Libertarian-Republican Senator Rand Paul, the National Emergency Declaration, the Constitution, and AG Bill Barr

RAND PAUL, REPUBLICAN SENATOR??? Let's get this straight. Rand Paul is a Libertarian, and so he opposes US military intervention in foreign wars, BUT Senator Paul, the Libertarian who rides on the coattails of the Republican Party, thinks it is okay to let illegal aliens enter the US through unsecured borders and wage a war on Americans in their own country. Got it?? We can't fight them anywhere in the world, but they can fight us right here in America. • • • SENATOR RAND PAUL WILL VOTE AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP'S NATIONAL EMERGENCY DECLARATION. Liberty Headlines got it right on Sunday : "Rand Paul to Vote with Dems and RINOs Against Trump’s Emergency Declaration." • Bloomberg, when it said that Senator Paul would vote against the Declaration, said Senator Paul's vote "would probably provide enough votes for the measure to pass the Senate and draw Trump’s first veto." • Senator Paul said : "I can’t vote to give the President the power to spend money that hasn’t been appropriated by Congress.” He was speaking at the Southern Kentucky Lincoln Day Dinner Saturday. The Lincoln Day Dinner is a time-honored REPUBLICAN dinner to pay homage to President Lincoln and support REPUBLICAN candidates and causes. Did the REPUBLICANS at the dinner rise up and denounce the Libertarian Senator with boo's and hisses??? Not likely. That would not be the "Republican" thing to do -- better to let the illegal aliens in to spread disease, bring into the US fentanyl and other drugs, bring in violent gangs like M-13, bring in criminals who prey on and kill Americans. • Is that what Kentucky Republicans really voted for when they re-elected Senator Rand Paul the last time??? Did Rand Paul tell his constituents he would oppose any executive effort to stop the flow of illegal aliens by securing the borders??? Not likely, either. That might have got him booted out of the Senate. • Senator Paul said of Trump’s Feb. 15 declaration, which the president said allows him to take billions of dollars from other parts of the budget to use for a border wall: “We may want more money for border security, but Congress didn’t authorize it. If we take away those checks and balances, it’s a dangerous thing.” Senator Paul also wrote an op-ed for Fox News on Sunday that said the Supreme Court will likely strike down Trump’s emergency declaration, with the president’s two appointments, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, likely voting against giving him the authority to “violate the will of Congress.” Senator Paul thus appointed himself as THE Republican constitutional scholar who can precisely predict what the Supreme Court will do about any issue the good Libertarian-Republican Senator opposes. Pure Rubbish. • The measure opposing the President's National Emergency Declaration needs a simple majority to be adopted and sent to President Trump’s desk, where he will very probably veto it. But, overriding a presidential veto requires a 2/3 vote of both the House and Senate, something also very probably uattainable by the Democrats, despite Libertarian-Republican Senator Paul, and RINOs Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, and Susan Collins of Maine. • While a veto by President Trump would very probably be sustained, the legality of the President’s action will also be fought out in the courts. The facts presented to the federal district chosen will be these -- after a 35-day government shutdown, precipitated by a partisan fight over border security, President Trump agreed to sign a bipartisan spending bill that provided $1.4 billion for physical barriers on the border, far short of what he was demanding. At the same time, he signed an emergency declaration to shift $3.5 billion from military construction accounts to the border wall. • Holding up the US Constitution, Senator Paul explained his reasoning in the op-ed run by Fox News : “I support President Trump. I supported his fight to get funding for the wall from Republicans and Democrats alike, and I share his view that we need more and better border security. However, I cannot support the use of emergency powers to get more funding, so I will be voting to disapprove of his declaration when it comes before the Senate.” Pointing to his opposition to President Obama’s use of executive power to legislate, Senator Paul said he is being consistent in his actions, adding that Trump’s declaration goes against the will of Congress -- especially if, as Senator Paul apparently did, we count only the Democratic side of Congress. Senator Paul said : “Congress clearly expressed its will not to spend more than $1.3 billion and to restrict how much of that money could go to barriers,” he said. “Therefore, President Trump’s emergency order is clearly in opposition to the will of Congress.” The Libertarian-Republican Senator went on to say that President Trump is “wrong, not on policy, but in seeking to expand the powers of the presidency beyond their constitutional limits.” That's when Senator Paul put on his crystal ball glasses and predicted that the Supreme Court will likely strike down President Trump‘s emergency declaration : “Without question, the President’s order for more wall money contradicts the will of Congress and will, in all likelihood, be struck down by the Supreme Court. In fact, I think the president’s own picks to the Supreme Court may rebuke him on this.” • • • THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION. The President predicted that he would win a legal challenge when he announced the national emergency : “We will have a national emergency and we will then be sued, and they will sue us in the 9th Circuit, even though it shouldn’t be there, and we will possibly get a bad ruling, and then we’ll get another bad ruling, and then we’ll end up in the Supreme Court, and hopefully, we’ll get a fair shake, and we’ll win in the Supreme Court, just like the [travel] ban.” • Nationally syndicated talk radio host Mark Levin, a constitutional scholar, turned to social media to slam Senator Paul for his stance, tweeting : "Phony constitutionalist Rand Paul. Pathetic. https://t.co/uRAE8yNadB" — Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) March 4, 2019. • The propagandist ProgDem lapdog mainstream media began its ritual of hysteria even before President Trump declared a national emergency on the southern border to appropriate military funding to build the wall. A headline from NBC News declared Trump is “forcing a constitutional crisis.” Some Republican Senators -- brain dead and absolutely out of their depth when it comes to anything about the Constitution that they routinely trample on -- said the President shouldn’t declare a national emergency. • But, in a Facebook note, Mark Levin tears that argument apart on February 15 : "Leftwing media and RINOs don’t represent the GOP. Nor are they defenders of the Constitution. The National Emergencies Act of 1976 was created by Congress. It has been used scores of times. The media never cared. The RINOs never said a word before. Nor did they act to repeal it. Now they object? Look at Rubio. He opposes the government shutdown, he opposes the bill the Congress passed and the President signed (he’s right about that), and he opposes use of the National Emergencies Act. Effectively, then, he would leave the border wide open since he has no practical solution and objects the to the President using any of his powers to act. And the so-called comprehensive immigration reform he helped author several years ago demonstrated what a failure the Gang of Eight members were in tackling this problem. Many of the same Republicans whining to the leftwing media today have been in office for years and tolerated if not passively supported the current state of immigration chaos. Furthermore, none of these RINOs did anything legislatively that stopped the blatantly unconstitutional Obama/Democrat DACA, which they now support or, again, effectively tolerate, along with sanctuary cities and lawless judges who protect them. So much for their legal and constitutional bona fides. While the National Emergencies Act of 1976 should be rarely used for real emergencies, it has in fact been used over fifty times without controversy. The fact is the leftwing media and the RINOs do not view illegal immigration and the cumulative importation of millions of aliens into our country in violation of federal law as a big deal. If they did, they would’ve acted long before Trump became President. The President rightly does view it as an emergency. The law itself, as used by the President, does not violate separation of powers in this instance as it is applied quite narrowly, with the President moving around funds which he is empowered to do by Congress. Meanwhile, the leftwing media and the RINOs don’t mind at all the creation of the entire massive bureaucracy and the delegation of law-making to it by Congress, over the period of the last century, which delegation has always violated separation of powers. We now call it the administrative state or Swamp. Not a single conservative in Congress has even tried to do anything effective about it. And the pseudo-constitutionalists of today haven’t given a damn about it either." • Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Senator who is really a Republican, has not set a firm date to vote on the national emergency disapproval bill, but Fox News pointed to mid-March, perhaps on March 14. McConnell said Monday he always hoped President Donald Trump wouldn’t declare a national emergency to build a US-Mexico border wall, and confirmed the Senate has enough votes to block the move : “I was one of those hoping the President would not take the national emergency route.” McConnell said Trump will veto the resolution of disapproval and “in all likelihood,” the veto would be upheld by the House, which would need a two-thirds super majority to shoot down it down. The Louisville Courier-Journal reports : “I was one of those hoping the President would not take the national emergency route,” McConnell told reporters Monday in Louisville. “Once you decide to do that, I said I would support it, but I was hoping he wouldn’t take that particular path.” The House voted 245-182 in support of the resolution blocking the President’s emergency declaration. McConnell told reporters he was concerned future Democratic Presidents would resort to an emergency declaration to bypass Congress and fund issues like climate change or gun control : “That’s one reason I argued -- obviously without success -- to the President that he not take this route.” • That is very similar to Senator Paul's argument : “I can’t vote to give the President the power to spend money that hasn’t been appropriated by Congress. We may want more money for border security, but Congress didn’t authorize it. If we take away those checks and balances, it’s a dangerous thing.” • Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Thom Tillis of North Carolina have all said they’ll vote with Democrats. Tillis wrote in a Washington Post op-ed (where else???) : “As a U.S. senator, I cannot justify providing the executive with more ways to bypass Congress. As a conservative, I cannot endorse a precedent that I know future left-wing Presidents will exploit to advance radical policies that will erode economic and individual freedoms.” • One thing that is not yet settled is whether Libertarian-Republican Senator Paul will really vote against the President. Senator Paul likes publicity and he likes to be coaxed by Republicans to "do the right thing." With the vote a week or so off, there’s always the possibility that Paul could still change his mind. His sense of his own relevancy gets a boost when he represents what could be the deciding vote. With a little media fanfare and attention from the White House, a change of heart is not out of the question. • Senator Paul mentioned in his op-ed the Supreme Court decision in Youngstown Steel in 1952, in a case that he said "is being closely reexamined in the discussion of executive power. In Youngstown, the Court ruled that there are three kinds of executive order: orders that carry out an expressly voiced congressional position, orders where Congress’ will is unclear, and, finally, orders clearly opposed to the will of Congress. To my mind, like it or not, we had this conversation. In fact, the government was shut down in a public battle over how much money would be spent on the wall and border security. It ended with a deal that Congress passed and the President signed into law, thus determining the amount. Congress clearly expressed its will not to spend more than $1.3 billion and to restrict how much of that money could go to barriers. Therefore, President Trump’s emergency order is clearly in opposition to the will of Congress. Moreover, the broad principle of separation of powers in the Constitution delegates the power of the purse to Congress.This turns that principle on its head." • In Youngstown Steel, President Truman was told that supplies of ammunition in Korea were low, and even a 10-day strike would endanger the Korean war effort. Most of Truman's advisors favored seizure of the steel mills under the inherent powers of the President as commander-in-chief. Rarely has a President’s national emergency declaration been challenged in court, and only once has such a lawsuit prevailed at the US Supreme Court -- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, in which the Supreme Court in 1952 ruled 6-3 that President Harry S. Truman did not have the authority to seize private property just because he was the President. Justice Hugo Black, writing for the Court, said : “In the framework of our Constitution, the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker.” BUT, the Truman and Trump scenarios, although they may seem similar, have one KEY difference -- in 1976, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act, giving the President unfettered authority to make a national emergency declaration and use specific statutory powers. Before that, Presidents, including Truman, relied on the authority inherent in the US Constitution. As a result, the Youngstown analysis began with the fact that Congress never gave Truman the power to declare a national emergency. Trump, however, is using a specific statutory power created by Congress for the President. • Truman’s action is different from Trump’s, states Jonathan Turley, constitutional law professor at George Washington University. In a phone interview with the Washington Post; Turley noted that President Trump is acting under a congressional grant of authority : “This falls into the category of a self-inflicted wound. Courts don’t protect Congress from itself. Congress removed the long-standing barrier for Presidents, then continued giving billions of dollars with virtually no limitations on the use of the money. Now, those chickens have come back to roost.” • Turley says : "If the odds heavily favor the President, Democrats should also keep the calendar in mind," Turley warned, adding that they may be handing Trump a major court victory that could come down right before the 2020 election. “This could end up being a serious -- political and legal -- blunder by the Democrats.” he said. • In a video that you can watch at < https://youtu.be/MtxDRAsbI8U >, former White House advisor Sebastian Gorka stopped by the Daily Caller’s booth at CPAC to discuss border security and President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency at the border. Gorka called out the lawmakers who are pushing back against the President’s national emergency order, saying they don’t “understand the Constitution.” • • • DEAR READERS, On Sunday, American Thinker's Robert Arvay asked what could start a civil war. His answers tend toward social issues -- abortion and gender issues. Arvay says : "There are more issues than these two that divide Americans irreconcilably, but they might top the list at the moment. And irreconcilable they are. 'Abortion rights' began with a misguided interpretation of a right to privacy, the right of a pregnant woman to exercise the power of life and death over her unborn child during the first trimester of gestation. From that beginning, it has expanded ever farther, to include so-called late-term abortion. Virginia's Governor Ralph Northam's hideous description of infanticide outside the womb, which he tacitly endorsed as a proposed law, is far beyond any possibility of compromise. Opponents of abortion are accused of being anti-woman. So-called gay rights began with a plea from homosexuals to be free from harassment, but over time, the concept has infringed more and more on religious liberties, and the right of free speech, of others. Policies now in place in certain locales require that everyone speak as if he believed that if a man claims to be a woman, he is one. 'Mis-gendering' someone -- that is, by calling a woman a woman when she identifies as being a man -- is already, in some cases, cause to be fired from one's job, possibly sued in court, and eventually to be imprisoned once the movement runs its course. High school children can be required to shower with members of the opposite sex. Gender issues include such amorphous topics as toxic masculinity, a concept that is beginning to suggest that laws be made forcing parents to raise their children as 'gender fluid' or lose custody. Public schools propagandize small children into points of view held by transgender advocates, with no practicable "opt out" provision for parents who object, nor any mention of opposing points of view, except pejoratively. Statements like these bring charges of fear-mongering, just as a few years ago, the specter of same-sex 'marriage' was scorned by gay rights advocates as propaganda." Arvay adds to the list -- global warming, refusing public displays of Christian crosses, assisted suicide, involuntary euthanasia, racial reparations, sharia law, illegal immigration? • What does it take to start a civil war? Where is today's version of Fort Sumter? I think it will tend to be immigration rather than social issues, many of which can be resolved by families. BUT, immigration -- how can any family or community or state protect itself from the influx of illegal immigrants when one major political party protects them because they represent new voters beholden to that party? The Insane Democrat Party has refused to resolve the Dreamer issue, called for ICE to be disbanded or hampered, refused to pay for a border wall that would eliminate most of illegal alien entries, and is now trying to bring down the effort to secure US borders of President Trump, who has, from the outset, promised to secure the US borders. The combination is much more like the Civil War scenario -- half the country was appalled by slavery (today, half the country, or more, is appalled by inaction to prevent illegals from entering and letting them run free once to commit crimes but receive benefits once in the US). Lincoln defended his actions by citing the need to preserve the Union -- that is, the constitutionally organized United States -- from being dissolved by that acts of one group (today, Trump cites the need to preserve the United States, that is the Union, saying that a country without borders is not a country, and adding that illegals are preying on Americans defenseless to protect themselves). The combination of constitutional and social issues in 1860 and 2019 is very similar. And that combination could strike qt the heart of America when something otherwise insignificant occurs -- such as President Trump losing his national emergency declaration case and Congress flouting the defeat. Or, a serious collapse of order anywhere on the southern border with Americans being attacked. Or, California totally opening its southern border to illegals and defying federal efforts to control it. • And, like Lincoln, President Trump has had no support from Congress or within his own leftover executive Deep State executive branch. BUT, that may now have changed. President Trump has been deprived of a working Attorney General since he took office. BUT, now there is Attorney General William Barr -- AND Barr has now confirmed that he will not recuse himself from overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller's probe. The newly appointed Barr's decision follows guidance from "senior career ethics officials" at the Justice Department, a DOJ spokeswoman said. Mueller is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, possible collusion by the campaign of President Trump, possible obstruction of justice by Trump, and other issues, as to which President Trump denies any wrongdoing. During his confirmation hearings, Barr had said that if Justice ethics officials urged him to recuse from overseeing the Mueller investigation, but he disagreed with their recommendation, he would not follow it. This has not happened -- the ethics office has cleared him to do his job. Barr also said he "absolutely" would guarantee that Mueller would not be fired as special counsel without good cause. • Democrats have demanded that Mueller's report, when presented to the Attorney General, be given to Congress and be made public. During his confirmation hearing in January, Barr said, "I believe it is vitally important that the special counsel be allowed to complete his investigation. I also believe it is very important that the public and Congress be informed of the results of the Special Counsel's work. For that reason, my goal will be to provide as much transparency as I can consistent with the law. I can assure you that, where judgments are to be made by me, I will make those judgments based solely on the law and will let no personal, political or other improper interests influence my decisions." • That may seem far removed from talk of a civil war. It is not. With a strong Attorney General in place, President Trump at last seems to have at the helm of his legal organization an AG who will defend the President's agenda forcefully and with great legal skill and experience. That will certainly be true if the southern border heats up. It will also, we can expect, provide a strong defense for the President against the Democrats trying to prevent securing the southern border. The Insane Democrats have not faced a truly forceful legal challenge from the Trump administration. That is about to change. And it will likely make building the wall happen, thus making unnecessary any talk of civil war or secession.

How Insane Is the Democrat Party? Its Radical Left Thinks Infanticide, Legalized Prostitution, and Anti-Semitism Will Attract American Voters

THE INSANE DEMOCRATS NOW OFFICIALLY INCLUDE KAMALA HARRIS, ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, AND ILHAN OMAR. All three pass far beyond the sanity line on everything they try to seize as winning issues. • • • KAMALA HARRIS's FATHER IS NOT HER BFF. Blabber Buzz lit into Senator Kamala Harris on Sunday. First on the list was an article published in the Jamaica Global Online, written by her father David J. Harris. Senator Harris, a leading contender for the 2020 Democrat presidential nomination, has been one of the main proponents of giving reparations to the descendants of slaves with taxpayer funds. But, says BlabberBuzz, "now a deep, dark secret from her family’s past could come back to haunt her platform and her campaign. And it comes at the hands of Harris’ father who has again become a thorn in the side of his own daughter’s ambitions." • David Harris wrote : “My roots go back, within my lifetime, to my paternal grandmother Miss Chrishy (née Christiana Brown, descendant of Hamilton Brown who is on record as plantation and slave owner and founder of Brown’s Town) and to my maternal grandmother Miss Iris (née Iris Finegan, farmer and educator, from Aenon Town and Inverness, ancestry unknown to me). The Harris name comes from my paternal grandfather Joseph Alexander Harris, land-owner and agricultural ‘produce’ exporter (mostly pimento or all-spice), who died in 1939 one year after I was born and is buried in the church yard of the magnificent Anglican Church which Hamilton Brown built in Brown’s Town (and where, as a child, I learned the catechism, was baptized and confirmed, and served as an acolyte). Looking back now I can say, with certainty and all due credit to Miss Iris, that it was this early intimate exposure to operation of the sugar industry at the local level of small-scale production with family labour and free wage-labour, coupled with my growing curiosity about how these things came to be, that led me, once I started reading about the history of Jamaica, to a closer study of the sugar industry. I came then to understand its origin as a system of global production and commerce, based on slave labour, with Jamaica as a key component of that system from its very start.” • BlabberBuzz gives more details : "Hamilton Brown was born in 1776 in Ireland. He became a sugar plantation owner and founder of Brown’s Town in Jamaica, according to university papers, textbooks, and historical documents. Henry Whiteley wrote a pamphlet entitled 'Three months in Jamaica in 1832, Comprising a Residence on a Sugar Plantation,' where he describes Brown’s views on his slaves : 'The same day I dined at St. Ann’s Bay, on board the vessel I arrived in, in the company with several colonists, among whom was Mr. Hamilton Brown, representative for the parish of St. Ann in the Colonial Assembly… I was rather startled to hear that gentleman swear by his Maker that that Order should never be adopted in Jamaica; nor would the planters of Jamaica, he said, permit the interference of the Home Government with their slaves in any shape. A great deal was said by him and others present about the happiness and comfort enjoyed by the slaves, and the many advantages possessed by them of which the poor in England were destitute. Among other circumstances mentioned in proof of this, Mr. Robinson, a wharfinger, stated that a slave in that town had sent out printed cards to invite a part of his negro acquaintance to a supper party. One of these cards was handed to Mr. Hamilton Brown, who said he would present it to the Governor, as a proof of the comfortable condition of the slave population. But, later that day, after he witnessed slaves being punished by Brown’s overseer, Whiteley wrote : 'The first was a man of about thirty-five years of age. He was what is called a pen-keeper or cattle herd; and his offence was having suffered a mule to go astray. At the command of the overseer he proceeded to strip off part of his clothes, and laid himself flat on his belly, his back and buttocks being uncovered. One of the drivers then commenced flogging him with the cart whip. This whip is about ten feet long, with a short stout handle, and is an instrument of terrible power. It is whirled by the operator round his head, and then brought down with a rapid motion of the arm upon the recumbent victim, causing the blood to spring at every stroke. When I saw this spectacle now for the first time exhibited before my own eyes, with all its revolting accompaniments, and saw the degraded and mangled victim writhing and groaning under the infliction, I felt horror-struck. I trembled and turned sick; but being determined to see the whole to an end, I kept my station at the window. The sufferer, writhing like a wounded worm, every time the lash cut across his body, cried out, 'Lord! Lord! Lord!' When he had received about twenty lashes, the driver stopped to pull up the poor man’s shirt (or rather smock frock), which had worked down upon his galled posteriors. The sufferer then cried, 'Think me no man? Think me no man?' By that exclamation I understood him to say, 'Think you I have not the feelings of a man?' The flogging was instantly recommenced and continued; the negro continuing to cry 'Lord! Lord! Lord!' till thirty-nine lashes had been inflicted. When the man rose up from the ground, I perceived the blood oozing out from the lacerated and [illegible] parts where he had been flogged; and he appeared greatly exhausted. But he was instantly ordered off to his usual occupation.' " • Blabber Buzz states that Whiteley’s account goes on, "describing one victim after the next, including women and young boys. It is truly sickening to read. Brown didn’t stop after the Jamaican slaves were freed. He attempted to make the Irish work on his plantation but failed when he was accused of trying to enslave more people. The historical accounts are so detailed that should Kamala Harris want to search out the families of the people her relative reportedly tortured, she would probably be able to find them." • BlabberBuzz concludes : "If Senator Harris’ wants to pay reparation to the descendants of slaves, she has a prime opportunity to put her own cash where her mouth is. She can start by writing checks to the descendants of the Jamaican slaves that her family owned and worked on their own plantations." • Of course, this is a cynical proposal, and the truth is that Kamala Harris is no more responsible for her ancestors' owning slave than today's white Americans are responsible for the slavery in America that ended in 1863 and 1865. Perhaps her father's article will persuade Senator Harris ot reconsider reparations to the descendants of slavery. • • • KAMALA HARRIS FAVORS LEGALIZING PROSTITUTION. The New York Post reports that : "Senator Kamala Harris recently shared that she is in favor of decriminalizing prostitution and sex work. According to Life Site News, the 2020 presidential hopeful said that despite her previous crack down on sex work when she was California’s Attorney General, she would like to see prostitution -- between two consenting adults -- decriminalized. In an interview with The Roots, Harris noted that when she was a District Attorney in California some fifteen years ago, she was advocating for the prostitute and against the 'johns' and 'pimps.' Harris said, 'I was advocating then that we had to stop arresting these prostitutes and instead go after the johns and the pimps.' " • According to Life Site News, Harris supported two laws -- 2017 Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA) and Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) -- which tightened restrictions on those who willingly facilitate, support or assist in sex trafficking and on online sex trafficking. In the recent interview, however, when asked if she believed sex work should be 'decriminalized,' Harris responded, 'I think so. I do.' Harris clarified why she supported the above-mentioned laws noting that, to her, there are distinct differences between which types of sex work should be legal and which types of sex work should not. Harris noted that in the case of consenting adults she believes prostitution should be legal. In situations where prostitutes are being exploited by others, however, Harris believes that should be punishable. Harris said : “I think that we need to understand though that it is not as simple as that… there is an ecosystem around that that includes crimes that harm people, and for those issues, I do not believe that anybody who hurts another human being or profits off of their exploitation should be admonished or should be free of criminal prosecution. When you are talking about consenting adults, I think that, you know...yes. We should really consider that we can’t criminalize consensual behavior as long as no one is being harmed.” • Life Site News speculates that even if Harris made these comments to appease pro-prostitution activists who felt that by supporting SESTA and FOSTA, Harris was actually endangering sex workers more by pushing prostitution underground even further. • • • KAMALA HARRIS CONTINUES TO SUPPORT ABORTION UP TO BIRTH. In a recent interview, Senator Kamala Harris defended abortions up to birth. The California Senator said she supports women making the decision whether or not to terminate the life of their unborn baby even if that abortion occurs just before birth. Harris voted with Senate Democrats to block an anti-infanticide bill that would offer medical care and treatment for babies who survive abortions. Harris, a 2020 hopeful who voted against Republican Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse’s anti-infanticide bill, would not say if abortion was ever immoral. Senator Harris told the Daily Caller : “I think it’s up to a woman to make that decision, and I will always stand by that. I think she needs to make that decision with her doctor, with her priest, with her spouse. I would leave that decision up to them.” • In 2017, Senator Harris co-sponsored a radical pro-abortion bill that would have legalized abortions for basically any reason up to birth. The so-called “Women’s Health Protection Act” was introduced in 2017, with dozens of Democrat sponsors, including Harris and presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Beto O’Rourke, Kristen Gillibrand and Bernie Sanders. Nicknamed the “Abortion Without Limits Until Birth Act” by pro-life groups, the bill would have invalidated nearly all state and federal abortion regulations, including waiting periods, informed consent requirements, bans on late-term abortions and sex-selection abortions and more. • Harris, like all radical Democrats, refuse to listen to Americans, who tell pollsters that legislation like the bill, which was similar to New York’s radical new pro-abortion law, is strongly opposed by voters. A new Susan B. Anthony List poll found that 77% of likely voters support legislation to protect infants born alive after botched abortions. It also found that 62% oppose bills to expand late-term abortions. Polls by Gallup and Marist have found similar results. • Sadly, Senator Harris has a long track record promoting abortion and recently came under fire for calling a pro-life Catholic nominee an “extremist” simply because he is a member of a Catholic group. • • • OCASIO-CORTEZ IS AN EASY TARGET FOR AMERICANS WHO DISAGREE WIT HER RADICAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. BlabberBuzz published on Sunday an article from the Federalist Papers that reported : "A new trend took Twitter by storm on Saturday and into Sunday to mock New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The hashtag game #OcasioCortezChildrensBooks viciously mocked the 29-year-old and it does not require a ton of explanation. Sit back, relax and see if you can think of your own Ocasio-Cortez children’s books as we look at some of the best....The Very Hungry Socialist....The Lion, The Witch, and The Biodegradable Non-Gender Specific Wardrobe....The Little Engine that Couldn’t without Govt Assistance....Alexandria and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Ideas....I Have Your Money in my Pocket....Little Red Robbing Hood....If You Give a Mouse a Cookie, I’ll Take 70%....Stalin And Gretel....Alexandria and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Green New Deal....Charlie and the Closed Chocolate Factory....The Little Engine That Could But Was Unwilling to Work." • And, while AOC says things that we can easily poke fun at, Greenpeace Co-Founder, Dr. Patrick Moore, has been in an ongoing spat with New York Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez over the overly-ambitious Green New Deal that could quadruple the national debt. Moore, who has since split with Greenpeace, now refers to himself as the “sensible environmentalist.” The Green New Deal calls for an ultra-Progressive list of environmental goals such as the elimination of all fossil fuels, nuclear energy, air travel, 99% of cars and the retrofitting of every single building in America for “state of the art energy efficiency.” AOC’s plan even throws in government-guaranteed jobs -- and simply hands cash to anyone “unwilling to work,” along with healthy food and a free house. BUT, the AOC plan would also, as Moore notes, kill everything on Earth : "@AOC's Green New Deal calls for: "(J) removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere."https://t.co/t9HuWwC1rITechnically (scientifically) this would mean removing all H2O vapour and all CO2 which would mean the eradication of all life on Earth. Brilliant. ?? pic.twitter.com/i91rvW0HXI" — Patrick Moore (@EcoSenseNow) February 19, 2019. After AOC suggested in late February that she was “in charge” until someone comes up with a better plan, Moore fired back, tweeting : “Pompous little twit. You don’t have a plan to grow food for 8 billion people without fossil fuels, or get the food into the cities. Horses? If fossil fuels were banned every tree in the world would be cut down for fuel for cooking and heating. You would bring about mass death.” Several hours later, Moore explained : “You are delusional if you think fossil fuels will end any time soon, maybe in 500 yrs. AOC’s attitude is unjustifiably condescending. She is a neophyte pretending to be wise. Her kind bring ruination if allowed to be 'in charge.' " Moore has continued his criticism -- The "world as it is" has the option of taking the subway rather than a taxi, option of Amtrak rather than plane, option of opening windows rather than A/C. You're just a garden-variety hypocrite like the others. And you have ZERO expertise at any of the things you pretend to know. • Experts estimate that Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal would cost every US household $600,000 !!! • And, the Western Journal Conservative Tribune reminded us on Sunday that after fellow Democrat freshman Representative Rashida Tlaib accused Republican Representative Mark Meadows of using one of his staffers as a “prop” during Capitol Hill hearings involving Michael Cohen, the former personal attorney for President Donald Trump and an uproar arose over Tlaib’s remarks, Ocasio-Cortez rushed to Tlaib’s defense, claiming Tlaib was simply telling the truth : “Total bravery from @RashidaTlaib as she reminds the nation that tokenism *is* racism https://t.co/z7K0idYd0F"— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) February 28, 2019. In response to one Twitter user, who questioned how many blacks are working on her own staff, Ocasio-Cortez tweeted that she didn’t feel the need to advertise that : “We have Black staff. We don’t parade them to show the world how diverse our team is, and use that as some kind of evidence of the absence of racism. That’s what tokenism is. https://t.co/5qWMqy9522" — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) March 2, 2019. THEN, the Tweets poured in -- Allie Beth Stuckey, a conservative commentator and comedian who has roasted Ocasio-Cortez before, summed it up : “So, if someone doesn’t have any/enough black people on their staff, that’s racist. But if someone does have black people on their staff and says that they do, that’s also racist. Thank you for making this perfectly clear.” Scott Adams, the creator of the “Dilbert” comic strip, sarcastically asked for a clarification : “I need clearer rules. Can I tweet that my staff is diverse so long as I am not parading it around? And hypothetically, if I have a black friend -- and I’m not saying I do, as I understand that would be racist tokenism -- should I keep it to myself?” • Yes, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is becoming the easiest target in the Washington Swamp. • • • ILHAN OMAR CONTINUES DOWN THE ANTI-SEMITIC PATH. Breitbart's Joel Pollak has this to say about Omar : "Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) was forced to apologize last month for anti-Semitic remarks accusing pro-Israel politicians of being paid off by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Now she is in trouble again after she accused Americans who support Israel of showing 'allegiance to a foreign country.' Both remarks have anti-Semitic connotations. And both show that Omar refuses to acknowledge the truth : that Americans genuinely support Israel. That truth persists despite the rights or wrongs of Israel’s conduct in any particular conflict, or indeed the case for Israel in general. One reason is cultural. As historian Michael Oren (who later served as Israel’s ambassador to the US) has shown, the Protestant roots of the American Republic were nourished by a common reverence for Biblical Israel, and many Founding Fathers believed in the eventual restoration of a Jewish state. That translates into deep support for Israel today. Americans also see Israel as a country with shared values : liberal democracy, religious tolerance, a free press. These are values that contrast sharply with those of Israel’s neighbors -- including the Palestinians. Moreover, Americans respect Israel because of its amazing success -- politically, militarily, economically, and especially technologically. And Americans also respect Israel as a haven for oppressed Jews worldwide : to support Israel is to support justice. These reasons for supporting Israel are very difficult to dislodge. Opponents of Israel tend to seize on immediate controversies -- most recently, Israel’s use of lethal force to stop Palestinian 'protesters' at the Gaza border fence last spring. It turned out the vast majority of the 'protesters' were members of the Hamas terrorist organization, and they were attempting to invade Israel, not protest the 'occupation,' which ended in Gaza in 2005. It is very difficult to generate sustained outrage against Israel when the conduct of Israel’s enemies is so outrageous. Last week, the Palestinian Authority rejected the tax revenues that Israel routinely collects for it because Israel had deducted, for the first time, the payments the Palestinian government gives to terrorists and their families. When you are willing to starve your own people for the sake of mass murderers, Americans tend not to have sympathy. There is a broader case that Israel’s opponents wish to make -- one that denies the legitimacy of Israel itself, arguing the Zionist enterprise is a settler-colonialist movement imposed on an indigenous people. That argument denies the Jewish connection to the land of Israel, which has continued for millennia, and which even the Qur’an accepts. It also ignores the way Israel was established -- not by conquest, nor as the agent of any foreign power, but by Jews themselves. And it ignores the fact that Israel sought peace and co-existence with its Arab neighbors from the start. Omar told her audience last week -- the one that applauded her remarks about 'allegiance to a foreign country' -- that she wanted a 'debate of what is happening with Palestine.' But the last thing she wants is a real debate. That is why she resorts to conspiracy theories that suggest the other side of the debate is using nefarious methods to win." • Pollak points out that Ilhan Omar, a first-year representative from Minnesota, is one of the first two Moslem women in Congress, and she rejects the idea either she or the other Moslem in Congress, Rashida Tlaib,could be motivated by hate : “No, we know hate looks like! We experience it every single day!” There is truth to that, says Pollak, "as a reprehensible poster by a Republican in the West Virginia state capitol, linking her to 9/11, shows. But that does not excuse Omar’s use of hateful anti-Jewish themes to evade the truth, which is, plainly, that Americans love Israel." • Jonathan Greenblatt, chief executive officer of the Anti-Defamation League, denounced discrimination of both faiths Sunday, writing on Twitter : “I am appalled by @IlhanMN’s #anti-Semitic comments, but that does not diminish my revulsion at this poster. It’s a smear, not only against her but also against the entire Moslem-American community. I call on people of all faiths to join me in condemning it.” • Representative Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has demanded an apology over comments Omar made last Wednesday, less than a month after she was condemned by bipartisan leadership for suggesting that pro-Israel lobbying groups and Jewish politicians influence American politics. Omar's latest comments came during a town hall in Washington while speaking about liberal issues. “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is okay for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country,” Omar said. In a statement Friday, Eliot said that he welcomed debate in Congress but that it was “unacceptable and deeply offensive to call into question the loyalty of fellow American citizens because of their political views, including support for the US-Israel relationship. Her comments were outrageous and deeply hurtful, and I ask that she retract them, apologize, and commit to making her case on policy issues without resorting to attacks that have no place in the Foreign Affairs Committee or the House of Representatives.” On Sunday, Representative Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), when was asked about Omar’s words on Fox News, said lawmakers need to be careful not to use anti-Semitic language : “We need to make sure -- on both sides -- that everyone is being very careful. I see it on both sides. I see too much hatred, period.” Dingell also condemned the anti-Muslim poster that surfaced Friday during a Republican event in the West Virginia Capitol. The poster, which Democrats have called racist and Islamophobic, linked Omar to the September 11, 2001, attacks. • In February, more than 20 House Democrats demanded an apology from Omar after she suggested (again, on Twitter) that Israel’s allies in Congress were wealthy Jews driven by money. Trump called for Omar to resign from Congress or give up her seat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee -- which is why Representative Engel, chairman of the Committee, called her out for anti-Semitic remarks. BUT, while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and bipartisan leadership issued a joint statement insisting on an apology for her “use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel’s supporters,” Pelosi has refused to remove Omar from the House Foreign Affairs Committee. • The accusation that pro-Israel Americans -- and Jews in particular -- owe “allegiance” to Israel is a common anti-Semitic theme on the extreme right and extreme left, implying conspiracy theories of Jewish control and “dual loyalty.” Representative Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) made a similar comment in January, for which she was also criticized. Omar was forced to apologize last month for anti-Semitic comments she made on Twitter alleging that a pro-Israel group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), had bought the support of members of Congress. (AIPAC does not donate money to candidates.) But, she has received support, however, from the “Progressive” left -- and from ostracized white supremacist David Duke, who tweeted his support for Omar’s views about Israel on Thursday. • • • DEAR READERS, these holier-than-thou radical Insane Democrats need to be exposed for what they are -- power-hungry demagogues -- political leaders who seek support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument, that is, rabble-rousers. These rabble-rousers can't even properly assess their own political vulnerabilities, let alone the values of the American constitutional Republic and her citizens. In their dash for political power, they somehow believe that infanticide, legalized prostitution, and anti-Semitism will make America rally to them. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

America Is Overwhelmingly Conservative, CPAC and the RNC Embrace President Trump, and We Will Defeat the Insane Democrats with a Little Political Elbow Grease

CAN AMERICA OUTWIT THESE INSANE DEMOCRATS? It is true that Americans are overwhelmingly conservative and do not support the socialist agenda being touted by the new wave of radical Democrats. But, will Americans fight back? • IS AMERICA IN THE SECOND CIVIL WAR? American Thinker's William L. Gensert says the second civil war has already started : "Its opening shots were fired by Barack Obama when he stated, 'We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.' Most of this country is center-right and never considered America a place that needed transformation. Most people can think of things they would change but few believe the nation needs to be torn down and rebuilt. Obama failed, but the Left soldiers on in its quest for a new America remade in their own image. When Obama went on his world apology tour, he wasn’t apologizing for America, he was apologizing for Americans. This is the essence of this second civil war. Leftists are demi-gods who believe they are America and that anyone who does not believe in them cannot lay legitimate claim to this country as their own." • So, yes, says Gensert, "this war has begun," and he breaks the second civil war down into its parts. • Gensert says : "The opening skirmish was the Obama presidency itself, which history will see as a failure, despite what the media want us to believe in the here and now. Sure, he passed ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank, overregulated, and ruled by executive diktat to great media acclaim. Yet, ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank have been whittled away by legislation and judicial rulings, while Trump has prioritized deregulation and reversed many of Obama’s illegal executive orders." • Then, says Gensert : "The war’s second battle was the 2016 presidential election when Hillary Clinton, Obama’s chosen successor, lost to a television personality whom very few took seriously as a candidate. Trump won despite the Obama administration conspiring with the Clinton campaign to steal the election and has remained as President even as that conspiracy fundamentally transformed into a failed coup attempt to depose him." • AND, today, according to Gensert : "We are in the Trump’s presidency has been the third battle and with his string of successes, the battle is being won. This, despite near-universal acrimony and condemnation among the media, the Democrats, and the Left." • • • THE RADICAL SOCIALISTS WILL NOT STOP. We have to stop them. The Insane Democrat Party is chipping away at America and her Republic with its policies. We all can tick off the items in their socialist agenda -- (1) an “open borders” policy to import a new electorate guaranteed to vote for them. These new voters, whether legally or illegally in America, will have free healthcare, state-issued driver licenses that often automatically enroll them to vote even though they are not citizens, and sanctuary cities to protect them from America's ICE during the second civil war. (2) everything should be free -- so why vote for someone who promises equal opportunity when someone else promises equal outcome by taxing the workers to pay the non-workers. Bees who don't work get stung and pushed out of the hive to die. But, Insane Democrats want to feed and care for the non-workers, even if they are able-bodied and have job skills. (3) total control over everything through total, choking regulation, as Obama was moving toward -- the most recent example of this agenda item is Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal, with its promise of comprehensive control over every aspect of our lives. Eliminating carbon fuels and planes, trains, and automobiles will keep Americans close to homes and jobs, and those “unwilling to work” can stay at home and enjoy their “universal basic income.” But, we know that these socialists are really aiming for total dependence because dependent people without mobility are easier to control. (4) high taxes -- but only on the "rich" -- and we can already see that "rich" will likely mean Americans who make more than $200,000 a year, thus seriously cutting into the income of middle class American families. And, the high taxes will penalize business, eliminating profits used to expand, create jobs, and pay better wages and salaries. (5) elimination of any sign the America is a Christian nation -- while permitting Moslems to parade their religion through dress, prayers, and enclaves where sharia law is imposed. (6) abortion on demand -- even after birth, when infanticide is approved through state laws. (7) packing the Supreme Court to dilute and nullify the Trump conservative majority. (8) controlling education from nursery school -- with a program that extols LGBTQ lifestyles, rewrites American history, and demonizes white Americans and the Founding Fathers as racists and misogynists. • • • WHAT NEXT? The 2020 election. This will be the next -- and possibly the last -- battle in the second civil war. The 2020 election campaign will be bitterly fought because the American conservative majority know that if a Democrat wins, the war will have been lost and America will be dragged down the road to socialism without much hope of regaining its constitutional Republic. Gensert says this : "Yet, they don’t need to trick us into acquiescence, because even should Trump win, without a complete reversal by the Democrat Party, a renewed free and fair media, and a return to the principles upon which this nation was founded, this war will continue, and it is only a matter of time before the Left again wins the presidency, or the House, or the Senate -- or all three. When that happens, this civil war will become hot because the Democrats are going to come for our guns. An armed citizenry is a free citizenry, and they can’t have that....with 330,000,000 people, America has an estimated 350 million guns in circulation; any effort to seize them will call for the total mobilization of our armed forces, city and state police, and the National Guard. People are not going to turn in their guns and politicians who think they will do so are being naïve....Many of those empowered to confiscate weapons won’t obey orders. Defections will be common and there will be fighting in the streets, limited at first, but it will soon break out into open rebellion. The regime will become increasingly strident and many states will refuse to comply. Using Democratic-run 'sanctuary cities' as an example of state nullification of federal law, talk of secession will become rife. The ruling leftists will, of course, be surprised, and orders will be given to the remaining loyalist forces to put down the rebellion. In the end, the death toll will far exceed the 620,000 people who died in our first civil war. To people who say it can’t happen here, I say history is replete with examples of places that no longer exist where people believed 'it can’t happen here.' ” • That is a dire prognosis, but it would be foolish to disregard it. Relying on America's past to predict her future used to work. But, that mold has been broken by these Insane Democrats with their black-masked terrorists and leaders who call on them to attack conservative Americans wherever they find them. • • • AMERICA : A NATION OF CONSERVATIVES. American Thinker published the results of the latest Gallup poll on February 27. Bruce Walker wrote : "The latest Gallup Poll on February 22, 2019 has news that ought to be happy for conservatives. In 43 states, conservatives outnumber liberals and in 6 states -- Hawaii, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, New York, and Washington -- liberals outnumber conservatives. California is evenly split....Gallup, while it presents the data showing an overwhelming preponderance of conservative strength when the data are looked at on a state-by-state basis, uses the title of its articles announcing the data to downplay the big story." • The "big story" is that America remains an overwhelmingly conservative nation. But, all polling organizations use their headlines to hide this truth. Walker says : "The bottom line is always the same: polling organizations are simply another arm of the leftist establishment, and they employ whatever is needed to marginalize or minimize conservatism. That is why all of the polls by all the polling organizations downplay what their own data show. What is most perverse, though, is how many conservatives scoff at this data, which, for more than fifty years, in every single poll conducted by many different polling organization, have shown that conservatives greatly outnumber liberals. The usual response is something like this : 'Americans like the goodies they get from Washington and so don't really know what conservatism means. The data are meaningless.' We ought to accept these polls, however, for several different reasons : (1) the polling data stretch back more than half a century and include every poll; (2) these polling organizations are establish leftist, so, if anything, the polling is skewed to find a liberal majority, which it doesn't; (3) respondents nearly always have the option of 'moderate' or 'don't know,' which means that the respondents are specifically selecting conservatism as a choice; (4) conservatism has been demonized during these fifty years, so choosing 'conservative' takes courage; and (5) even when conservatism is separated into 'social' and 'economic' conservatism, the results are the same. There is no reason, really, to question the fact that, if anything, the conservative advantage is greater than the polling data suggest. We ought to be happy with the grudgingly given good news in these polls. When we start seeing ourselves the way the left wants us to be, then we turn victory into defeat." You can read the entire article at < https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/02/why_does_gallup_hate_reporting_conservatives_overwhelming_national_majority.h tml#ixzz5gjzFbh7Q >. • • • THE "GET TRUMP" CONSPIRACY. Whether it is Fake hate or Fake collusion, for nearly three years, Donald Trump has been the target of an unprecedented campaign meant to end his candidacy and his presidency. The recent revelations of former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe leaves no doubt as to the existence of a vicious and criminal Deep State. McCabe himself spelled it out in TV and in his new book -- angered by President Trump's firing of his boss, then–FBI director James Comey, McCabe, and his like-minded cronies at the FBI and the Justice Department foolishly plotted as to how they might invoke the 25th Amendment and remove the duly elected president from office. Former Clinton pollster and chief strategist Mark Penn spells it out : "Justice Department and FBI officials spied on US citizens with false warrants, gave a pass to one presidential campaign with a predetermined investigation, investigated another political campaign on the basis of no verified evidence, and illegally leaked information on investigations. They discussed wiretapping and using the 25th Amendment to the Constitution to remove President Trump, and appointed a special counsel as a retaliatory move for Comey's firing." • The Insane Democrat Party and Deep State aren't content merely to own the media and the internet and fill them with "Trump stole the election!" lies. People are being indicted, and more often than not, they are "indictments in search of a crime," as Alan Dershowitz recently put it upon the arrest of Roger Stone. As many have pointed out for nearly two years now, you need a crime to appoint a special counsel -- you don't appoint a special counsel hoping that certain individuals will commit process crimes for which they can be indicted, fined, bankrupted, and even jailed. Lying to investigators, tampering with witnesses, obstruction of justice -- virtually all such crimes occurred after Mueller's appointment as special counsel. This doesn't bother men like McCabe, who wrote : "I want to protect the Russia investigation in such a way that whoever came after me could not just make it go away." The ongoing Trump-Russia collusion "investigation" proves that getting Rod Rosenstein to appoint Mueller makes McCabe look successful in this regard. Well before Mueller's appointment, Trump-haters within the FBI, such as McCabe, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, were scheming at ways to end Trump's presidency. • Business Insider reminds us : "Peter Strzok, the second-highest ranking counterintelligence agent at the FBI, was involved at key junctures in the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the Trump-Russia probe. Strzok was reportedly the official responsible for changing language in former FBI director James Comey's statement describing Clinton's private email server use from 'grossly negligent' -- which could carry criminal penalties -- to 'extremely careless.' Strzok was also the FBI agent who officially signed off on the bureau's decision to launch its Russia investigation in July 2016. We now know that in order to justify his investigation into the Trump campaign, Strzok relied on the infamous Steele 'Dossier.' " As The Federalist recently noted : "The so-called Steele Dossier was always the impetus for the Russia investigation. But calling this a 'Dossier' is too generous. This is a Word document that was funded by Hillary Clinton's campaign, written using paid, shady, and unknown Russians. This Word document was used to spy on the opposing party's presidential campaign, despite the fact that nothing in the document that wasn't public information checked out. McCabe and company wanted to believe the Dossier. But that's all they ever had." • Anyone who has read the House Intelligence memo released just over a year ago also now knows that : "Christopher Steele 'was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign, via the law firm Perkins Coie and research firm Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump's ties to Russia." Steele 'maintained contact with DOJ via then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, a senior DOJ official who worked closely with Deputy Attorneys General Yates and later Rosenstein.' Steele admitted to Ohr that he 'was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.' 'During this same time period, Ohr's wife was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump,' and Ohr's wife's research was 'paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign via Fusion GPS.' McCabe testified before the House Intelligence Committee that 'no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele Dossier information.' Yet the initial FISA application ignored or concealed Steele's anti-Trump motivations. Strzok and others in the FBI and DOJ shared Steele's desperation and deceit. This led to the so-called 'insurance policy' that was and is the Trump-Russia-collusion investigation." • Jussie Smollet, Jim Carrey, Kathy Griffin, Ashley Judd, Amy Schumer, Madonna, Eminem, Meryl Streep, Robert De Niro, Jimmy Kimmel, Nathan Phillips, Facebookers, Twitter trolls, and other social media daily demonstrate, gross media malpractice in the name of destroying President Trump. Their pampered entertainers,deluded by the notion that their fame has made their political opinions important, are issuing hate-filled -- and hate-hoaxing -- attacks on the President and his supporters. These Trump haters take any opportunity, no matter how silly, to impugn President Trump. • But, President Trump is still standing. Support is steadfast and growing among Black and Latino and Hispanic Americans. So far, the Deep State and Insane Democrat coup has failed. • Former Representative Trey Gowdy shot down the claim by fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe that he had briefed a bipartisan group of lawmakers about an investigation into President Donald Trump. The former Republican lawmaker from South Carolina spoke with Fox News’ Martha MacCallum about McCabe’s assertions that the so-called “Gang of Eight” had no objections when he informed them that the FBI would be launching a counterintelligence investigation of Trump’s alleged ties to Russia. “What do you think he was getting at, that no one objected?” MacCallum asked Gowdy, now a Fox News contributor, during “The Story.” Gowdy answered : “That Devin and Paul knew about it and had no problem with it,” referring to House Intelligence Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes and then-House Speaker Paul Ryan. “The reason he’s doing it this way is that Devin and Paul are not allowed to discuss anything that is said in a Gang of Eight meeting, and McCabe knows that. So he can level the accusation and Paul and Devin cannot refute him,” Gowdy said. Gowdy also had strong words for Representative Adam Schiff, commenting after a video clip of the California Democrat saying an interview that there is “evidence in plain sight” of collusion between the president and Russia. Gody's rebuttal ot that was : “Collusion is a synonym for conspiracy. So I hope the questioner followed-up and said, ‘Okay, Chairman Schiff, you have just said that you have evidence of a criminal conspiracy between the president of the United States and the Russian state. What is that evidence? What is the crime? Was Trump involved in the hacking of the DNC server? Was he involved in the hacking of John Podesta’s email? Are you alleging that he participated in deciding when to disseminate the proceeds of these two hacks?’ I have heard Adam on a number of occasions say that he is the third eye raven, has evidence and seen things nobody else has ever seen before. But I’ve never heard him asked ‘What is it? What is the evidence of crime that you have, Chairman Schiff?’ I’ve never heard it followed up on." • • • DEAR READERS, Conservatives came together for their annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) this past week. The four-day event was a preview of the Republican strategy for 2020, when President Trump and nearly two dozen GOP Senators will face re-election. That strategy, according to TheHill, "appears almost certain to hinge on a vow to combat what many conservatives see as 'socialism' within the Democratic Party and to preserve the legacy of Trump....If there’s one message that rang clear throughout CPAC, it’s this: the Democratic Party is now the party of socialism....conservatives plan to hinge their 2020 message on a call to arms against what they described as encroaching government regulation and market interference." House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy told the CPAC audience : “This election is not going to be about Republican or Democrat. It's going to be about socialism and the free market." Trump also mentioned socialism in his two-hour address. • When Ronna Romney McDaniel, the chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, was asked on Thursday what would happen if former Ohio Governor John Kasich or Maryland Governor Larry Hogan mounted a primary challenge against Trump, her response was clear : “That’s fine. They’ll lose horribly." McDaniel’s remarks, and those of others, were a warning and a reminder to potential Republican primary challengers -- less than three years after Trump secured the GOP’s presidential nomination, the Republican Party is firmly in the President’s corner. Other CPAC speakers praised President Trump, lauding him as a transformational figure with unparalleled support among the Republican Party’s conservative base. The President’s signature red “Make America Great Again” hats were everywhere. Fox News journalist Laura Ingraham said : “We’ve gone from pessimism to optimism. He has ended the war on business, he has ended the war on energy, he has ended the war on success. In economic terms, you are now rewarded for the extra hour worked, for the extra investment, for the extra risk taken.” • The President repeated his State of the Union promise : "The future belongs to those who believe in freedom...America will never be a socialist country." • Panels and breakout sessions focused on areas of unity for conservatives : attacking the Green New Deal, expressing support for Israel and Trump’s decision to move the US Embassy there to Jerusalem, and religious freedom -- AND Venezuela, where President Trump has expressed support for the self-declared interim President Juan Guaidó. McDaniel pointed to Venezuela as an example of “the path that Democrats are taking us down.” • On the practical side, CPAC speakers hammered home the need to court younger voters and called to “educate” Americans on the very Democrats they had cast their ballots for in 2018. McDaniels noted : “We can't think that the American people understand what socialism is. We have to go out and educate people.” Senator Ted Cruz suggested in his Friday speech that Republicans would have kept control of the House had they forced through funding for Trump’s long-promised border wall while they still had control of both chambers of Congress. Senator Cruz said : "I don't think we would have lost the House of Representatives." • The President received cheers and a standing ovation as he hugged the US flag on the CPAC stage, and appeared confident, relaxed and in charge as he addressed the annual gathering of conservatives. He invited the conservative activist attacked at Berkeley, Hayden Williams, to the stage, Trump announced that he will be signing an executive order to require all colleges to “support free speech.” The President said : “He took a punch for all of us. And we could never allow that to happen....Today I’m proud to announce that I will be very soon signing an executive order requiring colleges and universities to support free speech if they want federal research dollars. If they want our dollars, and we give it to them by the billions, they’ve got to allow people like Hayden and many other great young people and old people to speak. Free speech. If they don’t, it will be costly. That will be signed soon." • The President mentioned Hillary Clinton and got a "lock her up" chant that was popular in 2016, BUT he also criticized the Green New Deal, slammed the Insane Democrat Party policy with one of his many jokes : “No planes. No energy. When the wind stops blowing, that’s the end of your electric : ‘Darling, is the wind blowing, I’d like to watch television.'....I like the Green New Deal...it should be part of the dialogue of the next election....Socialism is not about the environment, it’s not about justice, it’s not about virtue. Socialism is about only one thing : it’s called power for the ruling class." • On fears raised over precedent set by proposed presidential actions, President Trump mentioned the southern US border issue and his national emergency declaration which earned him more applause. He said : “A lot of people talk about precedent. Precedent. That if we do this, the Democrats will use national emergency powers for something that we don’t want. They’re going to do that anyway, folks. The best way to stop that is to make sure I win the election.” • This is the second civil war that America is now fighting. And, every conservative in America needs to join the battle -- support President Trump; wear your MAGA hats; organize your precincts and communities; vote only for Republicans who support the President, no matter how beguiling the socialist siren song of the Insane Democrats becomes. • The US Marines say "Semper fidelis," a Latin phrase that means "always faithful" or "always loyal." • "Semper paratus" is the motto of the United States Coast Guard and it means "always prepared." • The US Army's motto is “This We'll Defend.” • The motto of the US Army Special Forces, known as the Green Berets, is "De Oppresso Liber," which means to free the oppressed. • No matter which motto you choose, the wise American is now prepared to defend the Republic and its liberties against all comers. As Abraham Lincoln so rightly said : “Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe.” • Sharpen those 2020 axes -- NOW.

Why Would the Democrats Pick Michael Cohen, a Convicted Liar, as Their 'Impeach Trump' Poster Boy?

MICHAEL COHEN IS A BUM, A REAL AMBULANCE-CHASING, BLUE SUEDE SHOE BUM OF A LAWYER. He blames President Trump for "making him" do things that any half-decent lawyer would have counselled his client against -- we do not even mention counselling himself, a lawyer, against such actions. Instead, Cohen admits that he permitted and did whatever his client wanted -- again, we do not speak of how much of what he told Congress this week is bold-faced lies. Keep in mind, this is a lawyer -- although now rightly disbarred -- telling Congress that he knew what he was doing was wrong but he kept doing it. That is not what lawyers are paid for. And, it violates just about every canon of ethics for lawyers ever written. • • • THE DEMOCRAT PARTY JOINS MICHAEL COHEN IN THE GUTTER. American Thinker's Patricia McCarthy said it best on Thursday : "If their behavior at the Kavanaugh hearings that they engineered with a hoax accusation did not convince people of the craven unscrupulousness of the Democratic Party, the clown show Democrats put on Wednesday certainly will. While the President is out of the country on a crucial foreign policy mission, the Democrats colluded with Tom Steyer and lowlife Clinton operative Lanny Davis to once more try to convince the public that Trump should be impeached. To that end, they brought the loathsome Michael Cohen, already convicted of lying to Congress and a host of other financial crimes, to testify to 'crimes' committed by the President. Cohen admitted that he was prepped for the hearings by Trump-deranged Adam Schiff, Elijah Cummings, and Davis. That Cummings allowed this to happen is a sad commentary on his lack of respect for his own committee and the House....Cohen spent the day lying again and again and contradicting himself over and over....He has been clearly shown to be a relentless self-promoter, a greedy status-seeker, and a liar. Nothing he says can be trusted or believed. His oath means nothing. He lacks any hint of ethical sense. He admitted to taping numerous clients without their knowledge and at the hearing quickly agreed to hand those tapes over if asked, even without those clients' waived privilege!....The entire spectacle is proof that the Democratic Party, as many have observed, hates this President so much that its members are willing to do great harm to the nation. Every Democrat who participated in this pathetic display should be forever ashamed of himself for all of them have sullied the offices they hold." • What about Lanny Davis -- the Bill-and-Hillary "fixer" who has been their hatchet-man since the Monica Lewinsky affair. Patricia McCarthy has some choice words for Lanny and the Clintons, too : "That Lanny Davis, a man wholly beholden to and joined at the hip with the Clintons, was able to make this happen is bad enough. He likely wrote Cohen's opening and closing speeches. That Michael Cohen is the Democrats' tool is contemptible....What makes all this a sham characterized by Democrat hypocrisy is the fact of forty years of Clinton criminality still being swept under the rug. While the Clintons were using their positions of power to enrich themselves with a level of greed that makes Cohen's look like kid stuff, they were never investigated or charged. Everything the Clintons ever did was for themselves. Hillary's stint as Secretary of State was just a four-year get-rich-quick scheme. The $145M she took for authorizing the sale of US uranium to Russia was only one of her illegal ventures to pad her personal wealth. The Clintons robbed Haiti of billions meant for rebuilding that devastated nation; Chelsea got a fancy wedding out of that pile of dough." • McCarthy rightly points out : "The DC swamp is indeed filled with scoundrels, nearly all of them members of the media, the Democratic Party, and the intelligence institutions that were weaponized by Obama. Comey, McCabe, Brennan, and Clapper and the crowd of miscreants at the FBI, the CIA, and the DOJ all colluded to bring down Trump the candidate, then Trump the President with wholly fabricated accusations, illegal surveillance, and falsified material. Then there are the usual suspects -- Schiff, Nadler, Schumer, Pelosi, Waters, etc. -- who intend to see the President impeached no matter what it takes. Each of them has likely committed much more serious crimes -- financial, ethical, and constitutional -- than Trump ever did. Not one of them has ever, in all their collective years in office, accomplished a fraction of what Trump has done for the good of America in two short years." • • • AMERICANS CAN BE PROUD OF THE REPUBLICANS ON THE HOUSE COMMITTEE. The Republicans on the committee were truth stars, especially ranking Committee member Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows. • Jim Jordan's opening speech got it right, calling the Committee hearings a feeble attempt by people who hate Trump so much that they have bled their own characters dry of any shred of class or love of country. Jordan in his opening statement tore into the Democrats for calling Cohen to testify, emphasizing Cohen’s guilty plea to previously lying to Congress. “The first announced witness for the 116th Congress is a guy who is going to prison in two months for lying to Congress,” Jordan said. Jordan also accused Democrats on holding the hearing so they can later try to impeach the President. At the start of Wednesday’s House Oversight Committee hearing on the testimony of convicted criminal and disbarred former attorney to President Donald Trump, Michael Cohen, Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) claimed that CNN obtained Cohen's statement and exhibits before the committee did. Representative Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) had objected to the start of hearing, on the grounds that committee rules require that members be given any testimony-related materials 24 hours prior to the meeting, but some were not provided until just before the hearing : 'Rule 9(f) of the committee rules say that any testimony from your witness needs to be here 24 hours in advance. The committee, the chairman knows well that, at 10:08, we received the written testimony. And, then we received evidence, this morning, at 7:54. Now, if this was just an oversight, Mr. Chairman, I could look beyond it. But, it was an intentional effort by this witness and his advisors to, once again, show his disdain for this body. And, with that, I move that we postpone this hearing.' Representative Jordan repeatedly asked to be recognized while Meadows sparred with Committee Chairman Representative Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) and, when called upon, made the claim : 'You know who had this material before all the members of the committee? CNN had it before we did. CNN had the exhibits before we did.' 'Yeah, well, the vote is on the motion to postpone,' Cumming replied, dismissing Jordan’s comment and moving on." Actually, Cummings admitted the Committee received the testimony “late last night.” The Democrat-controlled Committee voted to reject the GOP call to postpone. In his opening statement, Cummings acknowledged that Cohen “repeatedly lied in the past,” calling it an “important factor we need to weigh.” He said if Cohen doesn’t tell the truth, he’ll refer him to the Justice Department for prosecution. But Cummings said the hearing is important for understanding the President’s past actions, saying “the days of this committee protecting the President at all costs are over.” • It was Meadows who tweeted : "As Michael Cohen speaks, think about how remarkable it is : a man convicted of LYING to Congress is now appearing before Congress again...just weeks later. Invited by the Democrats as their star 'witness.' And all the while, the left hails his every word as gospel." Representative Meadows hit Michael Cohen with a criminal referral accusing him of violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) while Cohen was still testifying. During the hearing, Meadows asked Cohen about his apparent failure to list his contracts with foreign entities when he positioned himself as a gatekeeper to the Trump administration, including one company that reportedly paid Cohen $1.2 million to provide advice on dealings with the administration : "Meadows: 'I’m going to back to the question I asked before with regards to your false statement that you submitted to Congress. On here it was very clear that it asks for contracts with foreign entities over the last two years. Have you had any foreign contracts with foreign entities whether it’s Novartis or the Korean Airline or KazakhstanBTA bank? Your testimony earlier said that you had contracts with them. In fact, you went into detail.' Cohen: 'They are not government agencies, they are privately and publicly traded companies.' Meadows: 'Did you have foreign contracts over the last two years?' Cohen: 'Foreign contracts?' Meadows: 'Contracts with foreign entities?' Cohen: 'Yes.' Not long after, Meadows tweeted the following -- while Cohen was still testifying to the committee : '@RepMarkMeadows I just entered a referral for criminal investigation of Michael Cohen, who violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act by illegally lobbying on behalf of foreign entities without registering.' " During Cohen’s hearing, Meadows chastised Cohen for not listing his “foreign contracts” on a "Truth and Testimony" form he was required to fill out prior to his hearing, and called it a “criminal offense. This is just one more example of you skirting the truth,” Meadows said to Cohen. Cohen explained that he reviewed the form with his legal counsel, and interpreted the directions differently, but would amend the document before the end of the day if necessary." AND, Meadows grilled Cohen about his characterization of the President as "racist" and asked for proof. Cohen said there were no black executives at the Trump organization. Meadows began by pointing out that Lynne Patton, who served as vice president of the Eric Trump Foundation, who was in attendance at the hearing, said she would never work for someone she felt was racist : "MEADOWS: Do you know Lynne Patton? COHEN: Yes, I do. MEADOWS: I asked Lynne to come today in her personal capacity to actually shed some light -- how long have you known Ms. Patton? COHEN: I’m responsible for Lynn Patton joining the Trump organization in the job that she currently holds. MEADOWS: I’m glad you acknowledged that, because you made some very demeaning comments about the President that Ms. Patton doesn’t agree with. In fact, it has to do with your claim of racism. She says that as a daughter of a man born in Birmingham, Alabama, that there is no way that she would work for an individual who was racist. How do you reconcile the two of those? COHEN: As neither should I as the son of a Holocaust survivor." Meadows also asked whether Cohen had tape recordings of Trump saying racist things. Cohen, who admitted to taping the President before, said no. "MEADOWS: But Mr. Cohen, I guess what I’m saying is, I’ve talked to the President over 300 times. I’ve not heard one time a racist comment out of his mouth in private. So how do you reconcile it? Do you have proof of those conversations? COHEN: I would ask you to ask-- MEADOWS: Do you have tape recordings of those conversations? COHEN: No sir. MEADOWS: Well you’ve taped everybody else. Why wouldn’t you have a tape of -- COHEN: That’s also not true, sir. That’s not true. MEADOWS: You haven’t taped anybody? COHEN: I have taped individuals. MEADOWS: How many times have you taped individuals? COHEN: Maybe 100 times over 10 years? MEADOWS: Is that a low estimate? Because I’ve heard it’s over 200 times. COHEN: No, I don’t think. I think it’s approximately about 100 from what I recall, but -- MEADOWS: Do you have proof? Yes or no? COHEN: I do. MEADOWS: Where’s the proof? COHEN: Ask Ms. Patton how many people who are black are executives at the Trump Organization, and the answer is zero. MEADOWS: Mr. Cohen, we can go through this. I would ask unanimous consent that her entire statement be put in the record. 'Without objection,' Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) said." • • • DID COHEN PERJURE HIMSELF AGAIN THIS WEEK? Fox News's Brooke Singman reported on Thursday : "Texas Republican Representative Will Hurd says he does not believe anything new will be learned from the House Intelligence Committee’s closed door meeting with former Trump attorney Michael Cohen. House Oversight Committee Republicans on Thursday referred ex-Trump attorney Michael Cohen to the Justice Department for alleged perjury, claiming he lied during sworn testimony before the panel a day earlier about a number of issues including his ambitions to work in the Trump administration and contracts with foreign entities. Committee Ranking Member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Representative Mark Meadows, R-N.C., penned a letter Thursday to newly sworn-in Attorney General William Barr, citing evidence that Cohen 'committed perjury' during his hearing before the committee on Wednesday. • Here are excerpts from the Jordan-Meadows letter to AG Barr : "We write to refer significant evidence that Michael D. Cohen committed perjury and knowingly made false statements during his testimony before an Oversight and Reform Committee hearing. While testifying under oath, Mr. Cohen made what appear to be numerous willfully and intentionally false statements of material fact contradicted by the record established by the Justice Department in United States v. Cohen....Mr. Cohen’s testimony before the Committee at times was in direct contradiction to assertions contained in pleadings authored by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY.) There are other instances in which Mr. Cohen’s statements to the Committee were immediately contradicted by witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the subject matter....This point -- Mr. Cohen’s culpability for bank fraud -- materially affects the Committee’s assessment of his credibility....Mr. Cohen repeatedly testified that he did not seek employment in the White House following President Trump’s election. This is demonstrably, materially, and intentionally false." Jordan and Meadows also cited Cohen’s failure to list foreign contracts on a “Truth and Testimony” form he was required to fill out before the hearing. The Republicans also noted testimony regarding the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford. They claimed that while Cohen testified he was “a good lawyer who understood the need to present his client with sound legal advice,” he also said he made a payment to Daniels “without bothering to consider whether that was improper, much less whether it was the right thing to do.” Jordan and Meadows also said that Cohen made a false statement regarding his involvement with the creation of the Twitter account, @WomenForCohen. Cohen, on Wednesday, claimed he did not create the account, and someone from the firm RedFinch made it. We were having fun during a stressful time,” Cohen said Wednesday. Jordan and Meadows wrote to AG Barr that Cohen reportedly had asked someone to create the account to “elevate his profile.” The letter said that Cohen's testimony "was a spectacular and brazen attempt to knowing and willfully testify falsely and fictitiously to numerous material facts." They claimed the testimony included "intentionally false statements designed to make himself look better on a national stage," adding : "Mr. Cohen's prior conviction for lying to Congress merits a heightened suspicion that he has yet again testified falsely before Congress." • • • LIMBAUGH TAKES ON THE COHEN TESTIMONY, WHILE DEMOCRATS FUNDRAISE ON IT. Rush Limbaugh on Wednesday called Michael Cohen’s public congressional hearing the “official unveiling of the Democrats’ impeachment process of President Trump.” Limbaugh said : “All of this is about ongoing retribution for Donald Trump, getting even with Donald Trump for having dared to beat Hillary Clinton. But never forget this, folks. If anybody, including Cohen, had evidence that would send Donald Trump away, I guarantee you he would get a plea deal that does not include jail time. The fact that Michael Cohen is going to jail is proof positive to me that he doesn’t have diddly-squat in terms of legality or illegality on Trump....And we have just learned that Cohen has been coordinating all of this with Democrats. And why wouldn’t he? This is his ticket out. This is his ticket to a reduced time in jail. Lanny Davis, it may as well be Hillary Clinton sitting behind Michael Cohen....There are two things going on here : punishment of Trump for having won, smearing him, destroying him, family, anything else they can destroy. But at the same time, they want to proceed on this impeachment pathway because they must really be worried that Trump could get reelected." • The Democratic National Committee and Senator Elizabeth Warren both used Michael Cohen’s highly anticipated congressional testimony in fundraising pleas addressed to supporters Wednesday. Senator Elizabeth Warren's email read : "Under oath and in an open session of Congress, one of Donald Trump’s most trusted advisors implicated him in criminal activity while he’s been in the White House. Our criminal justice system is hanging on and doing its job -- the truth is coming out -- despite unprecedented, relentless, and potentially illegal pressure from Donald Trump and his associates in and out of government. But here’s the biggest threat right now : Donald Trump, or the next President, using the pardon power to cover up and permanently excuse this wrongdoing.” The Democratic National Committee also sent out a fundraising text that read : “Michael Cohen’s testimony makes this clear : Trump is a threat to our country. It’s up to us to make him a one-term President.” • The fact is, as Rush Limbaugh alluded to, that Cohen has been cooperating with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation since November. He appeared before the House Oversight and Reform Committee Wednesday to testify against Trump, comparing the President to a mobster and calling him a “racist” and “conman.” BUT, he refused to accuse Trump of collusion with Russia -- instead, he told the Committee that the President’s “desire to win would have him work with anyone.” Michael Cohen is scheduled to begin a three-year prison term soon after he was convicted of financial crimes, campaign-finance violations, and lying to Congress late last year. IF he had given Mueller ANY evidence that could serve s the basis for an impeachment against President Trump, Michael Cohen would still be "negotiating" -- that is, singing to Mueller. There would have been no sentencing. • Republican National Committee (RNC) chairwoman Ronna McDaniel also slammed House Democrats for holding the public hearing s Trump negotiates with Kim this week : “During President Obama’s last year in office, North Korea was firing a missile every 24 days. Under @realDonaldTrump, it’s been 457 days without a missile launch. Now Democrats are using Michael Cohen -- an established liar -- to distract from this historic progress overseas. Let’s be clear : This is a total sideshow to distract from @realDonaldTrump’s accomplishments overseas. Democrats have invited someone to testify to Congress who is literally going to jail, in part, for lying to Congress under oath." • Of course, the propagandist media jumped onboard the Cohen bandwagon even before he began his testimony. The hearing was framed as everything from an impeachment “test drive” for Democrats to “a bullet right to the heart of the investigation into the President.” Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd declared at the start of NBC’s live special coverage : “Look, let’s call it what it is. If there is an impeachment inquiry against the President of the United States, today is day one. Today will be viewed, in hindsight, as the unofficial start of this.” Hiding behind a disclaimer that it was “not to say that is what we’re watching today,” Todd nevertheless crowed : “...in many ways, what the Oversight Committee, what House Democrats are doing is essentially starting to test drive an impeachment procedure and Michael Cohen is the star attraction for day one.” • • • A LOOK AT THIS WEEK'S COHEN LIES. Here they are, called by InfoWars "inconsistencies and potential lies" : "(1.) Cohen said Roger Stone told Trump in July he spoke with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange about the release of Hillary Clinton’s emails. Assange publicly announced his intention to release Clinton’s emails in June of 2016 (after already releasing a trove in March 2016), shortly after former FBI Director James Comey exonerated Clinton. So even IF Stone made Trump aware of the email dumps, it was already publicly known. WikiLeaks issued a statement shortly after Cohen’s claim detailing as much. 'STATEMENT on Michael Cohen testimony to Congress: WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange has never had a telephone call with Roger Stone. WikiLeaks publicly teased its pending publications on Hillary Clinton and published 30k of her emails on 16 March 2016. https://t.co/XcH75u3kbu' — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) February 27, 2019. (2.) Cohen denied having a desire to work at the White House after Trump was elected. In an exchange with Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Cohen stated he did not want to work at the White House. Rep. Jordan: 'How long did you work in the White House?' Michael Cohen: 'I never worked in the White House.' Rep. Jordan: 'That’s the point, isn't it?' But even CNN had to point out his lie, noting it was well-known that Cohen did in fact want to work at the White House, and badly. CNN Anchors call out Michael Cohen for lying to Congress about "not wanting" a job in the White House. pic.twitter.com/krQK1QhjHB' — Jon Nicosia (@NewsPolitics) February 27, 2019. 'Hahahaha Michael Cohen begged to work at the White House and everyone knows it.' — Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) February 27, 2019 (3.) Cohen admitted to being a foreign agent for Kazakhstan despite failing to register as one. This violates the Foreign Agents Registrations Act, according to Representative Mark Meadows (R-NC), who then put forward a criminal referral for Cohen. (4.) Cohen told Congress he never defrauded a bank despite pleading guilty to bank fraud. 'Michael Cohen pled guilty to making false statements to a financial institution, i.e. bank fraud, yet he just testified that he never defrauded a bank. He literally just lied to Congress again.' — John Cardillo (@johncardillo) February 27, 2019. (5.) Cohen stated that he’s never been to Prague, which contradicts assertions from the infamous Steele Dossier. Either Cohen is lying, or the Steele Dossier fabricated the claim Cohen traveled to Prague to meet with 'Kremlin officials' to discuss payments to whoever “hacked” Hillary Clinton. • • • WHY ARE THE DEMOCRATS SUBJECTING THEMSELVES TO RIDICULE BY RELYING ON COHEN? It's unclear why the Democrat-led House Oversight Committee would want Cohen as their star witness against Trump, given his zero-credibility because of his history of lying to Congress, the IRS, and several financial institutions. • In at least one way, Michael Cohen resembles Paul Manafort, whom the Democrats have shredded. Both men tried to bolster their already in-place network of foreign and domestic clients by adding the cachet of having THE client -- Donald and then President Trump. Their work for foreign clients is particularly similar. And, last week, Jordan and Meadows first addressed the issue in a letter to Cohen attorney Lanny Davis, to seek information about Cohen’s “consulting, lobbying and foreign agent work.” The letter cited information from the US Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) -- where Cohen had been under criminal investigation -- which outlined “a substantial amount of consulting business for himself throughout 2017 by marketing to corporations what he claimed to be unique insights about and access" to Donald Trump. “Cohen’s list of major domestic and foreign corporate clients included AT&T, Novartis, BTA Bank of Kazakhstan, Columbus Nova and Korea Aerospace Industries,” Jordan and Meadows wrote, listing the financial deals between Cohen and the corporations. The letter stated that AT&T paid Cohen $600,000 for insight on how the Trump administration would approach the proposed merger with Time Warner; Novartis paid Cohen $1.2 million for access to the White House on health care policy; BTA Bank paid Cohen a “large sum” under a business agreement; Russian-linked company Columbus Nova paid him $500,000 for advice on sources of “capital” and potential investments; and Korea Aerospace Industries paid $150,000 for “legal consulting” related to a Pentagon contract the company was bidding on. Like Paul Manafort, was been charged with violations for not disclosing his lobbying activities with Ukraine, Michael Cohen is in the same dubious boat. WHY would the Democrats stick their collective neck out for such an unwholesome liar?? • WHY are the House Democrats beginning their "impeach Trump" effort by parading Cohen in front of America and a GOP minority that has all the Cohen facts and sordid history? Cohen has been under criminal investigation as part of a grand jury probe into his personal business dealings, including bank fraud and his tax business, since April 2018, when the FBI raided his home, office and hotel room to seize a collection of documents as part of the SDNY’s criminal probe. In August, Cohen pleaded guilty to five counts of tax evasion, one count of making false statements to a financial institution, one count of willfully causing an unlawful corporate contribution, and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution. The excessive contribution concerned a $130,000 payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels in exchange for her silence about an alleged one-time sexual encounter with Trump several years before he became President. Stormy Daniels told Michael Cohen : "I'm proud of you" for "beginning to tell the truth" about his actions in public testimony before the House Oversight Committee. • WHY would the House Democrats -- and we can be sure their effort was coordinated with Schiff, Schumer and the DNC -- deal with Clinton "fixer" Lanny Davis, besmirching the integrity of Elijah Cummings House Oversight Committee by pre-planning Cohen's testimony? The Democrats certainly know that Lanny Davis reportedly established a GoFundMe account for Cohen’s legal and other expenses last August after Cohen pled guilty in federal court to eight federal crimes. The account is named the Michael Cohen Truth Fund. The GoFundMe page has since been edited to remove the purpose for legal expenses. Cohen told Congress at a hearing Wednesday that Cohen is representing him free of charge, but that he hoped to pay Davis when he gets out of prison in three years and begins earning an income again. Representative Jody Hice, a Georgia Republican, asked Cohen at the hearing : "Who is paying Lanny Davis?" Cohen : "At the present moment, no one." Hice: "So he's doing all this work for nothing?" Cohen: "Yes, sir. And I hope so." Representative Jordan was in disbelief that Davis is willing to wait three years. Cohen answered: “I guess he thinks it’s important.” As of Wednesday afternoon, the account has raised $204,850 of a stated goal of $500,000. Cohen’s appearance before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform seems to be driving donations as observed by the steady stream of contributions recorded at the page Wednesday. So, the US Congress is being used to raise funds to pay Clintonista fixer Lanny Davis for helping a convicted liar -- thanks to these Insane Democrats. • WHY would the Democrats choose to highlight a convicted liar who calls President Trump a "racist" despite all of reality proving that he is not.?? Candace Owens taunted Michael Cohen Wednesday morning after Trump’s former lawyer testified that Donald Trump is a “racist” and a “con man.” Owens immediately dropped in a little surprise, tweeting out a private Twitter message Michael Cohen sent her last summer and asked, “Should I go nuclear on Michael Cohen Who I know from years ago and who tried to approach me last summer to help 'change the narrative' (also known as LIE) about the President? Because I’m thinking I should. This coward plotted this entire “racist” lie to save himself.” • • • DEAR READERS, perhaps the biggest WHY is why the House Democrats -- who helped prepare Cohen for his Oversight Committee testimony -- did not know that he would finally refuse to play ball on the key issue. Cohen specifically testified that he lacks direct evidence of improper collusion by the Trump campaign with Russia -- a significant admission, given Cohen's longtime status as the President's former top lawyer and fixer. We now know why Michael Green is going to prison for three years instead of being milked and coddled by special counsel Robert Mueller. There is NO EVIDENCE of Trump collusion with Russia, or as the Democrats are now calling it -- conspiracy. But, this testimony also raises questions -- once more -- about the entire Mueller investigation. • AND, Cohen stated conclusively that Donald Trump never asked him to lie to Congress. Cohen also indicated that the rumors about a "love child" are false, that Trump did not abuse drugs, that he has a large ego and bought a portrait for an inflated price. • AND, while Cohen presented a check to proves Trump engaged in campaign illegalities, as legal experts have said many times, if a personal reason (keeping his wife from finding out) exists to make the payments, then the election campaign rationale is almost certainly not relevant. One can argue that President Trump misled the public about his knowledge of Stormy Daniels and others, but this is not illegal. Cohen did indicate that he sent bills for his work. • AND, Cohen did solicit business based upon his connection with Trump as President. He admitted to several contracts. Self-benefit was a clear motivator for him. • Cohen did given testimony to Trump inflating his assets for beneficial banking. He also stated that Trump reduced assets for tax breaks, these issues are for taxing authorities to understand and negotiate with Trump's tax accounting and legal team. They usually lead to fines and refiling the complicated corporate tax returns of real estate groups. • To summarize -- the move to impeach Trump was given some boosts yesterday by partisan Democrats, but little in the way of "high crimes and misdemeanors" was demonstrated by the President while in office. As Patricia McCarthy put it : "The anti-Trump crowd will feel that this hearing was fruitful, but I suspect that most Americans found the hype misleading and hardly worth the effort. With this stunt, the Democratic Party has further demeaned itself, humiliated itself....the Democrats and their handmaidens in the media are busy pretending Michael Cohen's 'testimony' is valid. It is not. He is just this week's Punchinello of the imploding Democratic Party." • And the answer to every "WHY" question is that the Democrats are using Michael Cohen because they have NO EVIDENCE against President Trump from any reliable source . That is because there is NO EVIDENCE.