Speaking on a recent edition of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” well-known liberal activist and billionaire hedge fund manager, Tom Steyer, said that he believes that President Donald Trump has already “met the grounds for impeachment.”
When asked by host Chuck Todd, “Where would you prioritize impeachment right now for the new Democratic House?,” Steyer replied; “I think there’s no question that this president has both met the grounds for impeachment and that it’s urgent to get him out of office…”
This is not the first time that Steyer has used the “I” word, in fact, he has been spearheading a campaign advocating for the impeachment of President Trump since long before the midterm elections. Back in August, speaking to Variety, Steyer said, “If candidates (then running for the midterm elections) are not for impeachment, they should explain what is their solution to the lawlessness and recklessness of this president?”
He went on in that interview to say, “The question should be, and I would pose it, what are we waiting for? How much information do you need? If the level of corruption isn’t too much for you, how many laws does he have to break before you decide he has to go?”
While the mainstream Democratic Party did not run on impeachment as Steyer suggested, which, given their resounding success in recapturing the House, was probably a good move, Steyer probably now feels emboldened to renew his quest for impeachment, given those results.
Who Is Tom Steyer?
Tom Steyer is a wealthy billionaire who is one of the Democratic Party’s largest donors. In the past, Nancy Pelosi has described him as a “friend” and “neighbor.” Steyer amassed his fortune as a hedge-fund manager and created the “Need to Impeach” campaign as an offshoot of his group, NextGen America, which was best known for climate change advocacy.
Steyer has poured millions into the “Need to Impeach” campaign and has collected 5.5 million signatures in the effort to impeach Trump. Prior to the midterms, he announced that he was spending an additional $10 million on a Need to Vote campaign to mobilize the electorate, drawing on the petition list to organize and make direct content.
But for the most part, Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership have rejected Steyer’s effort, believing that calls for Trump’s head, will just galvanize a Republican response. Back in July, Pelosi said that impeachment was “off the table” if Democrats win back the House and that it would be a “gift” to Republicans. It turned out her strategy was correct as Democrats won back over 30 seats in the House in the midterms.
However, Pelosi did place a caveat on that promise to the GOP. She had said, “unless new information comes to light.” Now that the Democrats have won the House, and with the impending Mueller Report, and recent bombshells that revealed possible collusion between Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and Julian Assange, it remains to be seen if impeachment may indeed return to the agenda when the new Congress is seated in January.
In a supreme case of historical irony, the far-left ideology formed in reaction to that of the Nazi party has caused chants such as “Jew, Jew, cowardly pig, come out and die alone” to return to the streets of Germany. With Stars of David burning in the public square, a standoff with Russia over Eastern European territory, a stranglehold on Greece, and an ever-expanding role in the Arab world, someone who had slept since the 1940s might conclude Germany was the victor of WW2.
As the strongest economy within the European Union, Germany had accomplished its near-century long quest of controlling Europe. However, 77 years after the beginning of this journey, on the brink of success, Germany faces the very real risk of imploding under internal pressure. The external threats – such as the one million migrants now living in the state – are only welcomed in by the deep-seated, indoctrinated masochism of the German government.
The capitulation of the policing authorities, also known as the abandonment of the German people, has already occurred. In a leaked letter from the German Chancellor’s office to Kiel’s police authority, police were alerted not to pursue smaller offenses (etc. shoplifting/pickpocketing) due to being overburdened. The overburdening in question comes in the form of mass sexual assault and record high reports of violent theft. This past New Year’s Eve, for example, German authorities reported nearly 2000 sexual assaults, with the vast majority of the assailants being “southerners,” the politically correct word for Islamic migrants in Germany.
In response to 1000’s of women facing irreversible mental scarring, Henriette Reker, the female Mayor of Cologne, offered the following deplorable, victim-blaming statement: “There’s always the possibility of keeping a certain distance of more than an arm’s length — that is to say to make sure yourself you don’t look to be too close to people who are not known to you, and to whom you don’t have a trusting relationship.”
According to the Associated Press, these refugees who commit crimes in Germany do not even face deportation because “the danger they face in their home countries is perceived as greater than the reason to deport them.” Essentially, we are seeing a government that has put the safety of migrants over the safety of its citizens. With one million migrants already in Germany and many more on their way, there is no wonder why only 29 percent of Germans have a positive opinion of immigration from the third world. Unfortunately, when Democracy is merely bank sponsored theatre, a consensus of the public has little to no influence over policy.
With the current projections, German taxpayers can expect to spend €77.6 billion ($86.2 billion) over the next four years feeding, housing and training refugees as well as helping their home countries to stem the flow, according to updated budget estimates for the period from 2017 to 2020. Since the vast majority of migrants are poorly educated and have virtually no valuable skills, the German working class can look forward to both increased competition for jobs and increased taxes to pay for those now competing. Not surprisingly, these anti-German people, anti-democratic policies have caused a rise in far-right political parties and violence. We are witnessing a country tearing itself apart – out of principle.
But why, Germany? Why have far-right groups grown to a post WW2 peak? Why have the chants for Jews to die returned to streets? Why have you betrayed your working class? Why does an alleged democracy have policies only 27 percent of its people agree with? Why are you blaming women for being victims of the men you brought to their towns?
The origin of leftist thought came from the idea that nothing is created without the exploitation of others: If there are rich people, they must have exploited poor people to arrive at their success. Extrapolated to a global scale, Germany, as white capitalists ( the worst, most shameful thing to be according to the left), must conclude others had to be exploited to arrive at success. Known for their pragmatism, we see Germany switch over to a policy of self-flagellation. It is of no import to the liberal whether or not people are economically drowning in Germany or that women are raped on an hourly schedule; rather than that, the only policy is that of guilt-induced, borderline-like self-harming. Objective thinking comes secondary to the self-harming needed to rectify the guilt associated with success.
There is certainly an argument that the West played a role in the migrant crisis, but burning down one’s own home has never helped fellow victims of house fires. The German people must now decide whether or not they accept being the sacrificial lambs of ideologues.
As you no doubt know by now, the Washington Post has recently reported that, in the early days of the administration, First Daughter, Ivanka Trump, used a personal email account for government business. While this has garnered promises of investigation — even from the GOP — and shouts of hypocrisy, and even “lock her up,” from the Left, echoing her father’s endless tirades against Hillary Clinton and her emails, there are some significant differences between the two “scandals.”
Given that Hillary’s email abuses were a cornerstone of Trump’s 2016 campaign, Ivanka’s use of a personal email to conduct White House business was certainly a bad idea, and was indeed against Federal laws, but, there is a lot of daylight between what she did, and what Hillary Clinton was accused of.
Hillary’s Emails Vs. Ivanka’s
Of course, President Trump immediately dismissed the acquisitions against his daughter, saying that Ivanka did nothing wrong.
Using private email to conduct any government business is against regulations, but not necessarily criminal, if no classified material was involved. That is one of the key differences between the two violations. While no charges were brought against HRC, largely due to her lack of “malicious intent,” those who think she should be prosecuted, think that way because, despite her original denials to the contrary, it did come out that she did indeed transmit classified information over her private server. In Ivanka’s case, The Washington Post, which broke the story, said that Trump’s team has “strongly denied” that Ivanka sent any classified information over the private system.
That stands in stark contrast to then-Secretary of State Clinton’s use of her private basement server. The FBI investigation into Clinton’s conduct found that she sent 110 classified emails over her private server, and “8 were classified at the Top Secret level.”
To use one of the favorite words of her father, another “huge” difference between Ivanka’s case and Hillary’s, is that according to WashPo, we are talking about a little over 100 emails, and there was no evidence that Ivanka did anything to hide or redact any of the information in them. Hillary’s email problems, on the other hand, involved over 30,000 emails that were deleted, or otherwise forensically “bleached.” Not to mention her physical destruction of cell phones, and other devices that may have held traces of the emails in question.
A third critical difference is the risk of interception. Besides for record keeping, the main reason why it is against the regulations to use personal email for government business is that such accounts are likely more vulnerable to hacks by foreign powers. Since Clinton was using her private account while conducting State Dept. business, her emails were much more “high-value targets” than Ivanka’s which, at the time, we’re only dealing with domestic issues, mostly involving the transition.
Ivanka should have known better. Her use of personal email did violate federal regulations, and she should be subject to investigation and any consequences of same. But, Hillary Clinton’s use of private emails was on a much grander scale and posed a far greater threat to national security. There are two wrongs here, but, not only do they not make a right, they are not equitable.
Despite his admonishments of it being a “witch hunt,” and insistence that “there is no, there, there,” well-known attorney, and surprisingly frequent Trump defender, Alan Dershowitz, says that the forthcoming Mueller Report, could spell terrible news for the President.
Speaking on the Sunday morning news shows, The Harvard Law professor emeritus said that he believes the president will have to navigate the political impact of a potentially damning final report from the special counsel. “I think the report is going to be devastating to the president and I know that the president’s team is already working on a response to the report,” Dershowitz said. He added that he believes the report, although it will have a strong political impact, is unlikely to result in any criminal charges. He explained, “When I say devastating, I mean it’s going to paint a picture that’s going to be politically very devastating. I still don’t think it’s going to make a criminal case.”
Trump Provides Written Testimony
Dershowitz’s comments come on the heels of Trump having submitted his written answers earlier this week to questions from Mueller in the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
On the same Sunday morning talk show, ABC’s “This Week,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, also said “that the investigation may be jeopardized by the appointment of acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker.”
Pointing to Whitaker’s previous public comments on the Mueller investigation before becoming attorney general, Klobuchar said he should not be running the Justice Department and that Congress should pass legislation protecting Mueller. “I’m really concerned about having him in charge. As you know, we have tried in the Senate on a bipartisan basis, to protect that investigation by law,” Klobuchar said.
The bill is still pending in the Senate.
Since Mueller’s probe began in the spring of last year, the investigation had secured indictments against 32 individuals and three Russian businesses on charges ranging from computer hacking to financial crimes.
Manafort’s Deal in Jeopardy
As if Dershowitz’s bombshell on Sunday wasn’t bad enough for the President, on Tuesday July 27, it was revealed that the Mueller investigation believes that Paul Manafort has compromised his plea deal, and has continued to lie to the investigation team. CNN has also revealed that Mueller’s team has been investigating a meeting between former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno, in Quito in 2017, and has asked explicitly if WikiLeaks or its founder, Julian Assange, were discussed in the meeting. But the biggest bombshell may be an unsubstantiated report published in The Guardian that claims that Manafort secretly met several times with Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, including around the time he was made a top figure in the Trump campaign. The Guardian, citing sources, said Manafort met with Assange in 2013, 2015 and in the spring of 2016. No other news agency has yet to confirm The Guardian’s report, but they are scrambling to do so.
For his part, Manafort says that The Guardian’s report is “totally false and deliberately libelous.”
As part of a deal for his cooperation, Manafort pleaded guilty to conspiracy and witness tampering on September 14, but according to a court filing on Monday, November 26, he breached that agreement by repeatedly lying to Federal Investigators. He potentially faces decades in prison, and had hoped that the plea agreement would lighten his sentence. Now that he is in breach, that is unlikely to be the case, which now raises the question if President Trump is planning to pardon Mr. Manafort.
The hysteria exhibited by the unhinged left to President Trump’s use of tear-gas in dispersing a violent mob of migrants is perhaps only equal to their woeful ignorance of history – or maybe a clever attempt at rewriting history with President Trump playing the heartless villain.
The attempted infiltration of our borders was quickly repelled by a barrage of tear gas. That stopped the onrushing advance, dead-in-its-tracks, scattering the mob in all directions – thus avoiding a more lethal response.
However the images of migrants tearfully coughing and rubbing their eyes outraged committed leftists across the country, creating a firestorm of protests on social media. From a deranged Alyssa Milano going into an uncontrollable profanity-laced tirade against President Trump to an incredibly stupid remark by Democratic Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI), hypocrisy was abound.
Both of these loons have no doubt lost any semblance of basic common sense or proportionality in their unbridled contempt of President Trump. Protecting America’s national security is seen by leftists as a violation of human rights.
Obviously, what seems at play once again is “selective outrage” or perhaps a universal dose of ignorance among the progressive elites.
Back in 2010, under then President Obama, the use of 2-chlorobenzylidene or CS (another form of tear gas) was deployed 26-times – the same combination was again used in 2012 and 2013 approximately 27-times.
According to CBP officials, Obama also regularly used pepper spray (another chemical agent) over 151 times at the border in 2013.
Remarkably no one heard from the likes of Milano then, even though the Obama Administration frequently used the same tear-gas agent as President Trump, averaging a few times a month during the last few years of his term. That’s about 48-times within Obama’s last 2-years in office.
Milano is a committed progressive, an actress residing in Tinseltown along with other leftist celebrities, who has made bashing the President a cottage industry for under-employed actors looking to cash in on the anti-Trump gravy-train. Her absurd comments are actually in keeping with Hollywood’s derangement syndrome of President Trump.
Senator Schatz, by contrast, is an elected legislator, his comments should be taken seriously. His asinine tweet on Sunday, implying that the use of tear gas is a violation of international agreements governing the use of chemical weapons, simply illustrates how far down the rabbit-hole Democrats have sunk.
Perhaps realizing how absurd his tweet was, the good senator quickly deleted it.
“Anyone uncomfortable with spraying tear gas on children is welcome to join the coalition of the moral and the sane. We can argue about other stuff when we’ve got our country back.”
Adding, “I went ahead and deleted the one about chemical weapons because I just don’t know enough about what happened. Does this not strike you as excessive”?
— Brian Schatz (@brianschatz) November 25, 2018
This simply shows how uninformed and historically ignorant the Hawaiian Senator must be.
By nature, I am an optimist. I base it on a human history that has steadily improved in virtually every way. Yes, there are terrible events – natural and man-made – and there are temporary setbacks by regressive dark forces. But, for the most part, the record of human progress is positive and has resulted in a persistent upward line on the graph of human improvement.
In 1776, the new United States of America kicked off the most dramatic democratization movement in the history of the world. By example and might, we led the transformation away from a world ruled over by authoritarians of all sorts – kings, tsars, emperors, tribal chieftains, dictators and potentates. In less than 200 years, America had inspired and sponsored a world of nations based on democracy and juxtaposed to the remnants of the old authoritarian order.
The success of the United States in becoming that beacon of freedom — or, as President Reagan put it, that “shining city upon the hill” – was an almost universal common belief in personal freedom and limited government. Virtually all the misfortunes of society were to be handled by a combination of self-reliance and the goodness of others — not on a dependency of an inefficient powerful central government.
Our Founders gave us the instruction book of freedom and positive progress. It was called the Constitution – and lest we didn’t understand their meaning and intent in the words of the Constitution itself, they provided us with a library of explanatory papers and documents. Sadly, the liberal education industry no longer emphasizes the writings of the Founders – replacing it with the impossible political and economic theories of Utopianism.
The strength of America was our common understanding of values. We may not always agree on how to get to our common goals, but we shared the same goals. This does not seem to be the case anymore. We are not only a nation divided along partisan lines and philosophic lines, but a people who seem to no longer have even the same values and goals in mind.
One of the most important fundamentals of a viable Republic was keeping even limited government closest to the people. As the Tenth Amendment prescribes, any power not specifically provided to the federal government is reserved to the several states or to the people. Since such a concept disenfranchises authoritarians, we can understand why the progressives constantly want the central government in Washington to take over more governance and expropriate more of the people’s wealth. Unfortunately, “states’ rights” was given a bad name when the Democratic Party wrongly weaponized it as a means of denying blacks their civic, human and constitutional rights. Regardless, it remains an existential concept.
Charles Kesler, the Dengler-Dykema Distinguished Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College, describes the current situation in America as a movement away from “normal politics” to “regime politics.”
In an essay in Imprimis, Kesler defines “normal politics” as a condition when there is common agreement on goals and values, but disagreement on the means by which those goals can be best achieved. That has been the characteristic of the American experiment in democracy for the first 200 years.
Kesler writes that “regime politics” exist when there is no longer agreement on the basics – the values, the goals and objectives. It is when our division represents two entirely different sets of values and traditions.
Both sides agree that we are in the midst of a battle for the very soul of America – with conservatives standing with the vision of the Founders and the constitutional process of forming a “more perfect union” based on the fundamental of personal freedom and limited government.
The radical left, that has a stronghold in the misnamed Democratic Party, pushes for a world where power is the central right of governance. The people are not the source of power, but the subjects of an elite political class that is better equipped to decide the fortunes of the less able masses.
Of course, this is not a new concept. It is what the Founders rejected – and which we as a nation has stood against for two centuries. It is an incremental return to authoritarianism
The first common value that is attacked by the left, is confidence in the written word of the Constitution – and the amendment procedure by which it enables us to improve the union by popular consensus. Since the left does not believe in the basic principles of personal freedom and the inalienable rights of we the people, they see the Constitution as a “living document” subject to fundamental changes in meaning and principles — and in some instances as a passé piece of paper that can be, and should be, largely ignored.
This diminution of the Constitution is the central issue in the fight over “activist” or “strict constructionist” judges. This also leads to a fundamental understanding of the role of the judiciary—with conservatives holding to the tradition of deciding cases based on law and progressives encouraging the courts to make law by judicial edict.
This abandonment of traditional values is seen in the #MeToo movement. In proposing that a woman must be believed as conclusive evidence in a judicial or civil process tosses out one of our most sacred safeguards against tyranny – the rule-of-law and standards of evidence.
The increasingly destructive political correctness movement is designed to serve two purposes for the left – to stifle freedom of the speech, which has become a serious threat in recent years, and to create politically advantageous divisiveness.
This goes along with identity politics that creates tribal-like conflicts by which the left benefits. Identity politics is a direct attack on the national motto of e Pluribus Unum and a long-held belief in assimilation. This means that those we allow in the country are here to become Americans – to embrace our core values and traditions.
The left casts these concepts aside in favor of maintaining permanent divisions based on ethnic background, religion and culture. Traditionalists believe that folks seeking asylum, citizenship or even work visas should adhere to our established laws. Progressives see immigrants as establishing ethnic beachheads in which their culture rules. It is the reason we are even having a debate about Sharia Law and have communities in which American police are not to enforce the law.
The idea that political power can be — and should be — gained by breaking the law is inherent in the progressive movement. It is why they do not believe in enforcing the law at the border. It is why they create those idiotic sanctuary cities and states to thwart federal laws. It is why the will to not enforce election laws and then proffer the ridiculous argument that voter fraud does not exist.
They pay lip service to the importance of a free press while creating a media culture that is only free of fairness, balance and honest reporting. They have nullified the longstanding ethics of journalism in a free society for an activist, opinion-oriented so-called news industry that dishes out propaganda – political and philosophic – to an overly tolerant public.
President Trump is certainly at his provocative best when he calls the left-wing media “the enemies of the people,” but any objective analysis would see one-sided analyses and panels of parroting pundits as the enemies of truth. A press that is controlled by government OR by one political establishment is not a free press and is not in service to the nation as the Founders envisioned when they incorporated the Fourth Estate into the First Amendment. Contain
In a recent edition of MSNBC’s “Up with David Gura,” the discussion was a full-bore attack on the one major conservative station, FOX News. One of the panelists proposed that there should be a law to curtail FOX support of President Trump, Republicans and conservatives. Ponder that for a moment. Those claiming fealty to an unfettered press are actually proposing that government step in to block opinions and points-of-view with which the leftist press does not agree. As shocking as such a proposal should be, neither the host nor the other guests protested that suggestion.
We had a progressive president who began his presidency with what became known as an “apology tour” – demeaning the history and nobility of America. He then withdrew America from world leadership with a preposterous doctrine of “leading from behind.”
The political left embraced treaties that disadvantaged America – including the Paris Climate Change Agreement, the Iran Nuclear deal and a number of trade agreements. This brand of globalization is far different from such things as President Truman’s Marshall Plan that rebuilt Europe after World War II AND strengthened America at the same time – and President Reagan’s Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) that made the world a little safer place INCLUDING America.
Then there is the issue of patriotism – love of country. That is the very centerpiece of a nation with shared values and common objectives. It is the glue that holds the Republic together. The left – especially since those days of rage in the 1960s – has disparaged both a love of country and the country itself. In the name of pretentious globalization, the left eschews American leadership and slanders our national purposes.
In the progressive world, one can disrespect the flag and the National Anthem –not just on the football fields, but in classrooms across the nation. The voices of the left are quick to criticize our fighting men and women as well as the victories they pursued on our behalf.
My pessimism for the future of America is based on the rise of the left – and how they now control our schools, our entertainment industry, our book publishing businesses and our news media. These are all the means by which a culture and values are passed along to future generations. In many ways, the Millennial generation has been propagandized their entire lives. The rise of acceptance of socialist authoritarianism among our youth is alarming, to say the least.
On the other hand, the optimist in me believes that true personal freedom as described in the Constitution is an ever-compelling belief. The inscription on the Statue of Liberty speaks of those “yearning to breathe free.” I believe that that “yearning” is ingrained in the human soul and no matter how many times freedom is oppressed, freedom will emerge victorious. But I pity those who might be trapped in one of those times when the authoritarian left seizes temporary power and suppresses freedom and our inalienable rights.
So, there ‘tis.
In what has been widely described as a not-so-subtle rebuke of President Trump’s criticism of the federal courts in the Ninth Judicial District, Chief Justice John Roberts made his case for the independence of the American judicial system. He said:
“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”
Okay! That may be what a Supreme Court justice might say in an address to the graduating class of Duke University Law School or the annual convention of the National Bar Association. But, as a serious response to presidential criticism of liberal activist federal judges, Roberts is soiling his long black robe by treading into the murky political waters.
Granted that Trump’s verbal attacks on the courts is a bit maladroit and excessively pugnacious, but he is not wrong. In fact, his pointing to judges playing out the political philosophies – or not – of the presidents who appoint them is common fodder of political discourse.
Hypocrisy rears its head.
Democrats, who now celebrate Roberts’ self-laudatory remarks and elementary-level description of the federal bench, we loud in the complaints about the partisanship of the judges that re-affirmed the election of George Bush the Second in 2000.
In fact, the most notable exceptions to justices reflecting the politics and philosophies of the presidents who appointed them is when supposedly conservative lawyers and judges appointed to the courts by the relatively more conservative Republican presidents have been known to veer off to the left – Justices David Souter, Anthony Kennedy and even Roberts, to a degree, are just the latest samples. More consistent with the culture of their party, liberal Democrat judges tend to remain dogmatic to the philosophy of the presidents who appoint them – often becoming more liberal as their party steers to the port side.
Judges are political creatures
If there was any truth in Robert’s grandiose claim, we would not see so many decisions decided along “political lines.” And that seems to be more the case as you rise up the levels of the federal court systems. District tend to be less politically predictable largely because their cases are more specific to the issues of the crime or the civil issues. They are rarely deciding matters of overarching constitutionality. The federal Appellate or Circuit courts tend to be more political in general – and the Ninth District especially.
When it comes to the Supreme Court, however, there is a very strong correlation between the decisions and the political views of the president who nominated them. The entire process is political. Most of those sitting on the Federal courts had resumes that involved significant political involvement. There philosophic (read that political) leanings are not only known, but a major factor in their selection.
In saying that there are no Obama, Bush, Clinton or Trump judges is simply wrong. We have long understood that how a justice will vote is directly correlated to the president who nominated them. It is a form of political shorthand. To say that Justice Sonia Sotomayor is an Obama justice informs us how she will vote — and why she did vote the way she did — on all those divisive POLITICAL issues that come before the court.
Roberts’ public p****ing contest
While Roberts’ response was more in the spirit of a cheerleader than a referee, there is the question as to whether he should have engaged at all. There is a bit of an irony in Roberts’ proclaiming the courts to be independent of the political climate de jure and then he creates – at least by intimation – a political controversy. He had to know that his comment would not go without a response from Trump – even many responses
Perhaps because he was appointed by Republican Bush, Roberts’ feels a sense of pre-emptive absolution in becoming political against a Republican President. Regardless, judicial tradition – more in theory than fact – has it that these comments by sitting justices are inappropriate. It was not too long ago that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg felt obligated to make a public apology after insulting the President.
Media hits the hype button
Just because one can concede that sharp words between a President and a Chief Justice has a modicum of news value does not mean it should be elevated and twisted into a major confrontation. Of course, the #NeverTrump news would have you believe that Trump and ambushed Roberts in a dark alley. In the media’s biased analysis, it would seem that this exchange of words will bring down a Republic that has withstood wars – including a Civil War – depressions, the 1960s Days of Rage, terrorist attacks, presidential impeachments, assassinations and the presidency of Jimmy Carter is about to teeter on the brink of collapse over a little friction between the Executive and Judicial branches.
So, there ‘tis.
If you’re an avid viewer of Fox News, especially in prime time, then you’re probably a fan of this friendly, cerebral host – who uses good humor combined with an analytical common sense approach in unmasking overbearing progressive dogma.
This ultimately leaves the unprepared guest looking for an exit door. Carlson’s unassuming and boyish persona masks a sharp intellect that cuts through the smokescreen of political talking points, to the core issues at hand.
According to a recent poll just released on Tuesday by the Morning Consult Survey, Tucker Carlson leads all Republican pundits with a favorability rating of plus 31.
The other leading contenders viewed as the five most popular hosts among Republicans also happened to be Fox News hosts, including Laura Ingraham, Ainsley Earhardt, Dana Perino and Chris Wallace.
The Morning Consult Survey poll sampled 895 Republican adults between Nov. 6th and 7th, with a margin of error of 3%.
Carlson’s sudden move into prime time began with some understandable reservations in attempting to fill the legendary shoes of Fox’s media icon Bill O’Reilly.
However, Murdoch’s gamble paid off – Carlson’s show is number one in his time slot, far outdistancing the competition on both CNN and MSNBC.
This did not stop the left wing mob who recently targeted the host’s private home. At least one protester went all the way up to Carlson’s front door and rang the doorbell, shouting “racist scumbag, leave town!” and “Tucker Carlson, we will fight! We know where you sleep at night!”
The group “Smash Racism DC” posted video footage to Twitter showing one of the mob’s ringleaders leading the crowd: “No borders! No walls! No USA at all!”
“Tucker Carlson, you cannot hide from the people you hurt with your rhetoric, your lies, and your hate,” the group wrote on Twitter, adding the hashtag “#KnockKnockTucker.”
In another shameful incident, Carlson’s 19-year old daughter was verbally harassed and assaulted in a restaurant, at a country club in October.
After the incident was verified and reported, The Daily Caller News Foundation attempted to interview the alleged assailant, a Board of Directors member for The Women’s Initiative, named Juan Manuel Granados.
The woman’s group refused the multiple phone calls regarding Granados alleged remarks at Carlson’s daughter, calling her a whore” and a “f**king c**t.”
Sadly, the price nowadays for being a recognized and popular conservative comes with a warning label, especially if you’re the spouse of that well known conservative and home alone. Be prepared to defend yourself…because the next rabid leftist loon that comes to your front door may not be ringing the bell to harass you – he may attempt to assault you.
Just when you thought everyone in America would support anything patriotic, here comes yet another situation that proves anything but. One teacher in St. Louis, Missouri learned this the hard way when he had the audacity to thank students for reciting the pledge of allegiance. Crazy, but true! According to Law and Crime, Jim Furkin, a 66-year-old substitute teacher at Parkway South High School watched his class say the pledge, and then gave a small thank you upon their completion to the 22 (out of 24) students that did the pledge willingly. This small gesture got him fired.
It’s most unfortunate that we want American citizens to appreciate their home, respect their land, and value their place in American society, yet we turn around and openly punish those who display pride in the very country in which they live. Furkin did not say anything that condoned, reprimanded, or verbally punished those two students who failed to participate in the pledge. He only thanked those who voluntarily said the pledge on their own. “I only said thank you very much to all of you that participated,” Furkin said in sharing his words on that fateful day. “I’m sure all of those families that lost loved ones so we could have the freedoms we have today would appreciate that too,” he continued to say. That was it. Those words were enough to seal his doom from ever teaching at the school again.
At a time that American society is bombarded with propaganda, politics, and media that continue to promote division among the American people, one would think that Furkin’s actions would be commended and viewed as the ultimate in patriot acts. Instead, his action was not only punished, but it also sent a deadly message to students regarding their own patriotism. For one, it told the two students that refused to do the pledge that they were right: there is no patriotism worthy of being celebrated or acknowledged at this current time. Second, Furkin’s firing showed the students who did participate in the pledge that their patriotism is not appreciated in the very country they were showing their respect for. It is very unfortunate that this is what we are now teaching the younger generation.
It was reported that one of the two students who refused to do the pledge felt “singled out” and “bullied” by Furkin. The student also stated that they were hurt by his comments. Rather than the school using this opportunity to teach the student something about free speech the school instead used this as an opportunity to hide from the responsibility merely, only to then punish the cause behind their fears. “Furkin had a pattern of inappropriate conduct,” said the Parkway superintended, Keith Marty. “Additionally, his comments caused disruption during class,” Marty continued. Interesting that the disruption that was punished was that of American sharing sentiments about the country in which he lives.
The comments were not damaging to anything other than one student’s pride. Too bad that student’s pride did not include the country in which he resides. Equally bad is that we now live in a society that would rather punish someone for hurting someone else’s feelings than support them for upholding national pride.
Judge Bernard Friedman has recently rocked the conservative world by showing a massive display of liberalism when he threw out all charges against Dr. Jumana Nagarwala and her cohorts on conspiring to commit, and aiding and abetting the commission of female genital mutilation in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2, 116,and 371. Judge Friedman, who has a history of making decisions that exert the promotion of free will, felt that Congress had no right to determine whether or not the mutilation of Muslim girls was constitutional or not considering this was not a common act within the United States. The far-right begs to differ.
On American soil
You would think that anything that occurs on American soil, in an American hospital, under the supervision of doctors who practice in America, would be an American issue. Dr. Nagarwala not only practiced female genital mutilation (FGM) on young girls, but she had the support and backing of others who conspired to assist with this act. It is understood that Muslims practice FGM on young girls and babies as a cultural belief to ensure the virginity of young women. However, once this practice takes part on American soil it should be heavily restricted to ensure that other “cultural beliefs” aren’t practiced on children while in the United States.
There are many cultural and religious practices that exist, but when we allow something that involves the mutilation of young girls to receive a pass, we must then prepare ourselves for the contents within the Pandora’s box that we open. This is what many conservatives are screaming about…too bad no one hears them.
Was the decision completely off?
According to the cases’ legal court document, the government contends that FGM is “an illegal form of healthcare,” which led to their argument that since Congress can regulate healthcare, it can regulate FGM. They also pushed the argument that two of the defendants are physicians, the procedure was performed at a medial clinic, and that Dr. Nagarwala used “commercially-sold medical tools and supplies which were federally regulated as a commercial product.” So what went wrong? It appears as if the practice of FGM on American soil would be prohibited for all of the reasons stated. Unfortunately, the judge did not see it that way. In Judge Friedman’s ruling, he stated that the comparison of FGM to healthcare was unsuitable because FGM was actually a form of physical assault, not anything approaching a healthcare service. As it turns out, what failed the case was the government citing this section in its brief that dealth with abortion services and healthcare, generally.
It’s so unfortunate that liberal tendencies and agenda’s get pushed through the system when it fits their motives. Issues can get argued and rules somehow become bent to ensure that new legislation is either pushed, promoted or protected. Yet when there is an issue such as the mutilation of young girls, suddenly each word of a legal brief is dissected, and a ruling is given, even if it can be argued constitutionally. One must question how this ruling will play out if by chance the practice of FGM goes beyond the scope of young Muslim girls. Will the judge see the error in his decisive ways at that point? Maybe.