Against the backdrop of President’s Day, 14 states lead by bastions of Liberal thought — California and New York — have united to file an ill-advised lawsuit challenging Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration.
“Today, on Presidents Day, we take President Trump to court to block his misuse of presidential power,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement. President Trump “is willing to manipulate the Office of the Presidency to engage in unconstitutional theater performed to convince his audience that he is committed to his ‘beautiful’ border wall. We’re suing President Trump to stop him from unilaterally robbing taxpayer funds lawfully set aside by Congress for the people of our states.”
Joining California in the suit are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Virginia.
“There Is No National Emergency”
Becerra’s statement slammed the president’s justification for a national emergency as a “hyped crisis.”
“Unlawful southern border entries are at their lowest point in 20 years, immigrants are less likely than native-born citizens to commit crimes, and illegal drugs are more likely to come through official ports of entry,” the attorney general’s statement said.
“The only national emergency is the president’s trafficking in lies and deceit,” Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said in a statement earlier Monday.
The lawsuit is in response to Trump saying that he intends to bypass Congress by declaring a national emergency to build a border wall along the nation’s southern border. This, even after Congress has repeatedly declined to give the president billions to build the border barriers that were such a huge part of his 2016 campaign.
Of course Trump saw this play coming, and he had predicted the lawsuit last week. He has slammed the Ninth Circuit multiple times as “disgraceful” and politically biased. California has repeatedly challenged Trump in court. Becerra has filed at least 45 lawsuits against the administration.
Many legal scholars do not agree with Trump’s opponents who insist that his emergency declaration falls outside of constitutional bounds. In a rambling riff on the question, delivered as an aside to his declaration of emergency last Friday, Trump predicted the matter would be appealed to the US supreme court – where given the current make-up of the Court, he would likely prevail.
Former Deputy FBI Director – and temporary acting Director – Andrew McCabe has broken his silence to explain who and why he initiated an obstruction of justice investigation against the President of the United States. According to him, he and others in the top ranks of the FBI – including Director James Comey, who had just been fired – were deeply concerned that President Trump had gained office with the conspiratorial assistance of the Russian government.
In out takes from his upcoming ABC’s 60 Minutes interview, McCabe branded himself as some sort of national patriot – defending the Republic from a presidential usurper. He confirmed that he wanted to launch the investigation in such a way that it could not be shut down for any reason. He alleges to have feared that Trump and others, including Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, would terminate the investigation quietly.
McCabe further underscored the claimed seriousness of their concerns by revealing that Rosenstein had discussed wearing a body wire to record Trump making incriminating comments. The group – dare I say, cabal – then supposedly discussed the possibility of using the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office.
As expected, the #NeverTrump Resistance Movement media jumped on this story as if it were gospel. They spun and spun the story to re-enforce the idea that the expressed concerns and fears McCabe alleged were real. According to the pandering press, McCabe & Co. were great Americans doing their job. Saving the Republic from an illegitimate President.
It is said that most often the simplest explanation is the correct one. In this case, the facts and history suggest a far simpler and far darker explanation. Though McCabe put his known actions in the most positive manner possible, he did admit that he and others were looking to bring down President Trump by alleging – concocting – a criminal case against him.
This has the stench of a palace coup, with several of the top leaders of the FBI as the coup-plotters. Among the most prominent besides McCabe would be the recently terminated James Comey, Special Agent Peter Strzok (and his paramour co-worker Lisa Page), Bruce Ohr (and wife Nellie) and a couple of lesser go-alongs.
There are a number of important facts that cast doubt on McCabe’s self-serving explanation. First and foremost is that he not only had motivation to lie about the events, but he is been proven to be a liar. It got him fired without pension from the FBI as an outcome of an internal Inspector General investigation.
McCabe is a disgruntled – to say the least – former employee, who has every motivation to get even with those who “done him wrong.” The fact that the eastern elitist media takes a disgruntled liar at face value says a lot about their journalistic ethics – or lack thereof.
We also have to remember that the plot to take Trump down did not commence with the firing of Comey. No. No. No. They were hell-bent on stopping Trump from being elected. They had all their eggs in the Hillary Clinton basket. Their animus against Trump was unconcealable. As The Hill wrote: “It is no longer in dispute that they (Strzok, Page and others) held animus for Donald Trump, who was a subject of their Russia probe, or that they openly discussed using the powers of their office to “stop” Trump from becoming president.”
It was after those text messages went public that Strzok was bounced from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team – and one can only wonder why Strzok was selected in the first place. Mueller most certainly must have known of his feelings about Trump in advance.
The interest in protecting Clinton was evident when Comey concluded an investigation and articulated a number of ethical and legal lapses on the part of candidate Clinton but recommended against criminal indictment and prosecution. Oh wait! Comey did more than recommend against prosecution – which was in and of itself an abuse of his authority – he actually decided she should not be prosecutor. He falsely and improperly assumed the role of the Department of Justice by saying that no prosecutor would pursue the case.
It is also noteworthy that Strzok — who had the lead in the Clinton investigation – who arbitrarily altered the final report to remove wording that would suggest criminality on the part of Clinton.
McCabe’s interest in Clinton was reflected in the fact that his wife was not only a Democrat candidate for the State Senate in Virginia but was closely tied to Clinton. In fact, Jill McCabe received approximately $500,000 though Clinton’s top fundraiser, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe.
According to rumors, Comey’s skin in the game was to be retained as FBI Director AND the prospect of having his name replace the controversial and largely discredited J Edgar Hoover’s name on the FBI headquarters in D.C.
It was during the campaign that the bogus dossier surfaced alleging that Trump had been indiscreet in Moscow – salacious sex, of course – and that Vladimir Putin had the goods on him. The unsubstantiated dossier was obtained by the Clinton campaign from Russian sources through a former British intelligence agent Michael Steele — a fact that should have garnered the attention of the FBI as a case of Russian meddling in the American election, but strangely did not.
And how did that phony dossier get into the hands of the Trump adversaries in the FBI? Weeeell, it was provided to another member of the cabal, Special Agent Bruce Ohr. And from whom did he receive this fraudulent document? From his wife, Nellie, who worked for the consulting firm that fronted for the Clinton campaign and actually paid for the document.
The unsubstantiated – and later discredited – dossier was used by the FBI to intimidate Trump and eventually as a reason to seek surveillance warrants on Trump campaign in the person of Carter Page. It was an investigation in search of a crime by Trump.
In sworn testimony, Comey admitted that he had improperly – and perhaps illegally – leaked damaging information on Trump to a friend who was directed to get it to the friendly New York Times. Comey confirmed that his intent was to trigger the appointment of a special counsel to go after Trump.
We also have to keep in mind that all this Trump stuff was ancillary to the reasons for the Special Counsel. The primary purpose was to investigate the broad issue of Russia interference in the election. Initial findings suggested that Russia did interfere, but not just in favor of one side. For those with memories longer than the life span of a fruit fly, Russian social media activities were directed to help Clinton by hurting Trump, to help Trump by hurting Clinton and to spread general public consternation – especially in race relations. The subsequent focus on Trump and the Campaign was the product of the Resistance Movement and a dishonest and unfair news media – AND the effort of the cabal within the FBI.
Once Trump was elected, the conspiracy against him at the FBI did not cease – and that is the scary part. That is when politicization of the FBI in a campaign became the abuse of the FBI to unseat a duly elected President.
We know something was afoot – as they say in those old British detective movies – when Strzok assuaged his lovers concerns over the election of Trump by assuring here that “they” had an “insurance policy.” The plural “they” makes it clear that the cryptic “insurance policy” was the work of a conspiracy. And who those “they” may be has become clearer and clearer by their own Inspector Clouseau-style bumbling.
We have to address the fact that both Comey and McCabe have what is called “contemporary notes” supporting their position. These are said to be “strong evidence” by Democrats and the fawning news media. Really? Do you really believe that intelligence agents who are willing to prop up a phony dossier are not cleaver enough to salt the mine with phony reports? In view of all the actions and lies, it would be foolish to take those contemporary notes at face value.
Oh … then there is the issue of the 25th Amendment. It is being bantered about as evidence of the seriousness of the investigation into Trump. They say it was being seriously considered.
What utter nonsense.
Read the 25th Amendment. It does not remotely apply. It is designed to address the physical incapacitation of a President – you know, one who may be in vegetative state from a stroke. It requires the consent of the Vice President and the Cabinet.
The anti-Trump cabal in the FBI and the folks at the Department of Justice are all very smart lawyers. They know that the 25th Amendment is not at all applicable — and it is impossible to believe that they would engage in serious conversation of using it against Trump no matter how much they hated him and want him out. It is nothing more than another one of those phony narratives advanced for public consumption.
Not since old J. Edgar Hoover was blackmailing politicians – including presidents of the United States – and abusing the FBI to go after Martin Luther King, has the agency been so damaged by the misdeeds and misconduct of its most senior officials. At least Hoover was only blackmailing them. These characters were hoping to derail a presidential candidate, then overthrow an election.
So, there ‘tis.
Afghan migrant and rejected asylum seeker, Ahmad G., has been sentenced to life in prison for killing his 17-year-old German girlfriend, Mirielle B., after she refused to convert to Islam and ended their relationship.
Earlier this week, a German court found Ahmad G., as he’s being called due to German privacy laws, guilty of stabbing Mirielle B. 14 times with a kitchen knife at her flat in Schleswig-Holstein in March of last year after she ended their relationship.
During the trial, it was revealed that Ahmad S. was able to enter Germany originally in 2015 as an ‘unaccompanied minor refuge’ after he falsely claimed he was only 18-years-old while filing for asylum. He was actually found to be 29 years old when the court ordered an age test after doubting the man’s age claim.
According to court proceedings, the 29-year-old Afghan migrant became jealous after he found out that 17-year-old Mirielle had found a new boyfriend following their break up. He was deeply angered by the fact that he couldn’t control every aspect of the teenage girl’s life. According to prosecutors, the two had been together for about two years before she dumped him in February of last year after she refused to convert to Islam and wear an Islamic headscarf.
The court described Ahmad S. as a ‘narcissistic personality.’
Following the brutal murder, the 29-year-old Afghan migrant called emergency services himself. When the police arrived on the scene, he first denied killing the girl, telling paramedics that Mirielle had stabbed herself with a knife. However, images that were captured on CCTV, and evidence obtained from Ahmad’s mobile phone proved that he was in the 17-year-old victim’s apartment at the time of her death.
During sentencing, the judge told Ahmad S. he had ignored the ‘personal value’ of the 17-year-old German girl, whom he considered ‘his property.’ At the very least, Ahmad will serve 15 years in prison. But is that enough?
Perhaps the question that we all should be asking is why is the Europe Union allowing massive amounts of these military-aged, predatory men, who view women as ‘property,’ into Europe? It’s as if their primary goal is to destroy Europe…
In recent years, a growing number of asylum seekers and migrants from the Middle East and North Africa have been caught lying about their age to secure a better chance of asylum when entering Europe.
Last year in March, Hussein Khavari, an Afghan asylum seeker was sentenced to life in prison for the rape and murder of 19-year-old medical student Maria Ladenburger, the daughter of a high-ranking EU official. At the time of the savage killing, Khavari claimed to be only 17, but testing on his teeth proved that he was between 22 and 29 years old. His father later claimed he is 34-years-old.
Pro-mass migration NGOs like Advocates Abroad have been caught red-handed teaching migrants how to lie doing their interviews with immigration officials to help them have a better chance at being accepted as ‘asylum seekers.’
Isn’t it time we treated these NGOs with blood on their hands no differently than human traffickers?
President Donald Trump has said in his State of the Union address tonight, who will be calling for unity and an end to the partisan bickering that forced the most extended government shutdown in history.
Dispute Trump’s plans to make a plea for cooperation and pledge to find common ground with Democratic lawmakers, judging by a look at the Left’s guest list, they aren’t buying it.
According to Fox News, the Democrats are planning to “troll” Trump by bringing a guest to the State of the Union that are bound to stick in the craw of the president.
A Guest List of Left-Wing Activists and Immigrants
For example, flaky new democratic congresswoman, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, (D-N.Y.), said she would be bringing Ana Maria Archila, the activist who made headlines protesting against now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, by cornering then-Senator Jeff Flake in an elevator.
While Ocasio-Cortez has chosen to highlight the controversy surrounding Kavanaugh with her guest, other Democrats have guests who should be equally thorny to the president, such as individuals who they claim have been “directly affected” by the ongoing immigration debate and the recent partial government shutdown.
Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D- N.J., invited Victoria Morales, a Guatemalan woman living in the U.S. illegally, who reportedly was fired from the Trump National Golf Club.
Sandra Diaz, a native of Costa Rica who worked at Trump’s club from 2010 to 2013, also will be attending the State of the Union as a guest of Democratic Rep. Jimmy Gomez of California.
Diaz was also hired without legal papers. She is now a legal permanent U.S. resident and said she decided to speak out because she is angry about the president describing some immigrants as violent.
Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., invited a mother and daughter from Guatemala who was denied asylum in the U.S. and eventually was separated for two months last spring after they were caught illegally crossing the southern border.
Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., who is running for president in 2020, invited Trisha Pesiri-Dybvik, an air traffic controller who lost her home in the 2017 Thomas Fire in Southern California and was one of the 800,000 federal workers who missed paychecks during the shutdown.
“Trisha Pesiri-Dybvik was one of the more than 800,000 federal workers whose paychecks were withheld during the shutdown — and it happened while her family was still recovering from losing their home in the Thomas Fire,” Harris wrote on Twitter. “I’m honored she will join me at the State of the Union.”
Democrats have also guests affected by gun violence, high drug, and insurance costs and the Trump administration’s changes to rules on transgender people in the military.
Democrats, however, do not have a monopoly on using the State of the Union guest list to score points and foster a political narrative.
Republicans are bringing guests ranging from survivors of sexual slavery in the Middle East to survivors of the opioid epidemic and Border Patrol agents.
However, despite both sides playing politics with the guest list, the official White House theme for the speech is “Choosing Greatness,” and the plan for the president’s second State-of-the-Union, is to pitch a message of political togetherness and reset relations with Democrats who took control of the lower house of Congress in the midterm elections and have made it their goal to stymie anything on the White House’s agenda.
But, will Trump stay on script, or lash out at a crowd that was intentionally seeded with hostile guests? That remains to be seen.
“Build the Wall,” “Build the Wall,” “Build the Wall,” – it was the chant of fervent Trump supporters throughout his campaign, and according to Breitbart News, the president had better heed those not so distant echoes.
According to a report published by the Trump friendly news service, “a poll of 2,700 Trump voters shows that President Donald Trump will lose 43 percent of his base of support if a border wall is not built.”
What’s more, the article said that the poll “shows that only 43 percent of Trump voters consider the conclusion of the government shutdown a victory for Trump, even as 60 percent approved of ending the partial shutdown.”
The poll, which was conducted by Ear to the Ground, found that most “Trump voters still support the President for the time-being, even if they view the outcome of the Shutdown Showdown as his loss.” Ear to the Ground is a self-proclaimed “listening project,” whose stated mission is “a collaboration of individuals seeking to understand and amplify the voice of the American people.”
The poll also indicated that Trump’s supporters by a huge margin of 95 percent, approve of him building the border wall by declaring a national emergency.
The Base Is Sticking, But There Could Be Trouble Ahead
According to the poll, Trump’s base is sticking with him, but without a border wall, his support would collapse almost in half.
And therein lies the answer to the Democrats rabid opposition to a “wall,” or “barrier” or any structure that Trump can attach his name to on the southern border, even though they once voted for funding such a structure in the past.
To do so now, will allow President Trump to claim he kept his central campaign promise. And although Democrats and the media know we need physical structures to protect our border, what is more important to both groups – professed enemies of the President — is preventing him from keeping that promise at all costs. They believe — and according to this poll, rightly so — that the fastest way to defeat Trump in 2020 is to destroy his base of support.
Granted, we are a long way off from the 2020 presidential campaign — and a lot can happen between now and then. But, “Build the Wall” is Trump’s quintessential campaign pledge. If Trump is unable to keep this promise, the same Democrats and media who worked tirelessly to ensure the wall was not built — will triumphantly turn around and taunt him for not keeping the promise his entire campaign was built on – and that could spell trouble for his reelection.
Despite a continued government shut down, one thing that has not been put on hold is the 2020 quest for the White House. In a highly speculative Democratic field, the first official bid for the nomination has been announced by Democratic Senator from California, Kamala Harris.
Harris told the press that the theme of her campaign will be “For the People,” and she is expected to formally announce her candidacy in a speech on Jan. 27 in Oakland, California. The senator previewed her announcement in an interview on a recent broadcast of ABC’s “Good Morning America.”
It what is now an obvious precursor to her run, Harris recently published a memoir, The Truths We Hold: An American Journey, which espoused many of the messages she is expected to focus on during her campaign. In the book, she describes her upbringing in Oakland as a daughter of immigrants from India and Jamaica, and her personal history of advancing from prosecutor, to district attorney, to senator.
Elected to the Senate in 2016, Harris made history as the first Indian-American to serve in the body, as well as the second black woman to ever serve. As attorney general of California for six years, she was the first woman, the first African-American and the first Indian-American in that role – so it should come as no surprise that she made her announcement on Martin Luther King Day.
Odds Favor Trump
President Trump has been a long-time critic of Harris as he has of all of the current Democratic front runners, and fears little of the challenge presented by her announcement to run in 2020. Odds makers would seem to agree.
According to BetOnline.ag, Harris, and her most likely contender for the Democratic nomination, Beto O’Rourke, are tied at 8-to-1 odds to win the presidency. President Trump has the edge, which he has maintained for months despite the government shut down, with 7-to-4 odds, said BetOnline.
The betting site did say however, that Harris has been the Democrat bet on the most on the site, “showing strong interest in her candidacy.”
BetOnline.ag’s sportsbook brand manager, Dave Mason said, “Kamala Harris has been the most bet Democrat to date, with Biden close behind.” Former Vice President Biden has not yet formally declared his candidacy.
Trump has been a strong critic of Senator Harris, particularly regarding her liberal stance on immigration, at one time tweeting, “.@SenKamalaHarris, why are you supporting the animals of MS-13? You must not know what ICE really does…”
Roger Stone, former Trump advisor and close confidant of popular radio host Alex Jones, was arrested yesterday on the 24th of January in Florida on a seven-count indictment brought by Robert Mueller’s special counsel.
The counts include obstruction, making false statements, and witness tampering.
The arrest, which wasn’t exactly a surprise, occurred early Friday morning. For a while now, Stone has said that he had been expecting the indictment to come.
At the heart of the indictments are allegations that Stone endeavored to pass messages to the head of Wikileaks, Julian Assange through a middleman, then obstructed Mueller’s investigation into those particular contacts. The indictment identifies two associates: A political commentator (Person 1), and a radio-host (Person 2), who Stone supposedly asked to pass information to Assange. Assange has been living inside of the Ecuadorian embassy as since 2012. He is a political prisoner.
Stone is a well-known political operative inside of Republican party. He and Trump have known each other for close to 40 years now. The indictment of Stone marks special counsel Mueller’s most significant move to date against an associate of Trump.
Stone has never denied having communicated with Wikileaks Julian Assange. In August of 2016 at a GOP forum in South Florida, Stone said, ‘I actually have communicated with Assange… I believe the next tranche of his documents pertains to the Clinton Foundation, but there’s no telling what the October surprise may be.’
Stone has also publicly acknowledged that he had been in communication with the hacker known by the online handle Guccifer 2.0., a hacker who hacked into the Democratic National Committee’s computer network and leaked its secret documents to the media. Deep state operatives consider Guccifer 2.0 as merely a front for the SVR RF (Russian Intelligence).
Stone is scheduled to appear at a federal courthouse at 11 AM ET on Friday in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
The sustained invasion of the West from the third world continues as yet another caravan composed of thousands of Central American migrants makes its way north toward the US-Mexico border.
Again, rather than arrest and deport the migrants, Mexican authorities have done absolutely nothing to prevent the caravan from heading toward the US border. Mexico’s federal police are escorting the entitled migrants north toward Tijuana.
Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who’s an anti-establishment leftist, has said that he’s pursuing a ‘humanitarian’ approach to the ordeal, saying that he’ll help stem the flow of migrants by finding them jobs.
Right… Mexico, an all but failed narco-state at this point, who can’t even provide enough jobs for its citizens, is going to find jobs for thousands of unskilled workers from Central America. That sounds completely feasible.
In exchange for Obrador’s selfless ‘humanitarian’ services, he has called on Trump to help prompt economic development in the region. The 320 million dollars of annual aid that the United States gives Mexico isn’t enough.
But why do these migrants seem to think they can waltz into our country, be handed jobs, homes, food stamps, and free healthcare? That question is an evasive one.
It’s almost as if they think that it’s their God-given right to live in the United States. Well, I have news for them – it’s not. Furthermore, the majority of American’s don’t want them inside of the U.S. Millions of Americans are already struggling to make ends meet. We cannot afford to take in, house, feed, provide jobs to, and give medical care to a never-ending line of migrants from the third world. It’s unfortunate, I know. But it’s also the reality.
Immigration officials in Mexico reported on Sunday that nearly 3,700 people from Central American migrant caravans have registered for temporary status in the country.
Hundreds more refused to wait for ‘humanitarian’ visas from the Mexican government and illegally crossed the loosely guarded border bridge from Guatemala into Mexico. Most migrants who were interviewed by various news outlets like France 24 and Fox News have stated that reaching the United States is indeed their ultimate goal. Others have said that if that doesn’t work out, that they will likely stay in Mexico.
Unfortunately, this problem isn’t going away anytime soon unless the U.S. government takes drastic actions against Mexican and Central American governments. As long as the governments of Central America and Mexico are complacent and assist these caravans in reaching the United States, the issue will persist.
Trump has already floated the idea of withdrawing the vast amount of aid that U.S. taxpayers generously gives to these countries if indeed they continue to refuse to enforce immigration law.
If Trump cares about the already struggling U.S. worker, then he would be wise to add some bite to his loud bark. Perhaps then these countries would be more receptive to our concerns.
Constitution provides that from time-to-time the President of the United States is to provide Congress with his views as to the state of the union. The report is also to inform Congress on any legislative actions he would like them to consider. The Constitution does not say how that is to be accomplished.
George Washington believed it should be in the form of a formal address to the Congress. That tradition was short-lived when America’s third President, Thomas Jefferson, decided that heading up to Capitol Hill was a waste of time. He provided his perspective on the state of the Union in written form. That was how it was done until 1913, when Woodrow Wilson decided to address the Congress. This required that Congress – specifically the Speaker of the House – tender an invitation to the President. That has been the practice since.
It has been one of the high points of the presidential year – becoming more important with the advent of television. The entire American public – indeed the rest of the world – could tune into the speech and hear what the American President thought of the critical issues. It became a direct link between the President and we the people.
Virtually all presidents got high marks for their speeches. Of sure, there were those in opposition who viewed with alarm the very same things the President pointed to with pride. In more recent years, the opposition party was provided an opportunity to rebut. Anyone who believes in transparency and an informed public had to see the speech and the rebuttal as a good thing.
Apparently not House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In the act of political petulance, Pelosi announced that she would withdraw the invitation for the President to address the nation from the floor of the people’s chamber. She said that she was concerned about security, but that was a false and flimsy excuse.
Pelosi seemed to have two motives – to deny the President the ability to speak to the people and to vent her anger at Trump for not giving in on the funding for the border protection – the wall. It is not easy to know what Pelosi hoped to achieve, but her pettiness may have reminded many Americans why she has been such an unpopular figure in the Washington establishment.
In the game of political one-upmanship, Pelosi may have given Trump another opportunity to turn the tables. Rather than try to override her childish petulance — not unlike that prepubescent angry refrain “I’m not going to invite you to my birthday party” — Trump should accept Pelosi’s decision (or was it just a threat?) and move forward with plans to address the nation from another location.
The steps or portico of the Capitol Building would be a good location – conjuring up the false image of Martin Luther posting his reforms at the door of the Whittenberg Castle Church. It would be an invitation-only event to which Trump would invite the entire Congress. Sticking with tradition, Trump would also invite the Supreme Court, the military chiefs-of-staff, the Cabinet and special guests.
Pelosi would also be on the invitation list. If she attended, she would be seated in the front row, but not behind Trump, as is the traditional position of honor. Her presence would be a public embarrassment as Trump led off his speech with an explanation for the unusual venue – how the lady of the House had ended a more than 100-year tradition for no good reason. If she did not attend, she would be conspicuous by her absence. In fact, the more Democrat legislators who boycotted the event, the more petulant they would look.
This is just the sort of event that only a Donald Trump could execute with maximum effect – and would very likely bring very high ratings. It would rival Hollywood’s Oscar night in building anticipation of who would be seen, how the event would proceed and how the audience would react. It would sure beat that tired old imagery of the President orating for more than one hour as the Vice President and the Speaker of the House served as stage props – looking like a pair of Toby mugs. Hell, it may even kick off a new tradition.
So, there ‘tis.
Regardless of your personal feelings about Alex Jones, there’s no denying that the man is the probably the most censored public figure of our time.
Jones has been banned from Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Apple, and now as of a few days ago, Roku.
In case you aren’t familiar with Roku, it’s a California-based tech company that provides video-streaming services to users, giving them access to many thousands of channels of third-party content. Roku’s technology is built into many different brands of Blu-ray players and smart TVs. Nearly 24 million people use the service.
Roku added Alex Jones’ Infowars to their platform sometime this month – six months after he was banned from the other Silicon Valley platforms last year.
The SJW Twitter Stasi was quick to call the company out for allowing Jones onto their platform.
One Tweet from @DanielMadison78, a Roku user, read, “Hey @Roku, what’s with you adding Infowars to your platform?”
The move also drew the attention of the Twitter account Sleeping Giants, a tattletale account that urges people to call out and screenshot brand ads on websites and platforms with content deemed outside of the political left’s scope of acceptability.
Lawyers involved in a lawsuit between Sandy Hook parents and Jones also called out the streaming platform publicly, saying that it was “indifferent to the suffering” families of Sandy Hook had experienced. Lawyers added that Roku was interfering with “efforts to prevent people like Jones from profiting off innocent victims whose lives have been turned upside down by unspeakable loss.”
Initially, Roku defended its decision to host Infowars on its platform because it doesn’t censor content unless it’s illegal. However, after facing widespread criticism and abuse, the company later bowed to the demands of these loudmouthed leftists.
Roku, in a tweet, said, “After the InfoWars channel became available, we heard from concerned parties and had determined that the channel should be removed from our platform.”
Free speech advocates have rightfully criticized Roku for siding with the leftist SJWs. Unfortunately, their cries will likely fall on deaf ears, just as they have in the past.
The extreme politicizing of the business sector, especially in social media companies who traffic in information, is particularly alarming. It’s eerily reminiscent to days of communism when businesses were forced to propagate communist ideology.