Once a staunch supporter, it’s been no secret that more recently the “love affair” between Donald Trump and Ann Coulter is over. Coulter has been very critical of the president lately, and recently the president blasted the conservative columnist over her admonishment of Trump for his “lack of progress on border wall construction.”
In inimitable Trump style, the president hit back with the following tweet. “Wacky Nut Job @AnnCoulter, who still hasn’t figured out that, despite all odds and an entire Democrat Party of Far Left Radicals against me (not to mention certain Republicans who are sadly unwilling to fight), I am winning on the Border,”
“Stopping an Invasion”
Trump went on to say, “Major sections of Wall are being built and renovated, with MUCH MORE to follow shortly,” Trump continued. “Tens of thousands of illegals are being apprehended (captured) at the Border and NOT allowed into our Country. With another President, millions would be pouring in. I am stopping an invasion as the Wall gets built.”
Coulter was once an ardent supporter of Trump, primarily because of his views on the Wall and immigration. She even wrote the book, “In Trump We Trust,” which followed her previous bestseller, “Adios, America,” in which she predicted that unlimited illegal immigration would destroy the US. However, like many of us Coulter has been frustrated with Trump not getting the entirety of the Wall built as quickly as he promised.
She has targeted that frustration squarely at the president, instead of where her ire should be directed – at the endless resistance from federal courts, the Democrats, and, of course, RINOs.
Crisis at the Border Continues
Despite Trump schooling Coulter on just how much progress he is actually making on border security, the president’s Twitter war with her comes only a few days after Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen testified before Congress that border authorities at DHS expect 1 million illegal aliens to arrive at the U.S.-Mexico border this year, a dramatic spike over previous years, which in this writer’s eyes certainly constitutes a “national emergency.”
Someone needs to remind Coulter that Democrats and Republicans are still fighting the president over his border security efforts – this time members of both parties are trying to block his emergency declaration along the border, but Trump believes he’ll eventually prevail in federal court.
The week that ended on Friday March 8 was a very rough one for President Donald J. Trump, so rough in fact, that even some of his most staunch supporters feel he may not be able to survive another one like it.
Those were the words of Fox News analyst and former judge Andrew Napolitano, who recapped Trump’s horrendous week for the Washington Times.
In the piece, Napolitano described how Trump failed to reach a nuclear disarmament deal with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un and saw his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen, accuse him of crimes during congressional testimony.
More On Trumps Bad Week
On top of that, Napolitano wrote in his column, the House of Representatives moved to block Trump’s declaration of a national emergency on the U.S.-Mexico border, and The New York Times reported that Trump had overruled intelligence agencies to demand his son-in-law obtain a security clearance, despite concerns.
And that is all to say nothing about Democrats launching a widespread investigation into Trump, his family and his business dealings, which resulted in document requests from 81 individuals, entities and agencies close to the president ― including his two sons.
For his part, Trump claimed that Cohen’s explosive allegations actually interfered with his negotiations in Hanoi and were the proximate cause of their failure. Napolitano implied that the president might be right, concluding in his piece that of President Trump is to survive all of the forces that are now arrayed against him, determined to see him fail, he must “do more” than his usual tactics, and mount a sober and mature defense.
“The president has serious and powerful tormentors whom he cannot overcome by mockery alone,” Napolitano concluded, suggesting he would need to respond with more than his usual choice of “acerbic tweets,” because many of his current tormentors can legally cause him real harm.
“He needs to address these issues soberly, directly and maturely,” Napolitano wrote. “Can President Trump survive all this? Yes—but not if he has another week like the last one.”
Stefan Lofven, Sweden’s Prime Minister and the leftist Socialist Party leader has ruled out the possibility of stripping Swedish Islamic State Fighters of their citizenships and has said that they have the right to come back to the country.
Nyheter Idag recently reported that Löfven stated the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had previously warned those who were traveling in and around the region in which IS had been fighting, that those individuals who were captured shouldn’t anticipate any assistance from the Swedish government at a consular level.
The prime minister did, however, state that he would refrain from stripping the Islamic State fighters of their Swedish citizenship, asserting that it was their right to return to the country if they desired. He then said that upon their return, it would be up to the intelligence service and law enforcement to keep track of the returning terrorist whereabouts and to potentially arrest and prosecute them.
Löfven’s statement lies in stark contrast with what right-wing populist leader of the Sweden Democrats, Jimmie Åkesson, had to say regarding the issue. Åkesson stated, “If they choose to travel away to support the terrorist organization Islamic State, in my opinion, they have used up all of their rights to call themselves Swedish. Then they should also not be a citizen.”
In a reaction to the shocking comments given by Löfven, Paula Bierler, the Sweden Democrat’s migration policy spokeswomen, agreed with Åkesson, writing, “The people who left Sweden to join the Islamic State should be considered to have terminated their Swedish citizenship.”
Since 2012, at least 150 of the approximately 300 terrorists that left the country to fight for the Islamic State have now returned back to Sweden. According to Jan Jönsson, a local politician, at least 19 of these Islamic State terrorists are currently living in the Swedish Capital of Stockholm.
In Malmö, a southern city that’s become infamous for its no-go zones and significant Middle Eastern and North African migrant population, around twenty or so former Islamic State terrorists have purportedly been operating underground and illegal mosques and using them to recruit new radical Islamic terrorists for their jihad against the West.
Michael Helders, an anti-violence extremism activist, stated that former IS fighters are often ‘seen as heroes for young people who are at risk and radicalized.’ He added that “It increases concern, of course, and creates instability. People are worried about their children.”
Of the 300 Islamic terrorists that left Sweden to join Islamic State and other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, about half have returned to Sweden, whereas 50 are thought to have been killed, while another 100 remain in the Middle East.
As the dismantling of the Islamic State continues, we can expect this issue to remain at the forefront of political debate in many western European countries.
In the last few weeks, Amazon crossed a dangerous and precarious line and began a modern day book burning campaign against titles written by authors from the populist right which have been arbitrarily deemed ‘politically dangerous.’
While the internet giant continues to sell books like Karl Marx’s The Communist Manifesto, Al-Qaida’s Doctrine for Insurgency: Abd al-Aziz al-Muqrin’s “A Practical Course for Guerilla War”, Leon Trotsky’s Terrorism and Communism, Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, The Anarchist Cookbook, the world’s largest bookstore banned Mohammed’s Koran: Why Muslims Kill for Islam which was co-authored by British Activist Tommy Robinson and Peter McLoughlin.
Despite scathing reviews, the book was ‘the No.1 best-selling exegesis of the Koran’ on the site. The book reportedly had over 1000 five star reviews that were left by verified Amazon customers in the last 18 months.
According to Mr. McLoughlin, the book was taken off the Amazon database sometime last month. This means that even second-hand versions cannot be sold. Amazon’s banning of the book comes just weeks after Robinson was kicked off Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube.
In the past year and a half, countless other conservative voices have been purged from these tech giant’s platforms.
In his novel 1984, George Orwell referred to this as the ‘memory hole.’ It’s just not enough for totalitarians to destroy their enemies. They must have them erased from history entirely.
Many other authors from the so-called political right have had their books banned. Too many to name here and now. However, a quick Google or YouTube search will reveal a whole host of banned titles from conservative authors.
As nationalist populist ideas continue to gain traction and enter into the mainstream political discussion in Europe and North America, we can expect massive globalist corporations and tech giants like Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and others, along with the neoliberal politicians in their pockets, to continue to censor and ban the propagation of nationalist populist ideas. Their survival depends on it entirely since they lost the debate a long time ago.
If you would like to take action against Amazon’s censorship of conservative voices, please consider making one or more of the following actions:
• Share this outrage on social media
• Support government regulation of tech companies
• Complain to Amazon
• Boycott Amazon
Pathological liar and convicted felon Michael Cohen, has been caught in another lie, and this one may cast doubt on all he has told Congress, and may impact his jail sentence.
According to Fox News, “a lawyer representing former Trump attorney Michael Cohen said Wednesday that Cohen directed a lawyer last year to inquire about possibly receiving a pardon from President Trump. The disclosure by Lanny Davis, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, directly contradicts testimony by Cohen last week on Capitol Hill, in which Cohen told members of the House Oversight and Reform Committee: “I have never asked for, nor would I accept, a pardon from Mr. Trump.”
In a written statement, Davis said Cohen “directed his attorney” to ask about a possible pardon. The WSJ added that it previously reported that Stephen Ryan, a past attorney for Cohen, discussed a pardon with President Trump’s lawyers in the weeks after FBI agents raided Cohen’s home, office and hotel room.
If these statements are to be believed, then it means that Cohen, once again lied under oath before a congressional committee.
Cohen and Davis Need to Get Their Stories Straight
This is not the first time that Davis, Cohen’s own lawyer, released a statement in seeming contrast with something his client said. These most recent remarks by Davis, marked at least the second time the lawyer has acknowledged information in contrast to what Cohen has said on Capitol Hill.
Last week, Davis said in a statement that Cohen speculated about taking a job at the White House, even though Cohen told House panel members that he hadn’t done so. But Davis stopped short of saying that Cohen wasn’t being truthful in his testimony.
For his part Davis defended his statements by saying, “If this is what Mr. Trump and his supporters are focusing on — and not a single rebuttal of any fact asserted by Mr. Cohen in his long day of testimony under oath before the Oversight Committee — that says a lot. This is the classic Trump tactic we have seen for a long time —divert and disparage rather than confront facts and tell the truth.”
Regarding pursuit of a pardon, sources told the Journal that three Trump lawyers – Rudy Giuliani, Jay Sekulow and Joanna Hendon – rejected the idea of a pardon for Cohen, though Giuliani did not dismiss the idea of a pardon at a later date.
Giuliani said earlier this week that he offers a standard response when lawyers inquire about a presidential pardon for their client:
“I always give the same answer, which is, ‘The president is not going to consider any pardons at this time, and nobody should think that he is’,” Giuliani told the Journal.
Giuliani would not confirm if lawyers for Cohen were among those with which he has met, the Journal reported.
Viewing free internet porn in the United Kingdom is about to become markedly trickier when new legislation which seeks to protect children from internet excrement comes into effect as soon as the first of next month.
But for all the hopeless fappers and reprobates with voyeuristic proclivities, not to worry, if you must, you will still be able to unlock the smut by handing over some identification or by purchasing a £5 ‘porn card’ at your local retailer.
That means starting as soon as next month, to access porn sites like PornHub and YouPorn – which both attract almost two billion visits each month worldwide – Brits will be required to provide proof of ID before accessing any X-rated video clips.
These new regulations were approved as part of the 2017 Digital Economy Act.
These free sites will join many other internet porn sites which are already currently using what’s called the AgeID system. The AgeID system requires users to present an official form of identification like a passport or driver’s license to verify their age.
According to James Clark, the spokesman for AgeID, when the new system is launched, goatish internet prowlers will come to a non-pornographic ‘landing page’ where they must input the required information before they proceed on to the porn site.
“When a user first visits a site protected by AgeID, a landing page will appear with a prompt for the user to verify their age before they can access the site,” Clark told The Metro. He added that “Each website will create their own unique non-pornographic landing page for this purpose.”
When a potential porn viewer first clicks onto the website, AgeID will ask them to register and verify their age via Mobile SMS, a driver’s license, passport, or credit card. Conveniently enough, porn viewers will be able to use their username and password for AgeID to access each and every porn site that uses AgeID.
According to Clark, “It is a one-time verification, with a simple single sign-on for future access. If a user verifies on one AgeID protected site, they will not need to perform this verification again on any other site carrying AgeID.”
In addition to registering with AgeID, Britons will also be able to access internet porn websites by way of purchasing a ‘voucher’ at thousands of retail shops which will offer special ID cards, which porn watchers can link to the app Portes. Via the app Portes, people will be able to log into porn sides without having to provide their email address.
The scheme has already been pushed back a few times before. New rules were supposed to take effect during April of last year but were pushed back to the end of the year before it was again postponed until April of this year.
Porn sites that don’t comply with the rules will be subject to a £250,000 fine or a blanket block by UK internet service providers. Regulators will also have the authority to block sites that fail to exhibit that they deny access to under 18s
Some ‘experts’ aren’t so keen on the idea, however.
Dr. Victoria Nash from the Oxford Internet Institute commented on the policy, saying, “it may make it harder for children to stumble across pornography, especially in the younger age range, but it will do nothing to stop determined teenagers.”
Other experts are concerned about possible threats that the new system’s poses to the privacy of individuals.
Dr. Joss Write, who is another academic from the Oxford Internet Institute, also commented on the policy, saying, “There are privacy issues – you’re requiring people to effectively announce the fact they are looking at this material to the credit card authorities.
He added, “And there are serious security issues from requiring people to enter their credit card details into untrusted sites.”
It will be interesting to see how this policy works out and if other western countries will follow suit.
Among the more ludicrous claims made by disloyal and disbarred convicted felon Michael Cohen, is his assessment that if President Trump fails to win the 2020 election, he would not peacefully hand over power to the winning democratic candidate.
In his closing remarks before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, Cohen said, “Given my experience working for Mr. Trump, I fear that if he loses the election in 2020, there will never be a peaceful transition of power.”
Immediately, left-wing pundits and other anti-Trumpers seized on Cohen’s words to propagate fear and loathing of the President.
After “Lying Cohen’s” internationally televised testimony, John Dean, President Richard Nixon’s former White House counsel, wrote an op-ed for the New York Times in which he drew parallels with his own defining testimony against Nixon, saying that he shared Cohen’s fears. In the op-ed Dean said that Cohen’s warning about a violent transition “was the most troubling — actually, chilling — thing he said in his five hours before the committee.”
Dean went on to say, “Since Mr. Cohen’s warning came in his closing words, there was no opportunity for committee members to ask follow-up questions. So I double-checked with his lawyer, Lanny Davis, if I had understood Mr. Cohen’s testimony correctly. Mr. Davis responded, “He was referring to Trump’s authoritarian mind-set, and lack of respect for democracy and democratic institutions.”
Main Stream Media Fear Mongering
Dean wasn’t alone in using Cohen words to stir up fear and resentment. In a piece published in the Miami Herald and other publications, syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. warned, “Should Trump lose in 2020, a smooth transition is not guaranteed.”
Like Dean, Pitts cited Cohen’s remarks and inquired: “Let that marinate a moment. And ask yourself: What happens if this guy whose self-definition, whose entire psychological structure, is founded upon a self-image as a man who always wins, loses? Can you see him quietly accepting it with dignity and grace? One can more readily imagine Mitch McConnell twerking in Times Square.”
In what Breitbart sarcastically referred to as “a stroke of originality,” Moveon.org activist Robert Reich, Bill Clinton’s former Secretary of Labor, wrote a piece for the Guardian titled, “If Trump loses, we know what to expect: anger, fear and disruption.”
Reich again utilized Cohen’s “warning” to exclaim, “The United States is now headed by someone pathologically incapable of admitting defeat. This doesn’t bode well for the 2020 presidential election.”
Michael Cohen Is a Convict and Pathetic Liar
Before we give any credence to anything that comes out of Cohen’s disgraced mouth, let us not forget that he is convicted criminal, and has been rightfully branded a “pathetic liar,” by the White House. Cohen is a convict who pled guilty to –among other things — lying to Congress in two separate prosecutions. The prison-bound Cohen also pled guilty to violating campaign finance laws and financial crimes, including tax evasion and bank fraud.
But none of that has stopped the left from using his words to lend credence to their ridiculous narrative of fear.
A new poll may spell double-trouble for the second time around second place finisher, Senator Bernie Sanders. According to Fox News, a new poll suggests that two factors –his age and his self-identification as a “democratic socialist” could hurt the independent senator from Vermont if he ever reaches the 2020 general election.
The respected NBC News/Wall Street Journal public opinion survey tested 11 different presidential characteristics among registered voters nationwide. The most widely accepted – is an African American (87 percent said they were “enthusiastic” or “comfortable” with that characteristic), a white man (86 percent), a woman (84 percent), and gay or lesbian (68 percent).
The least popular characteristics? Being over the age of 75 (37 percent) and a socialist (25 percent).
Sanders – at 77 – is the oldest declared or potential presidential candidate in the 2020 field. And he’s been repeatedly labeled by Republicans as a socialist. So, to paraphrase that old gum commercial, that’s, “two, two, two flaws in one.”
Sanders Age is the Greater Negative Factor
Of the two problems, it seems that Sanders’ age is a more significant drawback. Looking at possible 2020 Democratic primary voters, the survey suggested that self-identifying as democratic socialist is less of a liability. Among registered Democrats only, those feeling favorable about the age characteristic remained low (36 percent). But those “enthusiastic” or “comfortable” with the socialist trait dramatically jumped to 47 percent.
The poll was conducted Feb. 24-27, after Sander’s Feb. 19 announcement that he was launching a presidential campaign. Nine-hundred adults – including 720 registered voters nationwide – were questioned by live operators. The survey’s sampling error was plus or minus 3.65 percentage points.
In an interview with CBS News as he announced his White House run, Sanders pushed back against concerns about his age, saying “you’ve got to look at the totality of a person. I have been blessed thank God,” Sanders highlighted, “with good health and good energy.”
And he added that he was “a cross-country runner, a long distance runner, when I was a kid, and I’ve been running hard, in a sense, since then.”
The senator also pushed back against being labeled a socialist by Republican President Trump.
“Bernie Sanders does not want to have the United States become the horrific economic situation that unfortunately currently exists in Venezuela right now,” he emphasized.
While the new poll raises some questions, the Vermont senator continues to score well in the latest 2020 Democratic primary polls. Thanks to his strong name recognition, Sanders places either first or second in recent national or early voting state surveys, along with former Vice President Joe Biden, who’s leaning toward a White House run.
However, the poll seems to suggest that many former Bernie supporters may no longer “Feel the Bern,” and instead feel that Sanders may just be a candle ready to burn out.
In a previous commentary, I handicapped the impeachment of President Trump at around 99 percent. I was being conservative. For obvious reasons, Democrats are denying any obsession to impeach Trump. They claim that their main focus will be on policy and issues – an agenda for America. That is nonsense.
Impeachment is the number one objective of the House Democrats – including a number who have made no secret of their desire to impeach. They have longed for it –and actually called for it – even before Trump took the oath of office. It was a mainstay in the Anti-Trump Resistance Movement. It was the subject of an ongoing media campaign financed by billionaire Tom Steyer. Impeachment is the entire reason for the flurry of congressional investigations. It is the objective behind the highly biased news media.
Democrats were setting the stage with the Michael Cohen hearings. It is the reason that they gave him an unusually long 30-minute opening statement as a lawyer’s brief against the President – and a long closing statement. The questions were designed to stitch together what appears to be impeachment issues – and remember, impeachment is a political process and does not require hard evidence. The perception of wrong-doing – even if not criminal – is enough to attempt impeachment.
By the way, you need to understand that all the questions and anticipated answers were well known in advance. Congressional hearings are scripted events – not real investigations. It is likely that Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was given some in-depth questions to offset her growing reputation as being a dim bulb in the Democrat marquee. And that new narrative was played out with the praise of the fawning media.
Democrats on the Committee acted surprised by the presentation of a check signed by Trump with Cohen on the payee line – a check written while Trump was President. They seized on it as hard proof that Trump committed a crime WHILE PRESIDENT – an impeachable offense. And, again, the anti-Trump media carried the interpretation as factual. CNN’s John Berman repeatedly insisted that it is proof of a crime. Of course, the existence of that check was very well known before the hearings.
The check, in and of itself, proves nothing. Cohen said it was part of the repayment for the money he put out to pay off porn performer Stormy Daniels. He did not offer any support for that contention. It could have easily been a payment for other services to Trump’s personal attorney. We will just have to see what comes out in the coming weeks on that issue.
In addition, the Democrats claim that the check is proof of a crime is highly questionable. Whether the payment to Daniels was an improper campaign contribution by Trump has not been determined by the Federal Election Commission or adjudicated in any court.
They claim that Cohen’s confession to committing a federal election crime and implicating “Individual 1,” the President of the United States. If Cohen confesses to the crime, it automatically means that Trump committed the same crime in conjunction with Cohen. That is the contention and on the surface it sounds reasonable.
It is not that simple. Is it possible that Cohen confessed to a crime that was not a crime and that he did not actually commit? Strange as that may seem, it is exactly what he did. It was because of prosecutorial abuse by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
Cohen was potentially facing decades in prison for multiple convictions on tax evasion and bank fraud. Mueller offered Cohen a very short sentence in a plea deal. As part of that plea deal, Mueller insisted that Cohen also confess to the alleged violations of federal campaign laws.
Many knowledgeable legal scholars have expressed opinions that Mueller could never have gotten a conviction on the alleged campaign violation. Many even opine that the case would have been thrown out at the first traditional request for a dismissal.
Yes, it is true. It is arguable that Cohen confessed to a crime he did not commit under pressure to avoid proper punishment for his much more serious crimes — and that it will be very difficult to convict the President because he will fight any such charge – and probably successfully.
Even if true, it would not normally be addressed as a major criminal matter. Normally, violations of federal election laws are handled as a civil matter by the Federal Election Commission and usually results in a fine. Cohen was not getting time behind bars because of that issue. It was for the major crimes of tax evasion and bank fraud.
Folding in the relatively minor issue of an alleged election law violation is disturbing because it gives some indication that Mueller and his team are going out of their way to create the appearance of an impeachable case against Trump. That is not good for Trump or America.
So, there ‘tis.