the President of the United States to impose a restriction on the entry of aliens, when long-standing federal law provides that very authority to the President?

How does President Trump’s decision to prevent the entry of aliens who might pose a threat to national security threaten national security?

In point of fact, the preface of the official report, 9/11 and  Terrorist Travel begins with this unambiguous paragraph:

It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.

This is hardly the first time, and I suspect will not be the last time, that Pelosi and her fellow immigration anarchists will attack the President and immigration law enforcement personnel who are dedicated to protecting national security and the lives of innocent Americans.

Indeed, she has frequently alleged that the President has acted “Unconstitutionally” when he insists on securing our nation’s borders against the illegal entry of aliens and/or enforcing our immigration laws.

In anticipation of that bogus claim Ms Pelosi and her fellow radicals should read Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Facts are, indeed, stubborn things!

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

Democrats call Trump ‘racist’ again as he adds six new countries to ‘outrageous, un-American’ travel ban

The Trump administration contends that the bans are for security reasons, that the countries in question cannot or will not provide adequate information about the people wanting to come in. This is entirely reasonable, but for the Left, concern for national security is “racist” and must be done away with.

“Democrats attack Trump as racist after he expands travel ban to six new countries,” by Victor Rantala, BizPacReview, February 2, 2020:

Democrats criticized the White House announcement that the United States will add six more countries to a controversial travel ban that originally was called a “Muslim ban” by the left, and that Joe Biden on Saturday called a new “African Ban.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led the charge in opposition to the travel ban expansion, describing it as “discrimination disguised as policy.”

“The Trump administration’s expansion of its outrageous, un-American travel ban threatens our security, our values and the rule of law,” her statement reads. “The sweeping rule, barring more than 350 million individuals from predominantly African nations from traveling to the United States, is discrimination disguised as policy.”

To no one’s surprise, she added that Democrats will do all in their power to resist the president. “In the Congress and in the Courts, House Democrats will continue to oppose the Administration’s dangerous anti-immigrant agenda. In the coming weeks, the House Judiciary Committee will mark-up and bring to the Floor the NO BAN Act to prohibit religious discrimination in our immigration system and limit the President’s ability to impose such biased and bigoted restrictions.”

On Friday, Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf told reporters that after a “systematic review” of all countries, six nations were added to the travel ban list: Burma, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania.

Prior to this latest expansion, restrictions on immigrant and non-immigrant visas were in place for seven countries, to include Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen.

After enduring multiple court challenges to the original travel ban, the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality in 2018.

According to Wolf, the additional six nations have lighter restrictions than the original seven. “These countries, for the most part, want to be helpful, want to do the right thing, have relationships with the U.S. and are in some cases improving relations, but for a variety of different reasons failed to meet those minimum requirements that we laid out,” he said. “And really the only way to mitigate the risk is to impose these travel restrictions.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

End the Hoax: There Are No Palestinians

Iran’s new Quds Force top dog: “The Islamic Republic is prepared to defeat” Trump’s peace plan

UK: Muslim who stabbed two while screaming “Allahu akbar” wanted his girlfriend to behead her parents

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

VIDEO: Trump Brawls Face-To-Face With Pelosi, Schumer Over Wall Funding

President Donald Trump sparred with House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, in an extraordinary Oval Office session before TV cameras.

Schumer and Pelosi visited The White House on Tuesday to negotiate with Trump over border wall funding in the next spending bill. The pair offered Trump approximately 1.3 billion dollars in funding for the wall, while the president demanded 5 billion dollars. The impasse could lead to a partial government shutdown.

Pelosi set the tone for the discussion at the beginning of her statement noting that any shutdown would be known as “The Trump Shutdown,” prompting the president to immediately interrupt her. The two continued to spar over whether Trump had the votes for proposed border wall funding in the House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate.

“If we thought we would get it passed in the Senate, Nancy, we would do it immediately,” Trump declared, adding, “It doesn’t matter, though, because you can’t get it passed in the Senate because we need ten Democrats’ vote.”

Pelosi then questioned why TV camera’s were present during budget negotiations prompting Trump to declare, “It’s called transparency, Nancy.”

Trump then turned the floor over to Schumer, who also castigated the president for declaring that he would rather shut the government down than accept the Democrats’ proposals. Trump angrily turned to Schumer and said, “you want to know something? Yes, if we don’t get what we want whether its through you, one way or the other, I will shut down the government.”

“I am proud to shut down the government for border security, Chuck,” he continued. “People in this country don’t want criminals and people that have lots of problems and drugs pouring into our country. I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down. I won’t blame you for it. The last time, you shut it down. It didn’t work.”

The pair of lawmakers said after the meeting that they had no intention of meeting Trump’s demands and told him they would only offer him the option of passing existing levels of funding for the Department of Homeland Security. Schumer and Pelosi both said Trump would be to blame for any potential government shutdown.

The deadline for spending occurs Dec. 21, with no current breakthroughs on negotiations.

TranscriptThe President’s conversation with Sen. Schumer and Rep. Pelosi

COLUMN BY

Saagar Enjeti

White House Correspondent

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pentagon Confirms: DOD Could Fund Border Wall

Throwback: When Sen. Chuck Schumer believed in securing our border

‘She’s Scared’ — Ted Cruz Criticizes Pelosi For Wanting To Turn Cameras Off During White House Meeting

Get the facts: Democrat-backed policies have created a border crisis.

Trump Says ‘I’m Proud To Shut Down Government’ To Schumer, Pelosi

More than 3,000 illegals caught in one day: DHS

The Cost of Illegal Immigration to US Taxpayers | FAIR

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column with video and images is republished with permission. Video courtesy of the White House.

Exit Signs: Poll Warns Dems to Back off Social Issues

In the last 48 hours, there’s been a lot of speculation about what motivated voters to give back control of the House to Democrats. But based on exit polling, we can tell you one thing: it isn’t their radical social policy. Some Americans may be frustrated by GOP leaders or at odds with Donald Trump, but their positions on life, religious liberty, and sexuality are still light years more conservative than the party they just handed half of Congress to.

In a new FRC-commissioned McLaughlin & Associates survey, 1,000 Americans were asked their thoughts on a wide variety of issues — including some that Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has already promised the House will address. The answers we got (which, interestingly, included more people who voted for Democrats on Tuesday than Republicans) might surprise you. When heartland Democrats tried to explain that Hillary Clinton lost because it seemed like she cared “more about bathrooms than jobs,” the party should have listened. Today, those same people are sending the same message – and it’ll be interesting to see if the extremists under Pelosi’s control pay attention.

When they were asked if they approved or disapproved of “government forcing schools, businesses, and nonprofit organizations opening showers, changing facilities, locker rooms, and bathrooms designated for women and girls to biological males and vice versa,” the answer couldn’t be clearer. Sixty percent said they opposed the bathroom policies of Barack Obama and other liberals, compared to just 24 percent who approved. That’s a 36-point gap on an issue that Pelosi has already promised to force on Americans in the new Congress. The Equality Act, the most radical piece of LGBT legislation ever introduced, is about to become a top 10 priority of the Democratic House.

As recently as this year, the Democrats’ own base pleaded with them to stop pushing their transgender agenda and get back to the work of real governing. “You’re killing us” was the headline. “The Democratic brand,” Illinois State Rep. Jerry Costello told Politico, “is hugely damaged, and it’s going to take a while to bring it back. Democrats in southern Illinois have been more identified by [transgender] bathrooms than by putting people back to work.” That seems destined to continue, based on the agenda of House Democrats.

Along those same lines, the majority of people don’t want the federal government to redefine sex to include “gender identity.” That’s especially significant now, as President Trump considers rolling back Obama’s overreach on that very issue. Asked if they wanted to “allow individuals who identify as transgender to get a special legal status related to employment law, federally-funded health care benefits, and the use of bathrooms and showers of the opposite sex,” 54 percent said no. Only 27 percent agree with radical positions of Pelosi and Obama.

On abortion, where Democrats have boxed themselves into one of the most militant positions of all — even going so far as to demand taxpayer-funded abortions in their platform — 56 percent don’t agree. As other polls have shown, the majority of Americans appreciate the Hyde Amendment that Democrats want to abolish – the 41-year-old wall between taxpayers and elective abortion. That’s double the 28 percent in Pelosi’s camp.

But perhaps the most powerful support came on an issue where President Trump stands tallest: religious liberty. A whopping 70 percent of respondents agreed that the government “should leave people free to follow their beliefs about marriage between one man and one woman” — not just in how they live their lives but in how they run their businesses. They’ve seen people like Jack Phillips, Aaron and Melissa Klein, and Barronelle Stuzman personally destroyed for daring to hold a view on marriage that Barack Obama did five years ago. (And, as our poll shows, a plurality still do!) That’s an astounding majority, especially when you see the minuscule number (18 percent) who think like Obama and Pelosi do – that government should be used as a club to beat people into submission on LGBT issues.

The bottom line of the survey is this: if Democrats think they have a mandate to push their fanatical social agenda, they’re wrong. And trust me. In two years, Americans will remind them — like they did in 2010 and 2016 — if they try.


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

HHS Prescribes a Health Care Fix

Justice Was Served by Sessions

It’s Democrats who have embraced the policy of death and thousands of people are dying!

As Republicans in the U.S. Congress are debating the pluses and minuses of their repeal and replacement legislation for Obamacare, the Democrats are accusing their colleagues of  wanting “thousands of people to die.”

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

It was The Agenda Project Action Fund that in 2011 released the video of a “Republican” pushing an old woman in a wheel chair off of a cliff. The Agenda Project Action Fund in 2016 endorsed Senator Bernie Sanders for President of the United States. The “thousands of people to die” rhetoric has been repeated on major news channels most recently by Senator Sanders and other Democrats, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.

The scheme is to paint Republicans as murderers. It’s the “big lie.”

Master propagandist of the Nazi regime and dictator of its cultural life for twelve years, Joseph Goebbels wrote,

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Watch the below video to understand how a variety of Democrats, and media pundits, are repeating the “big lie” that “thousands will die”:

TRUTH: It’s Democrats who have embraced the policy of death and thousands of people are dying.

Here are a few examples of policies and legislation supported by Democrats that are causing people to die:

In an LA Times article titled “111 terminally ill patients took their own lives in first 6 months of California right-to-die law”, Soumya Karlamangla reports:

A total of 111 people in California took their own lives using lethal prescriptions during the first six months of a law that allows terminally ill people to request life-ending drugs from their doctors, according to data released Tuesday.

A snapshot of the patients who took advantage of the law mirrors what’s been seen in Oregon, which was the first state to legalize the practice nearly two decades ago. Though California is far more diverse than Oregon, the majority of those who have died under aid-in-dying laws in both states were white, college-educated cancer patients older than 60.

The End of Life Option Act made California the fifth state in the nation to allow patients with less than six months to live to request end-of-life drugs from their doctors.

Five states and Washington, D.C., have “Death with Dignity” statutes:

  • California (End of Life Option Act; 2016)
  • Colorado (End of Life Options Act; 2016)
  • District of Columbia (Death with Dignity Act; 2017)
  • Oregon (Oregon Death with Dignity Act; 1994/1997)
  • Vermont (Patient Choice and Control at the End of Life Act; 2013)
  • Washington (Washington Death with Dignity Act; 2008)

These five states and the District of Columbia are controlled by Democrats.

Illinois is in a fiscal meltdown, the state is bankrupt. In 2016 the Illinois Obamacare co-op became 16th to collapse. Americans for Tax Reform reported:

Sixteen Obamacare co-ops have now failed. Illinois announced that Land of Lincoln Health, a taxpayer funded Obamacare co-op, would close its doors, leaving 49,000 without insurance. The co-op now joins a list of 15 other Obamacare co-ops that have collapsed since Obamacare has been implemented.  Failed co-ops have now cost taxpayers more than $1.7 billion in funds that may never be recovered.

Co-ops were hyped as not-for-profit alternatives to traditional insurance companies created under Obamacare. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) financed co-ops with startup and solvency loans, totaling more than $2.4 billion in taxpayer dollars. They have failed to become sustainable with many collapsing amid the failure of Obamacare exchanges.

Since September, 13 Obamacare co-ops have collapsed, with only seven of the original 23 co-ops remaining.  Illinois’ Land of Lincoln co-op faced losses of $90 million last year and is suing the federal government for the deficit caused by Obamacare.  Co-ops across the country have struggled to operate in Obamacare exchanges, losing millions despite receiving enormous government subsidies.

Tens of thousands of people in the Land of Lincoln are without healthcare. Illinois is ruled by Democrats.

In an article titled “Break the Baby’s Neck if Born Alive” Debra Braun reports:

St. Paul, MN, June 27, 2017 – Planned Parenthood abortionists in St. Paul, Minn. would “break the baby’s neck” if the child was born alive, according to a new video just released by Pro-Life Action Ministries. This would be a violation of both federal and Minnesota law.

Braun notes:

In the video, a former Planned Parenthood client says that when she went to Planned Parenthood earlier this year for a late-term abortion (at 22 weeks, 1 day), she asked the two abortionists, “If you guys were to take him out right now while he’s still, his heart rate is still, you know, going, what would you guys do?” According to the woman, one of the abortionists looked at the other one, then looked back at the client, “and she told me that we don’t tell women this, and a lot of women don’t even ask this question, but if we was to proceed with the abortion and the baby was to come out still alive and active, most likely we would break the baby’s neck.”

Read more.

Democrats fully support Planned Parenthood aborting the unborn, and now killing the born.

So who supports a culture of death? Who wants thousands of people to die? You be the judge.

RELATED ARTICLES:

As a Teen Cashier Seeing Food Stamp Use, I Changed My Mind About the Democrat Party

15 Times Celebrities Envisioned Violence Against Trump and the GOP

The Transgender Agenda vs. the Science

DC Residents Now Can Drive Under ‘X’ as Gender Identity

Doctor: Insurance Wouldn’t Pay for Patients’ Treatments, but Offered Assisted Suicide

Pro-Life Group Claims Twitter Has ‘Suppressed’ Its Message

Here’s why the feds are investigating Bernie Sanders’ wife Jane – Washington Examiner

Louisiana Democrats Purge Thomas Jefferson, the Man Who Acquired Louisiana

Democrats on the ‘Eve of Destruction’

The Democratic Party is imploding and rudderless, now that President Obama is leaving office. Democrats and their supporters can’t understand how, let alone why, they lost the Presidential election.

The rhetoric is getting more fringe, the Democratic Party is no longer the party of John F. Kennedy and Harry Truman. In my column “How Democrats Fundamentally Changed from the Party of JFK to the Party of BHO” I asked, “Where are the Blue Dog Democrats? Purged from the BHO Party? As Ronald Reagan once said he did not leave the Democratic Party, rather the Democratic Party left him. So it is with many Democrats. The BHO Party has left them in the lurch.”

The Democratic Party has become the party of protests, anarchists and tribalism. They cling to illusions of racism, bigotry and embrace an anti-American world view. 

This is the how and why Trump won. His message was simple, Make America Great Again. Those four words embodied and embraced a populism for which Democrats once were noted for, but they are now lost in the proverbial political woods. Republicans now represent the working class in America. Democrats are the party of the elites, academia, the 1% and big money political special interests.

The re-election of Nancy Pelosi as minority leader in the U.S. House of Representatives and the ever more likely election of Keith Ellison to become Chair of the Democratic National Committee is proof of just how fringe the party has become.

The Democrats are eating their own. Niall Stanage from The Hill in an article titled “Dem blame game rages over Clinton loss” reports:

Almost a month after Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump, recriminations are still flying among liberals and Democrats.

At least one prominent Clinton loyalist has turned his fire on Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), arguing that the left-winger’s challenge wounded the former secretary of State ahead of her general election campaign.

Sanders partisans, meanwhile, say that he would have been a better candidate than Clinton to win over an electorate hungry for change.

Both sides express concern that re-litigating the primary battle could be a distraction, wasting energy that would be better spent resisting President-elect Trump.

Read more…

It is time for rank and file Democrats to look in the mirror and ask themselves, “What is it I stand for?”

Endemic of how Democrat’s think is contained in the 1965 song “Eve Of Destruction.” The lyrics contain an ideology that Democrats still desperately cling to. The Vietnam War is over and racism in Selma, Alabama no longer exists, except in the minds of Democrats. Just as Democrats embraced the Weather Underground during the 1960s, today they embrace Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street. The same tune, different time.

America has moved on. Democrats have not. They are in a political loop created in 1965.

What should Republicans do? Nothing!

Just sit back and watch the Democrats self-destruct.

VIDEO: “Eve of Destruction” was a protest song written by P. F. Sloan. Barry McGuire recorded the track in July 1965. It was released by Dunhill Records.

RELATED ARTICLE: A Problem Like Keith Ellison

For Kate and America’s Sake, Don’t Let Them Get Away with It!

C’mon Nancy, are you really going to go there? How could you stoop so low? Haven’t you the slightest bit of compassion for murdered Kate Steinle and her grieving family? Must scoring political points even trump American lives?

For my relatives who only get mainstream media spin, here is what’s really going on. An illegal alien shot and killed complete stranger, 32 year old Kate Steinle, while enjoying strolling with her dad along a San Francisco pier. Kate’s scumbag murderer had been convicted of 7 felonies and deported five times. And yet, this criminal kept returning to the U.S. without consequence.

The reality is many bad people are entering our country illegally unabated. Heck, Obama even rolls out the welcome mat. Uneducated and unskilled, Obama is confident he can woo them with taxpayer funded handouts, making them future Democrat voters. Consequently, the Obama Administration has released thousands of criminal illegal aliens

While the coddling of criminal illegals has been going on for many years, Kate’s senseless murder was the straw that broke the camel’s back in the hearts and minds of many Americans.

In his heart-wrenching appeal to congress to pass Kate’s Law, Kate’s dad said the last words he heard his daughter say before she died was, “Help me dad.”

In a nutshell, Kate’s Law says when these deported illegal criminals get caught sneaking back into the US, they get a mandatory five years in jail. Politicians/officials who disobey this law also go to jail. Makes sense? Of course. Will Kate’s Law save Americans lives? Absolutely.

Like the wicked witch of the east (or was it the west), Democrat Nancy Pelosi enters the conversation. Rather than compassionately expressing reservations about Kate’s Law for whatever reasons, Pelosi attacked it.

Here’s the deal folks. Donald Trump is polling high in his bid for the WH by addressing illegal immigration. Pelosi and her fellow Democrats want to protect their illegal-immigrant-future-voters-scheme. So, in typical Democrat fashion, Pelosi and her MSM partners are trying to brand Trump a racist and hater for simply talking about illegal immigration.

Throwing the late Kate Steinle, her family and future American victims under the bus, Miss-ice-water-in-her-veins Pelosi tried to tie Kate’s Law to Trump. Nancy Pelosi said Kate’s Law should be called the “Donald Trump Act”, meaning it is nothing more than hate inspired legislation.

Really, Nancy? Have you no shame?

In the Democratic Party, Pelosi’s win-the-issue-at-any-and-all cost mindset is the norm. This is why it drives me nuts that Democrats get such high marks for their faux compassion.

Even media typically supportive of Democrats was a bit taken a back when Democrat Senate Majority leader Harry Reid said he would not allow a vote to ensure that kids with cancer would get their meds during a budget debate. As cold and unbelievable as this sounds, Reid obviously considered the kids’ lives acceptable sacrifices in his quest to beat the Republicans.

Pat Smith is the mother of Sean Smith who was killed at our US consulate in Benghazi. At the casket ceremony, Ms Smith said Hillary Clinton gave her a big hug and lied to her; vowing to punish the person who produced the anti-Muslim video which supposedly caused the attack

Emails later revealed that Hillary, Obama and other Administration officials knew the attack had nothing to do with a video. The attack on our consulate happened 9-11-2012. It was election time folks.

Obama and his minions were out there telling the American people that terrorism was no longer a threat. So when our Benghazi Ambassador Stevens anticipated an attack due to the anniversary of 9/11, he pleaded for extra security. His request was denied. Ambassador Stevens, Pat Smith’s son Sean and two other Americans were killed in the Islamic terrorist attack. Those guys were sitting ducks folks. Sitting ducks.

And yet, the mainstream media continues to hide these truths about the Democrats, awarding them gold stars for compassion.

So Nancy Pelosi taking the below-the-gutter low road while claiming the high road regarding Kate’s Law is par for the Democrat course. My prayer is that we cease allowing them to get away with it.

Kate’s Law is a very, very, very good thing.

Washington Shame Game: Dumb Things Politicians Say

The first edition of the game that tests viewer knowledge of shameful things officials say. How good is your knowledge of the shameful statements by elected officials?… test yourself here:

[youtube]http://youtu.be/3odYWZIv-4E[/youtube]

 

EDITORS NOTE: The edited featured image was originally taken by Anthony Easton. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

All Those Obamacare Stories You Told Us Were Untrue

“There’s plenty of horror stories being told. All of them are untrue.” – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)

“Many of the tall tales that have been told about this law have been debunked.” – President Barack Obama

Amy Payne from Heritage writes, “Last week was ‘victory lap‘ week for liberals on Obamacare. After years of telling the American people that we just don’t understand the health law enough to love it properly, the president and his allies are now crowing that all debate should be over. Our readers have told us about Obamacare’s effects in their lives—hiking their insurance costs and canceling many of their plans. I guess Harry Reid thinks you guys made these up.”

[youtube]http://youtu.be/UNeHvIJ1CmU[/youtube]

Payne notes:

But he didn’t stop with insulting everyday Americans. Reid took a dig last week at Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), himself a doctor who is resigning from the Senate to continue cancer treatment.

Coburn initially lost his cancer specialist when he was forced into the Obamacare system. But when Coburn voiced concern—from experience—about the lack of cancer treatment centers covered under Obamacare, Reid said he was just “getting into the weeds” and that “I think we need to look at the overall context of this bill.”

The editorial board of Investor’s Business Daily marveled :

We recently called Senate Majority Leader Reid “delusional” on another topic, but to that we can now add “callous” and “insensitive” — in his disregard of cancer sufferers and the hardships imposed on them by administration politics and ObamaCare.

… Reid coldly dismisses people such as Edie Sundby, a stage four cancer patient, who was told that the plan that had paid out $1.2 million and helped her survive all these years was substandard and would be canceled because it didn’t contain the one-size-fits-all coverage mandates of ObamaCare.

Meanwhile, President Obama exulted in claiming that the “tall tales” about Obamacare “have been debunked.” Was he talking about Obamacare’s job-killing effects? Its limiting of patient choices? Its forcing all Americans into a one-size-fits-all health care model?

Thankfully, this isn’t the end of the story. In the same week, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (R) released a blueprint for health care reform. Heritage experts have been working on patient-centered solutions for years. Americans know that the horror stories are real, and that there has to be a better way to go.