POTUS Trump Signs Order That Wipes Out Student Debt For Disabled Veterans

Once again proving his loyalties are with the men and women of America, most notably those who wear the uniform, President Trump just signed an executive order that wipes out student loan debt for tens of thousands of the nation’s disabled veterans.

President Donald Trump walks from Marine One to Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base in Md., Wednesday, Aug. 21, 2019. Trump is traveling to Louisville, Ky., to deliver remarks to the American Veterans (AMVETS) 75th National Convention. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Via The Washington Times:

President Trump is signing an executive action Wednesday to wipe away federal student loan debt for tens of thousands of veterans who are 100% disabled.

Mr. Trump is taking the action in a speech to the 75th annual American Veterans convention in Louisville, Kentucky. He said the memorandum directs the Education Department to eliminate “every penny” of student loan debt for those disabled veterans.

There are more than 40,000 veterans nationwide who qualify for debt forgiveness under action taken by the Departments of Education and Veterans Affairs last year. But only a fraction of those eligible has taken advantage of the program by applying for help.

Bipartisan legislation was introduced in June in Congress that would dismiss all federal student loan debt for eligible veterans, whether or not they applied for the program.


It should be noted that although similar proposals were forwarded during the eight years of the Obama presidency, then-President Obama never appeared very interested in moving the idea of disabled veteran debt forgiveness forward.


REPORT: President Trump Moves To End America’s Longest War

President Trump never wanted U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan or Iraq to begin with. As a high-profile private citizen, he was among the very first to warn of long, drawn-out military conflicts that would cost lives and billions/trillions of taxpayer dollars.

He was right about all of it and now, as Commander in Chief, President Trump is working hard to end America’s longest war and bring our soldiers home for good.

Image result for america's longest war

Via Real Clear Politics:

The Trump administration’s push to finalize a peace deal with the Taliban over the last week was twice interrupted by deadly explosions in Afghanistan, a reality check that any serious U.S. military drawdown in the war-torn country in no way guarantees a peaceful transition.

Despite the most recent spate of violence and instability, U.S. Special Representative to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad on Tuesday headed to Doha, Qatar to resume talks with Taliban and Afghan leaders “as part of the overall effort to facilitate a peace process that ends the conflict,” the State Department announced.

Details of a peace deal are just emerging and are far from certain, but the prospect of ending the 18-year military presence in Afghanistan has reignited an intense perennial debate over U.S. interests in remaining there.

For now, President Trump seems intent on letting the talks play out, aiming to fulfill his previous campaign promise of ending the war and fending off inevitable criticism from his 2020 Democratic rivals, who largely agree that the U.S. should leave.

Zalmay, the Afghan-born American who served as President George W. Bush’s envoy to Iraq, Afghanistan and the United Nations, briefed Trump on Friday on the status of the talks. Over the last several days, he has also redoubled his efforts to convince all sides to negotiate even after a weekend suicide bombing at a wedding in Kabul that killed 63 people. The Islamic State claimed credit for the deadly attack.

“We must accelerate the #AfghanPeaceProcess including intra-Afghan negotiations,” Khalilzad tweeted Sunday. “Success here will put Afghans in a much stronger position to defeat ISIS.”

One day later, 66 more people were killed in a series of explosions in the city of Jalalabad on the country’s centennial celebration of its independence.

While critics viewed Khalilzad’s Sunday tweet as overly optimistic, it also focuses on the most positive aspect of attaining a deal. Such a pact would allow both the U.S. and the Taliban to focus on further decimating ISIS, which is a small but lethal part of the country’s insurgency.

But skeptics argue that trusting the Taliban is a fool’s errand. Even if the fundamentalist militants are true to their pledge to renounce international terrorists and deny them refuge, other experts fear it won’t be long before they take over the country and reestablish another radical religious regime, as they did in the 1990s.

It’s clear from tweets and statements that Trump wants to be the president that pulls America out of its longest war, but far more nebulous is how much bloodshed and turmoil he’s willing to tolerate in the process, especially with some of his strongest Republican allies in Congress warning against a precipitous withdrawal.

Last Friday, following news of progress in the peace talks, Sen. Lindsey Graham urged Trump “to learn from President Obama’s mistakes.”

“A bad agreement puts the radical Islamist movement all over the world on steroids,” he tweeted. “Be smart, take your time, and listen to your national security team.”

When Trump later tweeted that his administration is making progress and could reach a deal, Graham said he’s “certain that al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other radical Islamist groups are not interested in the war ending.”

In a later tweet, Graham added that the U.S. must have a “robust counterterrorism force with intel capable no matter what the Taliban demands in order to protect the USA.”

That last statement demonstrated at least a willingness to consider the parameters of a peace deal, a shift in the senator’s usually flat rejection of pulling troops from the region.

Other longtime withdrawal skeptics also appear more open to a deal, as long as all parties buy in, agree to allow the Afghan government to share power and commit to a sustained reduction in violence, as ephemeral as that may be.

Michael O’Hanlon, a prominent national security expert and a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution, recently expressed measured hope for the talks’ success, depending on the Taliban’s commitment to a power-sharing agreement with the Afghan government and other details that have yet to be hashed out and made public.

Broad outlines of the initial part of the deal, according to reports, involve cutting U.S. troop levels from roughly 14,000 to 8,000 with the overall foreign troop presence, including from other NATO nations, declining from 20,000 to 12,000. In exchange, the Taliban would agree to fight the presence of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State in their country.

“[T]his deal, insofar as it goes, would be OK,” O’Hanlon wrote last week. “It would hardly merit a Nobel Prize in the first instance, and could in fact fall apart — we should recognize that possibility with eyes wide open. Yet it is still an acceptable risk, if reports of its main parameters are in fact correct.”

The first drawdown of forces, O’Hanlon wrote, would return American and NATO forces to about the same level Trump inherited from President Obama back in early 2017.

The next step, however, is where the rubber would meet the road.

“The looming question would be: How much further would we cut in the event of a deal — and how diligent would we be in a presidential election year, about ensuring compliance with such a deal before carrying out a second big round of reductions?” O’Hanlon told RealClearPolitics.

Non-interventionists who have long pushed to leave Afghanistan brush aside arguments that ISIS could rise up, as it did in Iraq in 2011, if the U.S. were to leave.

“This is an entirely different dynamic,” John Glaser, the director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, told RCP. “Within Afghanistan there’s an ISIS element, a small group known as the Islamic State Khorasan, or ISK, and the Taliban has been literally fighting this group on the battlefield for years. The notion that the group would fill the vacuum and take over is particularly unlikely because the Taliban wouldn’t tolerate it.”

Glaser also disputes concerns that al-Qaeda is once again gaining a safe haven in Afghanistan. He says he never bought into the argument that refuge there gave the 9/11 plotters the ability to carry out their plans. Besides, he says, in the 18 years since the attacks, communication technology has vastly improved so that trying to operate in remote, distant and landlocked Afghanistan is no longer a strategic benefit for terrorists plotting transnational attacks.

“The Taliban desperately wants the U.S. to leave and they’re willing to make certain concessions provided that that mission is accomplished – they don’t want to continually draw fire from the outside by linking up with al-Qaeda and hosting them again,” he argued.

Glaser acknowledges that a bloody civil war could ensue without the U.S. there to keep the relative peace, but said such a clash shouldn’t stop us from leaving if it’s not in our direct national security interest to prevent it.

“If our national security interest is not impacted … to be blunt about it, it’s none of our business,” he said.

But James Carafano, a leading national security at the Heritage Foundation who also served on Trump’s presidential transition team, questions how the U.S. can tell what’s occurring on the ground and whether there’s a threat to U.S. interests without a military presence there to assess it.

“How do we ensure our interests are protected when we don’t have military there and situational awareness over the Taliban?” he asked.

It’s a gamble Carafano believes President Trump shouldn’t make. Afghanistan will be far more stable with the U.S. maintaining a strong presence there, he said.

From a purely political standpoint, starting a drawdown is also risky, Carafano said, because there’s no way to foresee what type of violence will erupt afterward.

“I think its gets [Trump] zero votes. The people who were not going to vote for him are not going to change their mind because he leaves zero troops in Afghanistan. And if you do a deal now, the election is not for a year and a half. If there are really bad outcomes, the Democrats are going to say that you’re at fault.”


Those making dire political warnings about a potential U.S. troops withdrawal in Afghanistan are underestimating (yet again) that Donald Trump is a very different kind of president who is most often guided by the principles of common sense and right and wrong  – not politics. He’ll do what he feels is most right, not what his advisers think will get him the most votes.

That’s not a politician. That’s a leader.

Image result for america's longest war


REPORT: “Illegal Spying On Trump Campaign: What Did Obama Know & When Did He Know It?”

The long-anticipated IG report looking into illegal spying of the Trump campaign by the Obama administration is set to drop within the next two weeks. Some are already claiming “heads will roll” following the report’s release but if none of those heads include that of a former president or at the very least some of his top officials, will it even matter? Or, is the Horowitz IG report merely the first step of what will be criminal indictments to come via the still-ongoing criminal investigation by U.S. Attorney, John Durham?

Image result for Spygate

Via The Washington Examiner:

What we need to know from the Horowitz report

There will be much to learn in Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s upcoming report on the Trump-Russia investigation, but most of it will likely boil down to just two questions. One, how much did the Obama Justice Department spy on the Trump campaign? And two, was it justified?

Many Democrats would immediately protest the word “spying.” But the public already knows the FBI secured a warrant to wiretap low-level Trump adviser Carter Page a few months after Page left the campaign. The public also knows the FBI used informant Stefan Halper to gather information on other Trump campaign figures. And the public knows the FBI sent an undercover agent who went by the alias “Azra Turk” to London to tease information out of another low-level Trump adviser, George Papadopoulos.

Was that all? Were there more? Horowitz should give definitive answers.

And what did the spying involve? In such intelligence work, wiretaps are recorded; transcripts are made. The same can be true for person-to-person conversations between FBI informants and Trump campaign figures. In May, Trey Gowdy, the former Republican congressman who read deeply into Trump-Russia materials when he was in the House, strongly implied the FBI had transcripts of informant communications.

“If the bureau is going to send an informant in, the informant is going to be wired,” Gowdy told Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo. “And if the bureau is monitoring telephone calls, there’s going to be a transcript of that.”

“Where are the transcripts, if any exist,” Gowdy continued, “between the informants and the telephone calls to George Papadopoulos?”

The “if any exist” was Gowdy’s way of casting his statements as a hypothetical, but there was no doubt he was speaking from the knowledge he gained as a congressional investigator.

And then the biggest questions: If there was evidence gained from the wiretapping and informing, what was it? Was it valuable? What did it tell the FBI about Russia and the Trump campaign? And did it prove that the Justice Department was right all along to spy on the campaign — that the spying was, in the words of Attorney General William Barr, “adequately predicated”?

Here is why Republicans are skeptical. Special counsel Robert Mueller had access to the results of the FBI’s spying, and Mueller could not establish that there was any conspiracy or coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign. After a two-year investigation with full law enforcement powers, Mueller never alleged that any American took part in any such conspiracy or coordination.

So, Republicans know the end result of the investigation, but they don’t know how it began. Yes, they know the official story of the start of what the FBI called Crossfire Hurricane — that it began with a foreign intelligence service (Australia) telling U.S. officials that Papadopoulos appeared to have foreknowledge of a Russian plan to release damaging information about Hillary Clinton. But they don’t think it’s the whole story.

That’s where Horowitz comes in.

There’s one big potential problem that people on Capitol Hill are talking about, and that is the issue of classified information. Everyone expects a significant amount of Horowitz’s report to be classified. How much, no one is quite sure. But the fact is, the report was done to tell the American people what the nation’s intelligence and law enforcement agencies did during the 2016 election. Issuing a report with page after page blacked out would not be a good way to do that. But no one will know the extent of the classification issue until Horowitz is ready to go public.

And even if it were entirely declassified, Horowitz will not tell the whole story of spying and the 2016 election. Horowitz is the inspector general of the Justice Department and does not have the authority to investigate outside the department. For example, he cannot probe the actions of the Central Intelligence Agency and its then-director John Brennan during the period in question.

That will be the role of another investigator, John Durham, the U.S. attorney appointed by Barr to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia probe. Durham is working with the support of top Republicans on Capitol Hill, like Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, who recently said, “I really am very curious about the role that the CIA played here.”

But first, the Horowitz report. It will be an important step in answering the questions of how much spying took place and whether it was justified. It’s long past time Americans learned what happened.


REPORT: Despite Media Propaganda, Data Points to Economic Growth

“Russia! Russia! Russia!” has been replaced with “Recession! Recession! Recession!” as the far-left anti-Trump media scrambles to find something, anything, to try and defeat President Trump with in 2020. The problem is that despite all of the media wailing, almost all economic indicators point to a Trump economy that will continue chugging along nicely well into 2020.

The question now is if voters are as dumb and easily manipulated as Democrats believe them to be or if many will turn away from the “Recession! Recession! Recession!” hoax and help to give President Trump a second term.

Image result for Trump jobs

Via City Journal:

In response to recent volatility in the stock market, rising prices (and declining yields) for U.S. Treasury bonds, and difficulties in the trade relationship between the United States and China, some pundits and politicians are forecasting a recession in the U.S., timed to coincide with the 2020 presidential election. The increasing volume of these forecasts is driven partly by partisan hopes that an economic slowdown gives Democrats the best opportunity to defeat President Trump next year. But hopes of this kind do not make for sound economic forecasts.

…The modest nature of the ten-year recovery has been camouflaged to some extent by a strong labor market, which has created 2 million-plus jobs per year since 2010, brought the unemployment rate down to a postwar low of 3.6 percent, and continues to show a positive trend. The Federal Reserve appears to have targeted the unemployment rate (rather than inflation or GDP growth) when it decided to raise interest rates in 2018, an oversight that it has now corrected.

Against this background, the odds of a recession in the United States over the next year don’t appear very high, though the economy could be subject to external shocks—international events, such as terrorist attacks, oil embargoes, and oil-price increases, for example, have provoked recessions in the past. A sustained trade and tariff war between the U.S. and China, the world’s two largest economies, would surely damage the prospects for continued economic growth, for both countries. Since everyone is aware of the costs of such a conflict, good reasons exist to believe that it will be forestalled.

Current forecasts for a recession among pundits are not based on facts or real conditions but on a belief in self-fulfilling prophecies—that by predicting a recession they can create one, and thus set the stage for Democratic victory in 2020. This is a good sign that they have an exaggerated opinion of their own influence and have lost touch with the canons of their profession.


REPORT: Democrat Party Voters Not Excited By Slew Of Primary Candidates

While motivated to see President Trump go down as a one-term POTUS, far-left voters are far less excited by the slew of potential presidential nominees who claim they can make that happen.

Overall voter interest in any of the Democrat candidates is lukewarm at best, leaving party leaders worrying over an impending Trump 2020 landslide.

Related image


Via The Hill:

The fear of putting up the wrong person is palpable,” said Jeremy Rosner, a veteran Democratic pollster. “It comes up in every focus group and every conversation I have with Democrats. It’s top of mind and intense and it’s behind a lot of the fluidity in this race.”

Voters — or at least a large number of them — have yet to fall in love with a single candidate.

Former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign is centered on the idea that he is the best person to face Trump. He argues he is the candidate who can take back the Trump states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida.

Image result for Creepy joe

Yet the gaffe-prone Biden has stumbled on the debate stage and in campaign appearances, undercutting his electability argument. Critics say Trump would seize upon his stumbles and that Democrats need to nominate someone who will excite the progressive base.

Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) are both chasing Biden. The two progressives excite the liberal base, but face doubts about whether they are too far to the left to defeat Trump.

Related image

Trump’s attack on Warren’s statements about her Native American heritage have also led to nervousness for some Democratic voters, who see the issue as a potential serious vulnerability for her.

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) made a strong statement for her candidacy after taking on Biden at the first round of debates. Her charisma and the fact that she is a relatively new face to the national stage are both seen as positives and reasons her campaign could still achieve liftoff.

At the same time, she was shaky in her second debate and her support in polls has slipped.

Image result for Crazy Kamala Harris

“Voters right now are moving from one candidate to another in a heartbeat and many admitted to us that they’re taking their cues from the national media because they haven’t seen enough of the candidates yet,” said Monmouth University pollster Patrick Murray. “Any analysis of the polls right now overstates how strong support for any of these candidates has. The fact that Biden is ahead does not mean by any stretch that he is in a strong front-runner position, not in this environment.”

Image result for Crazy Bernie


REPORT: Trump’s Dramatic Support Among Minorities Will Make Him “Unbeatable” In 2020

The constant cries of “racism!” have fallen on deaf ears when it comes to most minorities and their growing support of President Trump. This explains why the anti-Trump media has pivoted yet again and are now working so hard to convince people the Trump economy isn’t nearly as good as their own pocketbooks are telling them it is.

If the president’s current support among minorities holds steady he will likely win 2020 in a MAGA landslide.

Related image

Via The Spectator:

A mounting number of voter polls show that, despite shrill denunciations of the president by the Democrats for his alleged racism, Trump is enjoying a dramatic increase in his approval ratings among minorities. This isn’t, as some liberal news outlets and pundits have suggested, wishful thinking based on outlier polls. The trend began showing up in surveys early this year and appears to be gaining momentum. Some polls now show his approval numbers at 25 percent among African American voters and 50 percent among Hispanic voters. If those figures hold for the next 15 months, they will render Trump unbeatable in November of 2020.

If this claim seems over the top, it should be remembered that Trump beat Hillary Clinton in 2016 despite garnering only about 8 percent of the black vote and 29 percent of the Hispanic vote. Put another way, Clinton lost the election despite winning nearly 90 percent of the African American vote and two-thirds of the Hispanic vote. In other words, they simply can’t beat the president if he holds them to significantly lower percentages of these key voting blocs. The Democrats and their media enablers understand this, of course, which is why they have worked so diligently to discredit polls that confirm the president’s gains among minority voters.

This began in earnest when, in January of this year, Marist found that Trump’s approval rating among Hispanics had reached 50 percent. Then, in February, a Morning Consult poll showed Hispanic approval of the president at 45 percent. This was followed by a March poll from McLaughlin & Associates that found Hispanic approval for the president at 50 percent. All three polls were discounted as outliers by the media or simply ignored. This continued in June, after Harvard/Harris showed similar findings. Much the same strategy was still being pursued last week after Zogby Analytics discovered even worse news for the Democrats:

“Race also played a factor in Trump’s job approval rating. Hispanics, this time around, were much more likely to approve of his job performance [49 percent], while the president also saw his numbers jump with African Americans. This was his second straight poll with over a quarter support from African Americans [28 percent]. If Trump wins half of Hispanics and a quarter of African Americans in 2020, Democrats will be in trouble!”

This is the understatement of the decade if Zogby’s numbers about African American voters are accurate, particularly combined with gains the president has seen among Independents, older Generation X voters, and maturing Millennial voters. Is it really possible that Trump, who has so often been accused of racism by the Democrats and the media, is gaining traction with black voters? Zogby Analytics is by no means the only polling firm to find a shift toward Trump among the Democratic Party’s most loyal supporters. Rasmussen Reports, for example, found in an August survey that Trump’s approval among African Americans exceeded 30 percent:

All of this raises the following question: Why would Hispanic and African American voters support the president if he is a rabid racist, red in tooth and claw? It may be that they have heard such accusations leveled at so many Republicans, without any evidence, that many are no longer listening. When Trump publicly asked why Rep. Elijah Cummings has failed to clean up his rat-infested Baltimore district, for example, the Democrats and the media denounced Trump as a racist. As Rasmussen points out, however, “Media interviews in Baltimore and elsewhere found black residents asking the same questions the president is asking.”

Image result for blacks for trump

Likewise, it’s a major mistake for the Democrats to assume that a majority of Hispanic voters approve of illegal immigration. Like all legitimate members of the electorate, they are by definition American citizens — having been born here or become naturalized citizens according to the nation’s laws. They work, pay taxes, and are not overly fond of funding free health care for people who simply sneak across the border or refuse to leave when their temporary visas expire. It’s no coincidence that a majority of Hispanic voters favor adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census. As Andrew Sullivan, a legal immigrant and no Trump booster, writes:

“It is not strange that legal immigrants — who have often spent years and thousands of dollars to play by the rules—might be opposed to others’ jumping the line. It is not strange that a hefty proportion of Latino legal immigrants oppose illegal immigration — they are often the most directly affected by new, illegal competition, which drives down their wages.”

The main reason for the surge in Trump’s Hispanic support, however, is the economy. As Steve Cortes, a member of the President’s Hispanic Advisory Council, points out:

“Hispanics neither desire nor expect a laundry list of deliverables from government, but rather seek the conditions to advance and prosper independently. As the most statistically entrepreneurial demographic in America, Hispanics have thrived amid the Trump boom as regulatory and tax relief unleashes a small business surge. Every American benefits from this new dynamism, but Hispanics most of all.”

Hispanic voters, mind you, will be the largest ethnic minority in the electorate by 2020. They, combined with African Americans, may very well decide who will live in the White House after the next election. Moreover, the days when Democrats could win all of their votes by screeching “racism,” encouraging illegal immigration, and offering massive giveaway programs are probably over. President Trump appears to be building real support among minorities by providing genuine opportunity in a thriving economy. If he receives their support in anywhere near the percentages suggested above, he will win in 2020 no matter who runs against him.

Image result for Trump rally


REPORT: Voters Turned Off By Democrat Party’s Racist Message Are Looking To Trump In 2020

“Democrats are racist.” “I’ll never vote Democrat again.” “I didn’t vote for Trump the first time but I sure as hell am voting for him this time.”

And on and on the comments go as hundreds of thousands of now-former Democrats (soon to be millions?) are turning away from a Democrat Party that has lied to them (Trump-Russia collusion) ignored the facts (The Mueller Report that offered no evidence of wrongdoing by the president or his campaign) worked overtime to divide Americans against each other, and are now replacing the lie of “Russia! Russia! Russia!” with “Recession! Recession! Recession!” and “Racist! Racist! Racist!” 

These former Democrats are sick and tired of being sick and tired of a political party that has lost its mind and devolved into a damn mess.

See the source image

Via Courier Journal:

No one votes to be despised. Democrats’ message may swing my ballot to Trump

If the alternative to him in next year’s election is open borders and the Green New Deal, I may become a Trump voter. It’s a distinction without an electoral difference, but hear me out.

In their response to the El Paso, Texas, shooting. Democrats fell over themselves to implicate the president’s rhetoric and policies. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pronounced Trump “directly responsible” for the massacre.

See the source image

Imagine. Having never met the gunman, the freshman congresswoman looked into his heart and determined that he wouldn’t have killed if not for Trump.

You can guess how many Democrats acknowledged parallels between their own rhetoric, some of which was echoed by the Dayton shooter, and the rhetoric they blamed for 22 deaths in El Paso.

Its current trajectory gives the Democratic Party two problems in 2020. First, the agenda: a spending spree like no country has ever attempted, supposedly financed by a handful of wealthy taxpayers. What could go wrong?

Second, the message to voters. For decades progressives have denounced America as hopelessly retrograde and racist. Naturally, they’re talking about everyone except themselves.

See the source image

The insult-them-until-they-join-our-side strategy has gained devotees since the mass shootings. While no fewer than five presidential candidates have called Trump a white supremacist, their fellow progressives are shedding their reluctance to say the same of his supporters.

The contempt descended into incoherence even before the shootings. Andrew Yang stood on a debate stage and matter-of-factly predicted the disappearance of millions of low-skill jobs. Yet he and his party argue for importing millions of low-skill workers.

If you work in an industry likely to absorb some of that labor, you might wonder if this is how the Democrats plan to revive their brand as champion of the little guy. Are you the little guy they have in mind, or have you slipped a bit on their list?

Today’s party answers: You only ask because you don’t like brown skin.

Partisans who can’t imagine anything worse than losing history’s quintessential hold-your-nose election should picture coming to the rematch with a perfectly pleasant candidate, finding the opponent as nasty as ever, and losing again anyway.

Which could happen. The swing voters who will decide the next election won’t care whether Democrats rate Donald Trump a racist or a white nationalist or a white supremacist. With the left’s favorite epithet flying around the political sphere more freely than ever and the definition of racism facing possible expansion, they’ll want to know what Democrats think of them.

No one deliberately votes to be despised.

See the source image


APPALLING: Democrat Senator Stages “Trump Assassination” As Part Of Campaign Fundraiser

This is beyond the pale even for the increasingly deranged far-left.

An elected official actually thought it was acceptable to have supporters act out the assassination of President Trump as part of a political fundraiser.

Yes, you read that right. And guess what? The far-left mainstream media has said hardly a word about it.

Via The New York Post:

A Democratic state senator from Illinois came under fire over the weekend after pictures were posted online showing his supporters at a fundraising event performing a mock assassination of a faux President Trump.

“The tolerant left,” wrote a Facebook user in response to the incident.

Photos posted by a woman who witnessed the mock assassination on Friday night show supporters of Sen. Martin Sandoval, who represents Illinois’ 11th District — which includes parts of Chicago — acting out in front of guests, according to WCIA.

One of them can be seen pointing a fake machine gun at a man wearing a Trump mask and Mexican costume. The individual appears to simulate being shot — grabbing his chest and leaning back.

In another photo, Sandoval can be seen standing next to the person holding the gun.

“Why is this ok?” a FB user asked. “I am sickened.”

Sandoval released a statement Sunday apologizing for the incident — which he called “unacceptable.”

The apology from Sen. Sandoval for the detestable pictures from his event depicting an assassination of President Trump is too little, too late,” said Illinois Republican Party chairman Tim Schneider.

“Dangerous imagery like this will be condemned and seen as inappropriate by people of sound mind; however, a mentally unstable individual who wants to harm President Trump might find them as an inspiration,” Schneider added. “It’s inexcusable for an elected official to allow the promotion of violence in any way. If the individual pictured is a staffer or volunteer, they should be terminated immediately.”

Kellyanne Conway, one of Trump’s top aides, brought up the pictures on Twitter Sunday night.

“Every Democrat should be asked if they support or disavow this,” she tweeted.

This is the direct result of years of anti-Trump propaganda by the far-left Establishment Media which seeks to normalize such abhorrent and potentially very dangerous behavior. A “sorry about that” apology from a sitting state senator is not nearly enough. That senator should resign immediately. Such examples go far beyond Democrat vs Republican, right vs left, conservative vs liberal.

What Senator Sandoval and so many high-profile media personalities are directly or indirectly advocating for is outright evil.

Enough is enough. Don’t like President Trump? Fine, don’t vote for him. Support President Trump? Fine, vote for him.

That’s how it’s done in America.

Senator Sandoval, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc., need to step back, quiet down the unhinged anti-Trump rhetoric and lies, and do some serious reflection on what they have been a part of.


Kamala Harris Grabs Cash From Obama’s Stash During Hampton’s Weekend Fundraising Haul

It was a parade of very rich white elites – the foundation that made up the Obama and Clinton Machines decades ago and that is now back to offer its ring for would-be presidential nominee, Kamala Harris, to kiss in 2019. 

Image result for The Hamptons elites Kamala Harris

Via Bloomberg:

Teslas and Maseratis lined the street as Kamala Harris greeted guests sipping drinks from plastic cups with her name on them and eating cinnamon sugar donuts from Dreesen’s at a fund-raiser hosted by movie executive Jamie Patricof and his wife Kelly as the summer of Democratic fund-raisers rolled on in East Hampton.

The senator and former California prosecutor assured donors “I believe in (crony) capitalism” during a jam-packed weekend of pitching her plan to save the middle class. Harris is looking to raise enough money to keep her campaign fueled through the next debates in September and beyond.

She also had events on Martha’s Vineyard, the Massachusetts island that is a playground for celebrities, including the Obamas, Bill Clinton and David Letterman, on Friday and Saturday. Tickets ranged from $100 to $2,800.

In the woods of Water Mill, at the home of public-relations executive Michael Kempner, Aretha Franklin and Alicia Keys songs played in the background as former Planned Parenthood head Cecile Richards, Centerview Partners’ Blair Effron and Citigroup’s Ray McGuire waited to hear Harris’s pitch while would-be donors grazed on mini pizza.

…The weekend’s turnout and money came from guests arriving by luxury cars, and at least two by bicycle. Shoe designer Steve Madden pulled up in a black convertible Corvette. They ranged in style and age — men dressed in linen, jeans and Bermuda shorts, and some women in Valentino and Alexander McQueen.

By sunset Sunday, Harris, traveling in a black Escalade SUV, was at the Southampton home of Frank Baker, who runs a private-equity firm focused on big tech. Among the guests were fashion and finance couple Lisa and Richard Perry and Lauren Santo Domingo, founder of the designer fashion website Moda Operandi.



REPORT: MSNBC Accused Of Inciting Dangerous Racial Division

It appears there is nothing the far-left media won’t do to try and make President Trump a one-term POTUS even if that includes inciting dangerous racial division throughout the country in yet another false-narrative attempt of manufactured outrage.

See the source image

Via RealClearPolitics:

It’s hard to know why the networks and cable news channels don’t have to declare their in-kind contributions to the Democratic Party when it is so obvious that their No. 1 goal is getting Donald Trump out of office. You can’t really blame the First Amendment because neither you nor I can make unlimited donations to the candidate of our choice or else it’s called (cue the scary music here) “daarrrrrrk money.” Our political speech is not protected by the First Amendment, so neither should the blatantly biased political speech of phony journalists who are less interested in reporting facts than expressing outrage.

Take this example from last week on MSNBC:

“If it’s Tuesday: Divide and conquer. The White House offers up a few changes to the famous Statue of Liberty poem about immigrants, putting the spotlight once again on the president’s campaign to stoke racial division.”

No. If it’s Tuesday, it’s Kasie Hunt making up stuff on “MTP Daily” to hurt President Trump because Chuck Todd is too busy stroking his own ego to do the job. There, I fixed it.

And in case you missed the meme, the new libel on President Trump is that he is a racist. This campaign may not have the traction of the Russian treason libel, which was able to last for three years on the basis of a phony dossier paid for by his political opponents in the Democratic Party, but NBC and the rest of the Democrat cheerleaders in the Fake News Media don’t care. They know they just need the public to buy their lie about Trump being a racist for a little over a year, and with their experience in spreading manure — er, I mean propaganda — they are no doubt confident that they can add Trump’s scalp to their closet of Republican trophies.

So back to the deplorable Kasie Hunt (and I mean that in the original sense of someone loathsome) and her campaign of hate against Trump. Here was how she started her program last Tuesday:

“There is no longer any question about what kind of campaign the president is running. He is staking his reelection on stoking racial division — with megaphones and with dog whistles. After just yesterday announcing a plan to penalize legal immigrants who rely on public benefits like Medicaid or food stamps, a top immigration official suggested a rewrite to the poem on the Statue of Liberty.”

Actually, he didn’t. In response to a question by Rachel Martin on NPR, Ken Cuccinelli agreed that the words “Give me your tired, your poor” are part of “the American ethos,” but he pointed out that we expect immigrants to “stand on their own two feet, and … not become a public charge.”

This is hardly a novel idea. In fact, it has been on the books in one form or another since 1882, when the United States government passed its first comprehensive immigration law. The idea is simple, too. Don’t expect to move to the United States if you can’t support yourself. This seems like a pretty reasonable request from a country with a $22.5 trillion national debt.

It also, by the way, has nothing whatsoever to do with race. It applies to all people without regard to race. If anyone has a campaign “to stoke racial division,” it is MSNBC, which hears a dog whistle every time the wind blows. (By the way, why is it OK to refer to Trump voters as dogs? I never did figure that one out.)

After making her case that President Trump is following a “strategy of stoking racial division” that supposedly worked in 2016, Hunt said, “The question now: Will it work it 2020, and what are Democrats doing to fight against it?”

Cue the all-Democrat infomercial panel to confirm Ms. Hunt’s anti-Trump bias and repeat back to her that Trump is indeed a racist pig, or dog, or some such non-human species. They dutifully responded as expected, but not to be outdone by her guests, Hunt then raised the stakes by stating as a matter of fact that “clearly the president is ready to wage a race war.”

Say what? Did she really just say that? Yep, and if you are like most Americans, this is the point where you turned off MSNBC and asked what planet these people live on! President Trump’s war is against Fake News, not against people of color.

…There’s no race war, and what’s worse, there’s no outrage at MSNBC for having a host who says there is without evidence. No repercussions, no discipline, no nothing. Crickets. Maybe that’s because everyone already knows that MSNBC isn’t a news organization at all — just a fully owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party.


REPORT: Democrats Omar and Tlaib Partnered with Vicious Anti-Semites to Plan Trip to Israel

The Democrat Party has many problems today but among the most urgent and troubling is the rampant anti-Semitism that now infects it at nearly every level.

No more public and damning example of this fact can be found than in the figures of high-profile Democrats, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib, who were working closely with deadly terror groups on a trip to Israel – a nation these groups feel should not be allowed to exist. 

There can be no room, no allowance, no looking the other way, for this kind of vile racism from anyone but especially those elected to positions of power in the United States.

Via National Review:

This should be a national scandal.

“…The most important element of the story is the fact that two American congresswomen shunned a bipartisan congressional delegation to Israel to go on an independent trip to Israel sponsored by vicious anti-Semites. Another important element of the story is that, as of today, the mainstream media have whitewashed Omar and Tlaib’s vile associations.

Writing yesterday, the Washington Post said that “Omar and Tlaib’s trip to Jerusalem and the West Bank was planned by Miftah, a nonprofit organization headed by Palestinian lawmaker and longtime peace negotiator Hanan Ashrawi.” The New York Times described it as an organization “headed by a longtime Palestinian lawmaker.” In its editorial, the New York Times editorial board identified it as a group “that promotes ‘global awareness and knowledge of Palestinian realities.’”

This is a whitewash. Thanks to a Twitter thread from the Washington Examiner’s Seth Mandel — who pointed to multiple additional sources — I started looking at the articles and views published on the Miftah website, and it was like peeling an onion of evil. There was layer upon layer of vile anti-Semitism.

First, the group actually published blood libel, posting an article that accused “the Jews [of using] the blood of Christians in the Jewish Passover.” When pro-Israel bloggers condemned the article, Miftah first claimed that the attacks against the piece were part of a “smear campaign” and minimized the reference to blood libel as merely “briefly addressed.”

It was just a light sprinkling of blood libel. Move along, nothing to see here.

The organization later issued a more complete apology, but we’ve barely gotten started with this vile group. It’s also published an American neo-Nazi treatise called “Who Rules America: The Alien Grip on Our News and Entertainment Media Must Be Broken”.

As Vox’s Jane Coaston explained, “the original source was National Vanguard, a neo-Nazi group founded in 2005 in Charlottesville by members of the National Alliance.” The National Alliance “was for a time the best-financed and best-organized white nationalist group in America.” And to give you a sense of its ideology, here are two paragraphs from the treatise:”

“The Jew-controlled entertainment media have taken the lead in persuading a whole generation that homosexuality is a normal and acceptable way of life; that there is nothing at all wrong with White women dating or marrying Black men, or with White men marrying Asian women; that all races are inherently equal in ability and character — except that the character of the White race is suspect because of a history of oppressing other races; and that any effort by Whites at racial self-preservation is reprehensible.

We must oppose the further spreading of this poison among our people, and we must break the power of those who are spreading it. It would be intolerable for such power to be in the hands of any alien minority, with values and interests different from our own. But to permit the Jews, with their 3,000-year history of nation-wrecking, from ancient Egypt to Russia, to hold such power over us is tantamount to race suicide. Indeed, the fact that so many White Americans today are so filled with a sense of racial guilt and self-hatred that they actively seek the death of their own race is a deliberate consequence of Jewish media control.”

I look forward to hearing apologists argue that these statements are merely critiques of “Israeli policies.”

But that’s not all, not by a long shot. The group celebrates terrorists, including an evil woman who helped murder 13 Israeli children. In an article titled “Let Us Honor Our Own,” a Miftah contributor describes Dalal Al Mughrabi as “a Palestinian fighter who was killed during a military operation against Israel in 1978” and as one of the Palestinian people’s “national heroes.”

The so-called “military operation” is more widely known as the “Coastal Road Massacre”:

Related image

Al Mughrabi is hardly the only terrorist Miftah celebrates. It described female suicide bomber Wafa Idrees as the “the beginning of a string of Palestinian women dedicated to sacrificing their lives for the cause.” It singles out for recognition Hanadi Jaradat, a woman who blew herself up in a restaurant, killing 21 people (including four children).

The founder of Miftah herself, Ms. Ashrawi, excused jihadist violence by telling an interviewer that “you cannot somehow adopt the language of either the international community or the occupier by describing anybody who resists as terrorist.”

And of course Miftah published an article asking whether Israel was a proper homeland for the Jewish people:

I can keep going, but the evidence above should be sufficient to establish the truth. It would and should be a national scandal if GOP congressmen intended to partner with white nationalists during a visit overseas. It should be a national scandal that members of the American government intended to partner with vicious anti-Semites on their own propaganda tour.

After its thunderous denunciations of Bibi Netanyahu and Donald Trump, will pundits, editorial boards, and reporters take a look at the scandal hiding in plain sight? Will they hold Tlaib and Omar accountable for their vile associations? Now is a good time to demonstrate their commitment to reporting on the full context of international disputes and exposing one of the world’s oldest hatreds. We shall see how they respond.


REPORT: China Now Begging President Trump To Help Them Save Face

Embattled by a collapsing economy and civil unrest, the Xi government in China is now begging President Trump to help them emerge from their global cage match intact.

Image result for Trump vs China

Via The New York Post:

China has upped the ante in its trade dispute with America. By allowing the yuan to fall on foreign-exchange markets, Beijing has shown how far it will go in response to existing US tariffs on Chinese goods, as well as additional ones now threatened by President Trump.

But China’s moves also signal weakness: Beijing can no longer play the tit-for-tat tariff game. And because the devaluation has raised the risk of capital flight from China, the currency move also hints at desperation.

With or without the devaluation, Beijing is in a tough spot. On one side, the Communist Party can ill afford a trade war, since it has an implicit contract with the Chinese people to deliver prosperity in exchange for autocratic rule. But Beijing cannot countenance Washington’s demands that China import more from the United States, cease cyber theft and let Americans do business in China without Chinese partners.

These aren’t new demands, but the Trump White House wants them guaranteed in Chinese law. This last point, China’s leadership claims, is an affront to the country’s sovereignty — already a sensitive issue, given the turmoil in Hong Kong.

China has always held the weak economic hand in this dispute. Its export-dependent economy needs overseas sales, which comprise one-fifth of its gross domestic product. More than a quarter of those exports go to the United States, meaning 5% of China’s economy is exposed in this trade dispute. By contrast, the United States counts on exports for about 12% of its GDP, and barely 8% of its total exports go to China, leaving just 1% of the US economy exposed.

Moreover, some 30% of US goods sold in China are off-limits to tariffs, as they constitute components, mostly to computer and iPhone assemblies, that support Chinese exports.

These relative disadvantages showed themselves early in the dispute. American firms began moving their operations elsewhere, while many Chinese firms have decamped to other Asian countries, in large part to avoid the American levies. Even the perennially upbeat (and suspect) official Chinese government statistics show that the economy is suffering — China’s GDP during the second quarter grew in real terms at its slowest rate since 1992.

Image result for President Xi sad

Export volumes appear to have dropped more than 4% in the past year. Imports have also declined by more than 5%, indicating a drop in employment and consumer spending. While official figures still suggest a robust Chinese jobs market, surveys of Chinese media show a marked drop in help-wanted advertising.

These economic setbacks have also constrained China’s access to hard currencies, primarily the dollar, forcing a dramatic ebb in China’s once-mighty flow of overseas investments. In the first half of 2018, investment volumes ran at a quarter of their pace during this same period in 2017.

Long before the recent devaluation, these severe economic setbacks had already put China’s yuan under pressure. Until recently, the People’s Bank of China resisted that downward push. They did so because China needs financial capital, and in reaction to a loss of the global purchasing power of the yuan, Chinese wealth holders will send their money abroad.

The Chinese also understand that a devaluation to offset the Trump tariffs would mean that Chinese operations would receive fewer dollars for each sale; in other words, manufacturers would pay the tariffs for the American buyers. Given these risks, the Chinese currency devaluation indicates that the leadership is in a bind.

Sovereignty issues matter a great deal to the Chinese. If the Americans were to relent on this point, Beijing would sign a deal quickly. But the White House has good reasons for insisting on changes in the law. American presidents since Bill Clinton have all complained about Chinese trade practices, and Beijing has continually offered assurances that it always reneges on. Trump’s hard-line is a response to this past duplicity.

The United States could have an agreement tomorrow if the White House were willing to accept China’s vague promises. But America doesn’t need to give in to the Chinese obstinacy. Even now, talks continue. China might yet succumb to economic pressure and yield to American demands — but the prospect of a deal would brighten considerably if the White House could offer Xi a means of saving face on the sovereignty issues.


The above is critical to understanding how masterfully President Trump and his team have navigated the ongoing negotiations with China. The communist nation is now stunned this U.S. president is not doing what all other presidents have done before him – accept vague promises, smile for a photo op, and then allow China to continue on doing business as usual. No, President Trump is not a politician — he’s an America-First leader the likes of which China has never seen.

Image result for President Xi sad


CNN’s Very Bad Week As THREE On-Air Personalities Are Embroiled In Troubling Controversies

With ratings that continue to be in the toilet, how long will CNN management be allowed to keep their jobs? This week the 24/7 news network’s troubles were even worse as no fewer than three high-profile on-air personalities were embroiled in controversy.

CNN personalities April Ryan, Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon have generated negative headlines for the network.

ABOVE: April Ryan, Chris Cuomo, and Don Lemon all had very-very bad weeks. From watching as a reporter is forcefully removed from a gathering she was speaking at (Ryan – see video below) to threatening physical harm to a man who called him “Fredo” (Cuomo) to sexual assault claims filed against him. (Lemon) 

Via Fox News:

“This was not a good week to be CNN. In addition to its abysmal ratings, three of its top news personalities are embroiled in scandal and controversy,” Cornell University Law School professor and media critic William A. Jacobson told Fox News.

The liberal news network started off the week making headlines for the wrong reasons. “CNN Tonight” host Don Lemon was accused in a civil suit of a sexually charged assault of a bartender in New York’s posh Hamptons area last year. The same evening that the Lemon news broke, on Tuesday, video circulated of CNN political analyst April Ryan looking on while a local news editor appeared to be violently removed from an event where she was a keynote speaker.

“In a rational world, CNN leadership would implement a dramatic course correction, but there is no sign that rationality prevails at CNN,” he said.

While CNN defended Cuomo, the president had a different take on the profanity-filled rant.

“I think what Chris Cuomo did was horrible. His language was horrible, he looked like a total out-of-control animal. He lost it,” Trump told reporters. “Chris Cuomo is out of control. I watched it, I thought it was terrible… you’ve never seen me do that.”

The CNN host is the younger brother of Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic governor of New York. But Cuomo’s outburst over being referred to as “Fredo,” a reference to Fredo Corleone, the weak and facile brother in the movie “The Godfather,” has been labeled hypocritical because several CNN personalities have used the exact reference to mock President Trump’s children.

CNN’s public relations team called the remark “an ethnic slur” and Cuomo compared it to “the N-word” for Italians. But CNN and the “Cuomo Prime Time” host didn’t seem to think the word was some sort of vile smear in the past.

The New York Post unearthed an old video in which Cuomo playfully referred to himself as “Fredo” during a 2010 radio interview and CNN’s Ana Navarro used the moniker to belittle Donald Trump Jr. earlier this year on Cuomo’s very own show. Cuomo didn’t reprimand Navarro for using the term that he now feels is equivalent to “the N-word.” CNN anchor Jake Tapper has also used the term, while CNN legal analyst Paul Callan used it in an op-ed earlier this year.

In fact, CNN pundits and guests have used the term “Fredo” so much that the Washington Free Beacon put together a montage of various times it was uttered on the liberal news network.

Houck added CNN’s troubled week “started with Jake Tapper allowing Beto O’Rourke to say without pushback that tens of millions who voted for Donald Trump are racist and arguably condone white supremacy” on Sunday before the Cuomo, Lemon and Ryan stories unfolded.

“It was quite embarrassing,” Houck said.

Lemon denied the allegations against him and Cuomo said he should have been “better than the guys baiting me.”

CNN has not responded to requests for comment on the Ryan video.


Here now is that April Ryan video in question where the CNN contributor tells the audience she “doesn’t allow” any media to film her speeches. The reporter (who was an invited guest) is then forcibly removed. (at approximately the 1:00 mark) Ryan’s Gestapo-like approach has once again left the troubled news network scrambling to try and spin what is clearly yet another embarrassing example of the elite media’s sense of entitlement and penchant for violence when they perceive that entitlement to be threatened.


REPORT: President Trump Is Winning The Trade War Against China

No, he won’t back down – even as the anti-Trump media wants to convince you he might be. President Trump is holding firm, but also holding a carrot at the end of the stick, knowing full well how much the increasingly troubled China government is hoping for a resolution to the Trump administration’s tough stance on a trade imbalance that has long favored China, cost millions of American jobs, and been allowed to continue from one U.S. president to another — until now.

Related image

Via The Hill:

Renewed telephone conversations between high-level American and Chinese trade negotiators have led the White House to postpone tariffs on some Chinese imports from Sept. 1 to Dec. 15, and to remove other items from the list altogether. Critics will say that President Trump blinked, buffeted by swooning stock markets and talk of a possible recession that could damage his reelection prospects.

That may be true. But it is also true that much of what the trade battle was meant to achieve has already been accomplished. That’s called winning.

Though elites continue to deplore Trump’s hawkish stance against China’s cheating, the confrontation has helped publicize Beijing’s corrupt and despotic regime. The result is an emboldened pro-democracy uprising in Hong Kong, a reordering of global supply chains formerly overly dependent on China and, perhaps most important, more aggressive truth-telling by the media. Those are significant accomplishments.

…The White House’s pushback against China’s forced technology transfers, widespread espionage and unfair trade practices has not only encouraged more critical press coverage, it has also driven Americans’ disapproval of China to record levels. As our government attempts to protect U.S. interests in China, it helps to bring the public along.

…The U.S. and other developed countries will not benefit from China’s problems unless slowing growth and capital flight press Beijing to amend its behavior. Whether Xi Jinping will choose to compromise with the Trump White House and with the pro-democracy protestors in Hong Kong remains to be seen. But here’s what we do know: Beijing is under pressure as never before, thanks to President Trump’s trade battle. And the entire world could benefit.


REPORT: Beware Of China’s Plans For The World

For far too long U.S. presidents bent the knee to China’s demands. In the case of eight long years of Barack Obama, the “bow and bending” was so extreme the Chinese grew openly dismissive and mocking of the constantly preening, self-important American president without a spine who was all too eager to talk down the nation he was supposed to best represent. Now, after months of increasing economic pressure by President Trump for China to change its ways, the Chinese government faces growing opposition the likes of which it hasn’t seen in decades. Its economy has slowed, its people are demanding change, and the world is waiting and watching to see what could happen next.

Image result for hong kong protests

Via Fox News:

The outside world can do little to assure the future of freedom in Hong Kong beyond making the case that preserving the principles of liberty are at stake. Nevertheless, the plight of that territory’s more than 7 million souls can teach us an important lesson about what China has in mind for the rest of the world. It is not good.

For starters, the continuing protests speak volumes about China’s commitment to “one country two systems.” When the British transferred sovereignty over Hong Kong to China in 1997, Beijing agreed to this arrangement. It guaranteed that Hong Kong would be allowed to maintain its own governance and economic system.

The Hong Kong system—one of great economic freedom–has produced tremendous economic success. But economic freedom is no more popular than political freedom among the Chinese Communist Party. And in recent years, Chinese authorities have been encroaching on the rights supposedly guaranteed to Hong Kongers under the “one country, two systems” agreement.

Matters came to a head this April, when the Hong Kong government, under heavy pressure from Beijing, introduced legislation that would allow people accused of crimes against mainland China to be extradited. The proposal set off alarms among residents who know well that the mainland’s thoroughly politicized legal system is not to be trusted.

Finally, there are lessons for the rest of us. China’s encroachment on Hong Kong represents yet another in a long string of promises broken by the communist regime. They have violated their commitments to U.N. Convention on the Law Seas, violated U.N. sanctions (which they voted for) against North Korea and delivered debt and corruption (rather than the promised prosperity) through their vaunted Belt and Road economic “initiative.”

China is acting like a global bully. Like most bullies, it will continue to do so—until the world stops tolerating Beijing’s intolerable behavior.

Hong Kong is a warning to the world. The world ought to take notice.


BREAKING: Shots Fired Into ICE Facility – Far-Left Extremists Suspected.

ICE officials have made it clear that the anti-Trump/anti-border security/anti-America attacks being promoted 24/7 by a far-left news agencies and radicalized Democrats in Congress, are to blame for what has become an increasingly dangerous situation for federal agents just trying to do their jobs to help keep America safe as mandated by laws that have long been on the books.

Image result for shots fired

Via MSN News:

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Tuesday blamed “political rhetoric” and “misinformation” about President Donald Trump’s detention policies after shots were fired into two buildings housing ICE offices in San Antonio overnight.

No one was injured, but “had the bullets gone two inches in another direction, we could be here today talking about the murder of a federal official,” said Christopher Combs, the FBI’s special agent in charge in San Antonio.

Investigators said at a news conference that multiple shots were fired into offices of ICE’s Immigration Enforcement and Removal division about 3 a.m. Regional offices of The GEO Group Inc., a private prison company that operates ICE detention facilities, are in the same building.

“ICE officers put their lives on the line each and every day to keep our communities safe,” the statement said. “This disturbing public discourse shrouds our critical law enforcement function and unnecessarily puts our officers’ safety at risk.”

Combs of the FBI said investigators were concerned that there could be further attacks.

“We cannot allow political discourse to lead us to the point of violence, where federal employees, innocent people doing their jobs, are put in harm’s way,” he said.


HOLY SMOKES! Watch CNN’s Chris Cuomo Lose It When A Guy Calls Him “Fredo”

CNN’s toilet bowl descent continues as profiled here during an altercation between CNN evening host Chris Como and another man who apparently dismissed the self-important media personality as “Fredo” from The Godfather. Cuomo, after announcing himself as “Chris Cuomo. I’m an anchor on CNN” goes so far as to threaten to throw the man down the stairs. Perhaps Cuomo’s rage stems from the rumors surrounding his possible departure from CNN due to low ratings. Then again, the entire news network’s ratings have been in decline for quite some time.

WARNING: The language gets pretty salty.

Image result for Chris Cuomo rage


The Anti-Trump Mob Has Failed – So Now It’s Gone Berserk

There has never been a president who has faced more attacks, more lies, more outright aggression than has President Trump.

And yet, despite all that, the U.S. is doing much better, is safer, and more prosperous by nearly every measure possible, than it was during the eight years of Barack Obama whom the elite media adored.

So, with nothing left to go on, the anti-Trump mob has taken to embracing all-out crazy. 

See the source image

Via The New York Post:

Universal Studios has canceled the release of its violent new R-rated massacre movie, “The Hunt,” for now, but the fact it even was made shows we’ve reached a dangerous new point in our political culture.

You have to wonder what twisted minds would dream up this liberal fantasy of jet-setting elites hunting down conservatives like vermin.

“They’re not human beings,” the Hillary Swank character says at one point, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

“The Hunt,” originally titled “Red State vs. Blue State,” is a sign of where irrational Trump hatred has taken us.
It’s what the left is doing in real life. They’re dehumanizing their opponents and trying to incite violence against them.

See the source image

The president’s detractors have tried for almost three years to break him. Russia didn’t work, Stormy didn’t work. Impeachment won’t work.

They’ve smeared his wife, his kids. They call him a fat slob, a psychopath and a Russian agent.

They’ve used the most violent rhetoric imaginable, from Madonna thinking about blowing up the White House to Kathy Griffin posing with a severed fake Trump head to Robert De Niro wanting to punch Trump in the face.

But nothing works. The more they abuse him, the more he relishes baiting them. He is impervious to their attacks, and his approval ratings haven’t budged.
So they have gone berserk. First, they projected their own murderous thoughts onto Trump, blaming him for the recent El Paso and Dayton massacres.

And in the next breath, they issued death threats against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

“Just stab the motherf–ker in the heart,” said one charming protester on the lawn outside his house last weekend.

For Trump haters, the means justify the ends, and everyone knows that removing the president from public life is the only end worth pursuing, no matter how foul the means.

The real coarsening of American life comes not from a president who tweets low barbs at his enemies 24/7, it comes from his opponents, who have broken every rule of truth and fair play in politics and journalism.

So unscrupulous are they in their blinkered hunt for Trump’s scalp that they don’t care if the lies they tell endanger people and deepen the divisions in the country, even while they lament the coarsening of the political debate.

Now, having failed in their pursuit of Trump, they’re coming after anyone who supports him. It’s demonization by association.

When Democratic Congressman Joaquin Castro published a hit list of 44 Trump donors on Twitter last week, he knew exactly what he was doing.

With the approval of his brother, 2020 Democratic candidate Julián Castro, he knew that the outcome would be a Twitter mob intimidating and abusing those innocent people, bombarding them with hateful phone calls, boycotting their businesses and potentially committing violence against them.

In a country where guns are plentiful and emotions are high, why would you risk that unless you regarded your political opponents as vermin?

This is the new normal for Democrats: If you disagree with their agenda, you are a deplorable, a bigot, a racist, a white supremacist — and any retaliation is acceptable.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s true. Truth is whatever version of reality best suits your purpose.

Almost 63 million Americans voted for Trump, in part because they reject the leftist project to remake their history and their culture.

It is not rational or healthy to imagine you can intimidate them into not voting for him in 2020. But that is all the Democrats have.


Donald Trump Is America’s First Truly Post-Racial President

It wasn’t Bill Clinton who has a long and often complicated relationship with race relations and it certainly wasn’t Barack Obama who from day one on the national stage made race and religion the dangerously divisive platform upon which he built his entire political career upon. No, as much as the far-left media would have people believe otherwise, President Trump is America’s first truly post-racial president because of one simple and undeniable truth—he looks on everyone as equal regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Image result for Donald Trump first post racial president

That equal treatment for all extends to his sometimes rather aggressive rebukes against those he disagrees with on policy and/or character as well. That’s the thing with President Trump — he doesn’t care who you are or where you come from. If he doesn’t like something you’re doing he has no problem saying so regardless of the politically-correct rules that have already done so much harm to free speech in America. And if you attack him or his family, regardless of who you are or what color your skin is, he’ll come back at you twice as hard.

This is in stark contrast to the poll-tested politicians of our age. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, etc., all wanted to be told what to say and how to say it.

President Trump is just the opposite — he says it how he sees it, political correctness be damned. The thing is that he’s most often proven right, something the far-left media continues to give him almost no credit for. In this regard, Trump might very well be the most Martin Luther King-like in his approach to governance where his world view is primarily shaped by the content of people’s character and not the color of their skin. White? Black? Brown? Male? Female? Other? President Trump doesn’t care. For him, it’s always been about the quality of the job you do – period.

The political and media far-left (which is overwhelmingly comprised of elitist white folks) have had a very difficult time accepting this because their entire existence has been built around the idea of creating differences, attacking one group, promoting another group, and in doing so pushing an agenda that says certain kinds of people are incapable of success without their elitist-driven help and it is there one finds the foundational racism that makes up so much of what is modern American liberalism. 

President Trump truly believes anyone and everyone is capable of great things but that it’s up to them to see that potential through.  The far-left’s retort is to say “HOW DARE YOU” and call his colorblind outlook racist when it is actually just the opposite.

Watch and listen to Candace Owens give an example of this twisted, self-contradictory, and ultimately elitist racism that sadly permeates the far-left today:


“Regardless of who you are or where you come from, if you believe in the code that is DON’T TREAD ON ME then Mr. Diaz’s Revenge is for you.”


“Time and time again this author proves how he always seems to have his hand on the pulse of what is coming before it actually happens. I don’t know how he does it but it sure makes for some fascinating reading. Mr. Diaz’s Revenge is a MUST READ for anyone who thinks this country needs to get back to the basics and stop promoting the kind of nonsense that has done nothing but tear us all apart. In a way, we are all Mr. Diaz.”

Mr. Diaz's Revenge by [Ulsterman, D.W.]




REPORT: Blaming Trump for ‘trigger’ words pours more fuel on the Age of Rage

We are living in the age of media-driven rage where singular issues are exaggerated into societal problems for political gain while actual societal problems are neglected because the media refuses to recognize anything beyond a 48-hour news cycle, ten-second sound bite, or a 280-character tweet. The result of this Age of Rage are tragedies like El Paso and Dayton, where individuals believing their personal feelings are the most important thing in the world because society has for years told them that is so, finally break after coming to the realization that reality is much different.

Image result for age of rage

Via The Hill:

The final death tolls in El Paso and Dayton were not even established when the chorus of recriminations began. Several Democratic candidates like South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg accused President Trump of stoking the hatred leading to the shootings, while Senator Kamala Harris insisted the victims were the “incredible consequence” of the rhetoric used by Trump. Senator Cory Booker went even further, saying not only that Trump was “particularly responsible” and “complicit” in the mass shootings last weekend, but so is everyone who is “not actively working against hate.”

Many of us have denounced the rhetoric of Trump on immigration, the courts, and the media. However, there is a familiar ring to some of the coverage following the massacres that Trump is responsible for the shooting because the language he uses is “triggering.” Columnist Mehdi Hasan said, “The president may not be pulling the trigger or planting the bomb, but he is enabling much of the hatred behind those acts by giving aid and comfort to angry white men by offering them clear targets.”

There have long been efforts to limit speech as “triggering” to others. Colleges and universities have created “safe spaces” and implemented “trigger warnings” to protect students from opposing views or values. Faculty and students have demanded sanctions against those engaging in speech perceived as threatening or demeaning, including the poorly defined concept of “microaggressive” words. The result is a type of speech control that redefines censorship as merely “sheltering.”

In news coverage, “triggering” has taken on a literal meaning that Trump virtually pulled the trigger on victims by adding to a raging environment. It does not matter that a fair amount of violence is committed by leftist groups like Antifa. Such acts are often portrayed by advocates as merely “self-defense.” The CNN special “United Shades of America” with Kamau Bell featured what Bell called the “redneck revolt” of gun-toting liberals who are battling the “alt-right.” Bell followed them to gun ranges and asked why “more white people” are not joining their ranks. Among the “good guys” featured was Willem Van Spronsen, who later attempted to firebomb an immigration center and died in a shootout with police.

Does that make CNN culpable in “triggering” Van Spronsen? Of course not. Yet it would appear from the coverage that Trump is still responsible for El Paso shooter Patrick Crusius, who referenced Trump and said “this attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas.” It did not matter that both of these individuals apparently have serious mental health issues. It was the rhetoric of Trump that was responsible for the crimes of Crusius. It also does not matter that Conner Betts, the shooter in Dayton, described himself as a “leftist” Democrat who supported the candidacy of Senator Elizabeth Warren. He reportedly wrote, “I want socialism, and I will not wait for the idiots to finally come round to understanding.”

Trump supporters have been assaulted for wearing MAGA hats or overtly supporting the president. Protesters have shouted death threats outside the home of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. An MSNBC host told viewers that Trump was “talking about exterminating Latinos.” A new Hollywood movie, described as a satire, features the hunting of MAGA types called “deplorables,” the name Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton gave to Trump supporters during the 2016 campaign. None of those stories led to condemnations of “triggering” rhetoric by Trump critics.

Few Americans will tolerate outright censorship. But 20 years ago, writers began to push an alternative way to silence their critics by limiting their words as “triggering” or threatening. They could claim they were not censoring a viewpoint, only the words used to express it. Yet the result is the same in curtailing what others say. The concept of “triggering” language has become so mainstream today that news hosts now nod in silent acceptance when guests denounce the use of common terms.

On “Meet the Press” last weekend, Eddie Glaude, Princeton professor of African American studies, declared the very use of the term “illegal immigrant” may have caused these shootings. He said, “You set the stage for people who are even more on the extreme to act violently.” Glaude, who previously called the immigration policies of Trump “terrorism,” interrupted another guest, who was noting that laws on the books make such immigration illegal. “No human being is illegal!” Glaude declared.

For years, activists tried to shame others into dropping any reference to the illegal status of some immigrants by claiming the term is verboten. It does not matter that the term appears in laws and has been routinely used by the Supreme Court, including decisions by such liberal icons as William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, and John Paul Stevens. It is now “triggering” language and, according to Glaude, may actually cause massacres.

Related image

Even expressions of empathy can be considered “triggering.” After the shootings, Trump condemned the violence and white supremacy, expressed sympathy for the victims, and ordered all American flags to fly at half-mast until August 8. Frank Figliuzzi, an NBC News national security contributor, claimed the flag order was “triggering” because the date, 8/8, could be viewed as a reference to 88, which could be a reference to HH, the eighth letter in the alphabet, which could be viewed as a salute to “Heil Hitler.” Thus, Trump unwittingly or wittingly signaled neo-Nazis.

Figliuzzi expressed shock, “No one is thinking about this. No one is giving him advice. Or he is rejecting the advice.” There is another possibility that “no one is thinking about this” because it is perfectly insane. More importantly, what Figliuzzi refers to as the “little things” often leads to the limiting of a big thing called “free speech.” That some deranged neo-Nazi would celebrate the coincidence of flags being reraised on 8/8 does not mean that we should all change our actions or speech accordingly.

There is no sense of hypocrisy in any of this for those who use shootings to score political points by denouncing others for doing the same thing. It is inevitable that some will follow massacres like political carpetbaggers to make easy gains. Yet none of these gun triggers were pulled, literally or figuratively, by Trump or Warren or Fox or CNN. We live in an age of rage, however, there remains a big difference between rage and a rampage.


“Regardless of who you are or where you come from, if you believe in the code that is DON’T TREAD ON ME then Mr. Diaz’s Revenge is for you.”


“Time and time again this author proves how he always seems to have his hand on the pulse of what is coming before it actually happens. I don’t know how he does it but it sure makes for some fascinating reading. Mr. Diaz’s Revenge is a MUST READ for anyone who thinks this country needs to get back to the basics and stop promoting the kind of nonsense that has done nothing but tear us all apart. In a way, we are all Mr. Diaz.”

Mr. Diaz's Revenge by [Ulsterman, D.W.]