The Biden problem


Vanity Fair calls the Biden nepotism as a 2020 scandal

Vanity Fair recognizes the political-dynasty-wrecking potential of the Biden problem.

Hunter Biden at V.P. Joe Biden’s lectern

In a move sure to trigger 2016 P.T.S.D., The New York Times has published a nearly 3,000-word tale of intrigue involving the Biden family’s various entanglements in Ukraine. In short, the story is this: in the final year of the Obama presidency, Vice President Joe Biden “threatened to withhold $1 billion in United States loan guarantees if Ukraine’s leaders did not dismiss the country’s top prosecutor”—Viktor Shokin—“who had been accused of turning a blind eye to corruption in his own office and among the political elite.” The pressure campaign also just so happened to benefit Biden’s younger son, Hunter, who was then getting paid as much as $50,000 to sit on the board of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company that was in Shokin’s sights. The question the Times raises, but does not answer, is: were Joe’s and Hunter’s overlapping interests in Ukraine coincidental, or corrupt?

The Bidens say Joe acted “without any regard” for the impact on his son, and that Hunter never discussed private business with his father. But of course, that seems unlikely to put this story to rest. The current Ukrainian prosecutor general recently decided to reopen the investigation into Burisma, which could unearth new details about Hunter’s work. No surprise, the story is also being heavily promoted by Donald Trump and his allies, including lawyer Rudy Giuliani. According to the Times, Giuliani has met repeatedly with both the ousted Ukrainian prosecutor and the new prosecutor, and has discussed his findings with Trump—who then suggested he would like Attorney General William Barr to look into the matter. (Perhaps that is why Barr was at a loss for words on Wednesday, when Senator Kamala Harris asked whether “the president or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone.”)

Times reporter Ken Vogel, presumably seeking to pre-empt accusations of water-carrying, explained on Twitter that the paper’s interest in the subject predates Trump. “TO BE CLEAR: Independent of @RudyGiuliani’s efforts, the intersection of @JoeBiden & HUNTER BIDEN in Ukraine warrants scrutiny,” he said, noting that the Times had begun reporting on the Burisma story in 2015. Some within the Obama State Department, too, were concerned with the appearance of impropriety, or the possibility that Hunter’s business could complicate his father’s diplomatic efforts. (“I have had no role whatsoever in relation to any investigation of Burisma, or any of its officers,” Hunter Biden told the Times in a statement. “I explicitly limited my role to focus on corporate governance best practices to facilitate Burisma’s desire to expand globally.”)

Nevertheless, the Times report dovetails with Trumpworld efforts to get the Biden-Ukraine story in the news. The Hill reported in April on Joe Biden’s 2020 Ukrainian nightmare. More recently, the right-wing American Greatness and conservative-leaning Fox News both highlighted stories about the Biden family’s entanglements in Ukraine. MAGA-friendly outlets Breitbart and The Daily Wire made hay of the story on Thursday, leveraging the journalistic credibility of the Times.

The Burisma affair—whether coincidence or scandal—may be just the first volley in what is likely to become a broader war over Joe Biden’s conduct and record. Past speculation about Biden family drama has centered on Hunter’s documented struggle with drug use and his recently ended relationship with his late brother’s widow. But the bigger threat might actually be Hunter’s past business enterprises. Already, there’s another attack line looming on the horizon: in his latest book, Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends, Breitbart editor-at-large Peter Schweizer describes how a private-equity firm managed by Hunter Biden, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, negotiated a $1.5 billion investment deal with the state-owned Bank of China at the same time that his father, then the vice president, was conducting high-level diplomacy with Beijing. (On one of his trips, Hunter allegedly made use of Air Force Two.) Whether or not the Chinese hoped to curry favor with Hunter’s father, Trump allies are sure to make note of the issue, especially given Joe Biden’s controversial remark this week downplaying China as an economic competitor. (A spokesman for Hunter Biden disputed Schweizer’s claims to the Journal.)

(Watch the normally-liberal media rip Biden a new one at Vanity Fair)

The central part of the Biden problem is Joe Biden

Much as Joe Biden did much to deep-six race relations by fighting for segregation in the 1970’s and by stumbling verbally around his 2008 running mate (when he called Obama “the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy“), Joe Biden has worked as his own worst enemy. Whether we consider the corruption centering on Crowdstrike (the Democrats’ private online investigators) or just his stumbling comments on the campaign trail, Joe Biden continually does more to destroy his campaign than his opponents could ever hope to do.

Giuliani Promises To Release Incriminating Evidence On Biden

A 23 September 2019 article in the Daily Caller describes some of the steps former Mayor Giuliani has promised to take in dealing with the Biden problem.

Former NYC Mayor Giuliani

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said Monday that he has “a lot more evidence” on Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s dealings with Ukraine, adding in that Biden’s son Hunter is “drug challenged.”

After telling CNN’s Chris Cuomo on Thursday that he asked Ukraine to look into Biden, Trump’s personal lawyer went after Biden for multiple alleged offenses related to Ukraine. He tweeted Monday that Ukraine paid Hunter $3 million in laundered money while his father and Obama looked the other way.

Giuliani told Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo on Monday that he would continue to unearth evidence against the Bidens.

“There’s a lot more evidence I’m going to put out,” Giuliani said on “Mornings with Maria.” “I put one out today — money-laundering. I’ve got a bigger one for tomorrow, a bigger one for the day after.”

Trump’s personal attorney added that the situation is a positive for Trump because it puts the spotlight on Biden.

“It’s the only way you can get this out,” Giuliani said. “The only way that they [the media] would cover this story is by punching the president in the face, and then the president deflects the punch — which he’s done — the story’s come way down from where it was, and then he hits ’em with a right hand that’s more powerful.”

During the conversation about Biden’s alleged conversations with Ukraine, Giuliani took a hit at Hunter, saying he is “drug challenged,” adding in that Joe Biden “fails at everything.” Hunter has struggled with drug and alcohol addiction throughout his life, according to an interview published in The New Yorker in July.

As the criminals who beleaguered New York would know, Giuliani does not make idle threats

Although I cannot tell you what the surprise might be, if Giuliani tells us that Biden has a surprise coming, then you can make book on that surprise appearing.

Biden’s Nepotism and Hypocrisy in Ukraine

Canada Free Press provided an op-ed comment by James A. Lyons, Jr. Admiral, USN (ret.) on the problem of nepotism created by Joe Biden.

With no oilfield experience, Hunter Biden got a job at a Ukrainian oil company paying $50K/month for years

U.S. relations with Ukraine have dramatically flourished under President Trump, in contrast to the poor state of the Washington-Kiev strategic alliance under former President Obama. While the Trump national security team approved the sale of Javelin anti-tank missile systems and sniper rifles to Ukraine, the Obama administration vetoed similar sales of lethal weapons, leaving Ukraine to face Russia alone. An equally important aspect of U.S. support for Ukraine has been in reforms and the fight against corruption, which the Obama administration also undermined by nepotism and hypocrisy.

Former CIA Director and Defense Secretary Robert Gates famously wrote in his memoir that Joe Biden “has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.” Now that the former vice president is considering yet another presidential run, voters should always remember some of Amtrak Joe’s golden oldies, including: dismissing North Korea as a “paper tiger”, stating that the Taliban is not America’s enemy, and embracing China’s one-child policy. But, it would be hard to name another sitting vice president whose reckless nepotism impacted another country, as Biden did with Ukraine.

Vice President Biden routinely complained about “backsliding” over Ukraine’s fight against corruption, while at the same time, his son, Hunter, with no background in the gas industry, earned a huge salary as a consultant to gas mogul Mykola Zlochevsky’s Burisma Holdings, which is mired in allegations of corruption. This example of nepotism is, as reported in The Washington Post, a problem for U.S. soft power as Hunter Biden’s appointment “looks nepotistic at best, nefarious at worst.” Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Steven Pifer said the lack of due diligence in the Vice President’s office was surprising as Hunter Biden’s employment by Burisma “undercut that message of anti-corruption.”

Prior to Burisma, Hunter Biden teamed up with his Yale roommate, Devon Archer to create Rosemont Capital and Rosemont Seneca*. Their first forays were in China, including in a nuclear company under FBI investigation. But the good times did not last, as Archer was charged in May 2016 with “conspiracy to commit securities fraud” against Native Americans.

(Read more about he mafia-like Burisma at the Canada Free Press)

Everybody knows that governments do not hire drugged-out, inexperienced sons for no reason

If it looks like nepotism and smells like nepotism and tastes like nepotism and feels like nepotism, it is probably nepotism.

Joe Biden bragged about getting the Ukrainian prosecutor who investigated his son fired

The Hill reported in a 1 April 2019 article that Joe Biden really stuck his foot in his mouth by bragging on the way he got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired. To magnify the situation, he did it in front of the world’s power players (all surrounded by cameras and recorders).

Two years after leaving office, Joe Biden couldn’t resist the temptation last year to brag to an audience of foreign policy specialists about the time as vice president that he strong-armed Ukraine into firing its top prosecutor.

In his own words, with video cameras rolling, Biden described how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn’t immediately fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

“I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’” Biden recalled telling Poroshenko.

BidenAdmits“Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time,” Biden told the Council on Foreign Relations event, insisting that President Obama was in on the threat.

Interviews with a half-dozen senior Ukrainian officials confirm Biden’s account, though they claim the pressure was applied over several months in late 2015 and early 2016, not just six hours of one dramatic day. Whatever the case, Poroshenko and Ukraine’s parliament obliged by ending Shokin’s tenure as prosecutor. Shokin was facing steep criticism in Ukraine, and among some U.S. officials, for not bringing enough corruption prosecutions when he was fired.

But Ukrainian officials tell me there was one crucial piece of information that Biden must have known but didn’t mention to his audience: The prosecutor he got fired was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings that employed Biden’s younger son, Hunter, as a board member.

(Read more at The Hill)

When you hear the Vice President say this, what else needs be heard?

With this bragging on tape, what other proof do we need?

Trump to release whistleblower complaint to Congress: report

According to a 24 September 2019 article at The Hill detailed how President Trump planned to release the whistleblower report to Congress.

The White House is expected to give Congress the whistleblower complaint at the heart of a brewing scandal that has led to a formal House impeachment inquiry against President Trump, a source confirmed to The Hill on Tuesday.

reportPolitico first reported that both the whistleblower complaint and Inspector General report will be released to Congress by the end of the week. The decision marks a reversal for the White House, which had previously declined to provide the documents to lawmakers, even as Trump decried the impeachment inquiry sparked by the controversy as a “witch hunt.”

The official emphasized to Politico that the decision and timing could change, but that the president has agreed to the move.

The White House declined to comment on the record about the matter.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Tuesday announced the House would launch an official impeachment inquiry amid concerns that the president sought to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in a July talk to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter by threatening to withhold military aid.

Trump admitted this week that he mentioned Biden during the call and that he cut off aid to Ukraine days before the conversation. However, he has maintained that there was no quid pro quo discussed during their conversation.

Trump and Republican allies have claimed Biden abused his power during his time as vice president when he pressed Kiev to dismiss a prosecutor who was investigating a natural gas company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch, whose board members included Biden’s son. No evidence has emerged that Biden was acting to protect his son.

The president has already promised to release the official transcript of his phone call with Zelensky, saying it will reveal a “very friendly and totally appropriate call.” However, congressional Democrats say the transcript is insufficient and that the whistleblower complaint, which first expressed alarm over the phone call, is needed to fully flesh out the details of the discussion.

(Read more at The Hill)

Another Democrat scheme bites the dust

The President has placed the information out where it can be seen, has been open to answering questions, and has gone to the public with the President of Ukraine. How will the Democrats deny this in light of the many things they have done (via Biden, as mentioned above, and via a set of senators, mentioned below).

Democrats Wrote to Ukraine in May 2018, Demanding It Investigate Trump

Breitbart points out in a 24 September 2019 article how three Democrats demanded that the Ukrainian government investigate Trump. (Hat tip to the Chris Salcedo Show)

Democrats wrote to the Ukrainian government in May 2018 urging it to continue investigations into President Donald Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia in the 2016 presidential campaign — collusion later found not to exist.

Durbin-Leahy-MenendezThe demand, which came from U.S. Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), resurfaced Wednesday in an opinion piece written by conservative Marc Thiessen in the Washington Post.

Ironically, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) declared Tuesday that the mere possibility that President Trump had asked Ukraine to continue an investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden — even without a quid pro quo — was enough to trigger an impeachment inquiry. (Biden boasted in 2018 that he had forced Ukraine to remove its prosecutor by threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid; he did not tell his audience at the Council on Foreign Relations that the prosecutor was looking into a firm on whose board his son, Hunter Biden, was serving.)

Thiessen observed (original links):

It got almost no attention, but in May [2018], CNN reported that Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) wrote a letter to Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, expressing concern at the closing of four investigations they said were critical to the Mueller probe. In the letter, they implied that their support for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake. Describing themselves as “strong advocates for a robust and close relationship with Ukraine,” the Democratic senators declared, “We have supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President Trump,” before demanding Lutsenko “reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this important investigation.”

The Democrats’ letter is available online here. In it, Menendez, Durbin, and Leahy demanded that the Ukrainian government answer their questions about the Mueller probe, and issued an implied threat: “This reported refusal to cooperate with the Mueller probe also sends a worrying signal — to the Ukrainian people as well as the international community — about your government’s commitment more broadly to support justice and the rule of law.”

(Read more at Breitbart)

If demanding investigation from Ukraine of political opposition is impeachable, these senators must be impeached

Senators Leahy, Durbin, and Menendez must be impeached if, as the accusers of President Trump are correct. If using the United States governmental power to compel a foreign government to investigate a political opponent is impeachable — then impeach them.

If it is not an impeachable offense, please bug off.

Democrats break rank

Democrats in the House of Representatives stand up

Democrat Elaine Luria proposes end to shutdown

Congress agitates to end relentless shutdown

Certain Democrats may be working around the senseless leadership in the House according to a 22 January 2019 story in Politico.

A group of centrist House Democrats, sick of political posturing, is pressing Speaker Nancy Pelosi to counter Trump’s immigration proposal with her own potential compromise. The group, led by freshman Rep. Elaine Luria of Virginia, is asking the California Democrat to offer Trump a vote on his border wall or some sort of negotiated security package in February if he first signs a bill reopening the federal government, according to a draft of the letter obtained by POLITICO.

(Read more at Politico)

As of the writing of this blog post, Trump has offered:

  1. A three-year reprieve from deportation for DACA program recipients,
  2. A similar protection for TPS program recipients,
  3. A reduction to 100 miles of wall built under this bill,
  4. $800 million for humanitarian assistance along the border,
  5. $805 million for drug detection technology, and
  6. 2,750 border agents, more law enforcement officials, and teams of immigration judges.

In response, Pelosi:

  1. Complained that the three-year reprieve for DACA and TPS is not permanent.

    (She should note that it would get anyone who played their cards right into the next presidential term — but she seems to be a nearsighted idiot.)

  2. Passed a continuing resolution that would re-open the departments of government supportive of the Democrats

    (Never mind that this had no prayer of being signed because Trump announced during the summer of 2018 that he would not sign another continuing resolution.)

  3. Passed bills that would open agencies supportive of the Democrats

Still, with this one-sided conversation, most of the media coverage has focused on putting Trump and the Republicans in charge of the shutdown. I guess if your educational system is built of a model of teaching kids to repeat stupid lines back rather than thinking for themselves, this should be expected.

Senator Joe Donnelly pledges to consider both sides

Moderate Democrats want Nancy Pelosi to make counteroffer to stop shutdown

This breaking of ranks may have been in the works for a little while according to a 11 January 2019 Washington Post

Some of the most influential senators in the new Congress are neither in the majority nor among the longest-serving. They don’t show up on the Sunday-morning talk shows, and they aren’t talking about running for president in 2016.

Instead, they’re a pack of Democrats from mostly smaller, rural states who are inclined to work with Republicans on legislation President Obama doesn’t support. They may even be willing to help the GOP override his vetoes.

Some of them support building the Keystone XL oil pipeline and are expected to be active as the Senate begins to debate the issue this week. Others want Congress to pass tougher sanctions against Iran, and all are open to making changes to Obama’s health-care law. All three issues have drawn veto threats from the White House in recent days.

One of the biggest unanswered questions about the week-old Congress is whether the new Republican majority will be able to overcome Capitol Hill’s culture of stifling partisanship and cultivate enough Democratic support to challenge Obama.

These moderate Democrats say they will cooperate if Republicans don’t use the Senate floor to score political points — as Democrats have done over the past several years. They have big expectations for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who will need to keep his larger conference unified while sustaining his promise to allow a more open and nonpartisan debate process.

Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), who is firmly planted in the middle of both parties, said he’ll support bills “that both Republicans and Democrats who sit down and talk to each other think will make things better for us. I think you’ll see that extreme legislation — whether right or left — is going to go nowhere.”

(Read more at Washington Post)

While I put a lot of the blame for the lack of border wall funding on Pelosi, I also blame McConnell for not using the nuclear option the Democrats used to force through Obamacare.

But what do you expect from Democrats? Do you expect them to compromise after 8 years of the no-compromise Obama?

Democrats in the media stand up

Tom Brokaw says Democrats as much to blame as Republicans

Tom Brokaw says Democrats as much to blame as Republicans as shutdown drags on| Senate may vote Thursday on Trump’s offer

Even one of the mainstays of the main stream media has given San Fran Nan the old heave-ho according to a 22 January 2019 article in Market Watch.

As shutdown drags on, Tom Brokaw says Democrats as much to blame as Republicans: The ongoing partial government shutdown has now lasted a record 32 days, and veteran newsman Tom Brokaw is wagging his finger at all of Washington.

“I think the Democrats are as much to blame right now as the Republicans are,” Brokaw said Tuesday in an appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program. “They’ve got control of the House, but they’re mostly just ‘Yeah, yeah, yeah. We’re not going to do you want to do.’ I haven’t seen a grand plan.”

Recent polls of voters show President Donald Trump and his fellow Republicans getting blamed for the shutdown more than Democratic lawmakers. Some “Morning Joe” viewers were quick to criticize Brokaw, with tweets along the lines of “Tom Brokaw piling on the both sides — absolutely NOT. This is the Republicans.”

Brokaw on Tuesday also blasted Democratic newcomers to Congress, without naming names. He said: “You’ve got the young people running through the halls who are the new members of Congress — who are conducting pep rallies every day, instead of getting together with the more moderate people. … They’re being driven hard by the left, so it’s a time of great chaos.” The longtime NBC anchor said people around the country are asking him when Democrats and Republicans will “get together and talk to each other.”

Of course, a Twitter personality jumped up to defend Pelosi against the observation of Tom Brokaw. (At about 10:00 a.m. on 22 January 2019, I was certain I had seen vile comments against the Covington Catholic School kids on this account; however, by noon, there was no tweet regarding the high school kids on her account. In retrospect, I hope that the tweet against the high school kids was never there; however, if it was posted and then removed, I wholeheartedly support the concepts of repentance and redemption. If it was never there, I hope all will forgive my mistake.)

Considering the January 2019 Rasmussen poll saying that 53% of likely US voters want border security, the AFA poll showing strong support for the wall, and the June 2018 Harvard/Harris poll showing 65% approval of the border wall, you would think that the Democrats might start to come around.

FedEx, Starbucks, Disney, & over 100 companies give Trump tax bonuses

FedEx announces wage increases, bonuses amid Trump‘s tax reform

A 26 January 2018 article in The Hill trumpets how FedEx has responded to Trump’s tax reduction.

FedEx announced wage increases, employee bonuses and pension funding on Friday, citing the new Republican-backed tax-reform plan.

The company announced that two-thirds of $200 million in increased compensation will go to hourly employees, while the remainder will be put toward performance-based incentive plans for salaried employees.

FedEx also said $1.5 billion will be put toward the company’s pension plan and another $1.5 billion would go toward expanding the company’s hub in Indianapolis.

“FedEx believes the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will likely increase [gross domestic product] and investment in the United States,” the company said on its website.

(Read more at The Hill)

For the months preceding Trump’s tax cut bill, the stock market has been responding stupendously to Trump’s removal of Obama regulations. Now that some of the population has started to recover from the Obama economy, it should not be surprising to find that no Democrats voted for this tax relief bill.

Starbucks gives workers raises, stock grants due to Trump tax law

The New York Daily News announced in a 24 January 2018 article how baristas will be getting a lift.

Starbucks is giving its U.S. workers pay raises and stock grants this year, citing recent changes to the tax law.

All employees will soon be able to earn paid sick time off, and the company’s parental leave benefits will include all non-birth parents. Starbucks Corp. said Wednesday that the changes affect about 150,000 full-time, part-time, hourly and salaried employees, most of whom work as baristas or shop managers. The new benefits apply to workers at more than 8,200 company-owned stores but not at the 5,700 licensed shops like those found inside supermarkets.

Starbucks is the latest to say it’s boosting pay or benefits due to the passage of the Republican tax plan, which slashed the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. Walmart, for example, raised its starting hourly salary from $9 to $11 earlier this month, and also expanded its parental leave benefits.

Beyond changes to the tax law, other factors are affecting retail working conditions. Larger employers are having a hard time attracting and keeping workers because of historically low unemployment rates. Job seekers can be pickier about where they work, and companies are trying to make themselves more attractive. Target had also announced in October that it would raise its starting hourly wage to $11, and said it would raise wages to $15 by the end of 2020.

Starbucks said workers will get a pay raise in April, their second increase this year. The company declined to specify how much more workers will be paid or what it pays them now. The job and recruiting site Glassdoor says baristas make about $9.60 an hour, based on an average of salaries shared by Starbucks employees.

(Read more at New York Daily News)

At one time, Democrats were the champions of all young people. Now they only sometimes care (until a critical vote comes up) about young thugs that came to the nation illegally.

So, when your favorite millennial (maybe yourself) is sipping a latte, remember that Nancy Pelosi stood against the several thousand dollars going to you (just before she pushed for a big cut for herself).

Disney to Give Employees $1,000 Bonuses in Wake of Trump‘s Tax Reform

A 23 January 2018 Bloomberg article details how Disney employees will benefit from the Trump tax cuts.

Walt Disney Co. said it will give employees a one-time cash bonus of $1,000, joining a growing list of companies handing out awards in the wake of federal tax reform.

About 125,000 U.S. employees will be eligible, the company said Tuesday in a statement, putting the cost at $125 million. Disney also plans to put $50 million into a fund to help hourly employees with tuition costs and plans to provide as much as $25 million annually for that purpose afterward.

A union leader late Tuesday accused the company of withholding bonuses for some theme-park workers as leverage in wage talks. Disney didn’t have an immediate comment on those claims. Citing federal law, Disney said earlier it will work with union representatives regarding potential distribution plans for employees currently working under existing union contracts.

(Read more at Bloomberg)

In the past, Democrats helped the union worker. Not now.

As of this February, union workers at Disney and many other shops can thank Republicans for their increased paychecks.

Home Depot announces bonuses for 400,000 workers after Trump tax cut

The Washington Examiner reported on 25 January 2018 that Home Depot will be providing a generous response to the Trump tax cut.

The Home Depot is the latest U.S. corporation to announce bonuses for its employees as a result of the Republican tax reform that passed in December and takes effect in February.

“We are pleased to be able to provide this additional reward to our associates for continuing to deliver outstanding customer service,” Craig Menear, chairman, CEO and president of Home Depot, said in a statement released Thursday morning. “This incremental investment in our associates was made possible by the new tax reform bill.”

The home improvement company’s 400,000 employees can expect a one-time bonus of up to $1,000 during the fourth quarter, which will conclude Jan. 31.

Employees who have been with the company more than 20 years will receive the full $1,000 bonus. Workers of 15 to 19 years will take home $750 while those of 10 to 14 years will receive $400, according to a report.

Workers of five to nine years will get $300, two- to four-year employees will pocket $250, and new hires to those who have been with the company for less than two years will receive a $200 bonus.

Waste Management announces $2K bonus for employees, citing tax bill

A 16 January 2018 issue of Waste Dive announced that Waste Management would also be providing bonuses to their employees in response to the Trump tax cuts.

Waste Management CEO Jim Fish, during a Jan. 12 interview on Fox Business, characterized the company’s recent announcement of $2,000 bonuses for an estimated 34,000 employees as a new way to improve retention and hinted that future wage increases or other bonuses could be possible. “We will continue to spend money on our people,” he said.

Trump’s Tax Bill Prompts Walmart to Raise Starting Wage, Give $1,000 Bonuses to Some Employees

In a 11 January 2018 Newsweek article, the every-town Walmart seems to have been buoyed by the Trump tax cut.

Walmart announced Thursday morning it intends to raise its starting salaries and bolster worker benefits—and the CEO of the much-criticized company credited President Donald Trump’s controversial corporate tax cut for the windfall.

Beginning in February, the retailer’s starting workers will earn $11 an hour—a bump from the current starting wage of $9 an hour, CNBC reported. That wage is far above the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, but keeping pace with several states and below the minimum wage in the state of Washington, where the lowest-level workers now get $11.50 per hour.

Walmart employees with 20 years of experience will also pocket a one-time cash bonus of $1,000, dropping in a sliding scale down to $250 for workers with just two years on the job, a spokesman told CNBC.

The company, which has 1.5 million employees in the U.S., also said it would expand maternity and paternity leave benefits, as well as give up to $5,000 to employees who are adopting a child.

“Tax reform gives us the opportunity to be more competitive globally and to accelerate plans for the U.S.,” CEO Doug McMillon told CNBC. “We are early in the stages of assessing the opportunities.”

More details on benefits are expected when the company reports its quarterly earnings on February 20.

(Read more at Newsweek)

Apple, Capitalizing on New Tax Law, Plans to Bring Billions in Cash Back to U.S.

In the 17 January 2018 New York Times article, the details of Apple Computer’s application of the Trump tax cut are laid out.

Apple, which had long deferred paying taxes on its foreign earnings and had become synonymous with hoarding money overseas, unveiled plans on Wednesday that would bring back the vast majority of the $252 billion in cash that it held abroad and said it would make a sizable investment in the United States.

With the moves, Apple took advantage of the new tax code that President Trump signed into law last month. A provision allows for a one-time repatriation of corporate cash held abroad at a lower tax rate than what would have been paid under the previous tax plan. Apple, which has 94 percent of its total cash of $269 billion outside the United States, said it would make a one-time tax payment of $38 billion on the repatriated cash.

For years, Apple had said it would not bring its foreign earnings back to the United States until the corporate tax code changed, because such a move would be too costly. Now Apple’s bet to hold back on paying such taxes is reaping rewards under the Trump administration.

(Read more at New York Times)

If there is a stronger bastion of liberalism than Apple, I am having a hard time thinking of it. However, despite political leanings, Apple has benefited enough that their employees will see bonuses, their campuses will expand, and other benefits will grow.

Americans for Tax Reform compiles a list of over 100 companies issuing bonuses

Americans for Tax Reform has compiled a list that names over 100 companies and specific details behind the bonuses which originate from the Trump tax rebate.

  • 1st Summit Bank
  • AAON
  • AccuWeather
  • Associated Bank
  • AT&T
  • Atlantic Packaging
  • Citizens Financial Group
  • Coach, Truck & Tractor, LLC
  • Cogent Building Group
  • College of the Ozarks
  • Express Employment Professionals
  • FedEx
  • Fiat Chrysler
  • Fidelity Bank

A message to those who voted against this tax package (all House Democrats)

You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your countrymen or one of your aliens who is in your land in your towns. (Deuteronomy 24:14 NASB)

Things to Celebrate in Football-Observant Houston

The Houston Texans Stood During the National Anthem

In spite of the ever-leftist take of the Houston Chronicle, I interpreted the Houston Texans’ act of standing with locked arms during the anthem as being respectful of the flag and the anthem. If it was also their expression free-speech and defiance of President Trump, then that is their right as Americans.

// so, if these respectful numbnucks don’t figure out that most of the NFL audience leans conservative while all of the leaders in this crowd (the NFL owners, the BLM-sympathizing players, & ESPN) have tipped far, far left. If they don’t watch it, they all might end up with products nobody wants to buy. Still, since J. J. Watts raised $37 million for flood relief, I have a hard time believing the liberal lies from the press. So, I refuse to let the liberals steal my joy on this one.

This Coach had a Chance to Voice His Opinion, Now I have Mine

As Americans, we currently have the freedom of speech. I say “currently” due to the ongoing efforts of antifa and liberals across the nation (especially across the air waves), to silence dissenting speech. Nonetheless, until we surrender it, we have the right to speak differently.  However, it seems that Steelers Coach Mike Tomlin thinks that free speech should be abandoned for group think.

As shown in a 25 September 2017 Breitbart article, Tomlin expressed his firm belief in group think.

Many of them felt like something needed to be done. I asked those guys to discuss it and whatever they discussed that we have 100 percent participation or we do nothing. They discussed it for an appropriate length of time and they couldn’t come to an understanding, so they chose to remove themselves from it. They were not going to be disrespectful in the anthem so they chose not to participate, but at the same time many of them were not going to accept the words of the president.

Surprised? If you are, think of how many other liberal causes require group think and crumble when individuals become isolated.

//, I have more choices than accepting this aberrant behavior as normal, firing the coach, or just giving up football. As for myself, I will stick with the Houston Texans even if they lose games. Their scores off the field have given them a winning edge no matter what.

One Steeler Stood Alone

Although later reports have Villanueva unnecessarily providing an apology for the way he “made coach Tomlin look bad” (the coach did that himself), it was evident that the Steelers Alejandro Villanueva held patriotism and his brothers in arms in more esteem than he did in the spat the NFL currently indulges.

In my estimation, standing alone took some guts.



A Reminder of How the Obama Years Really Were

Obama and Ryan: the architects of the continuing resolutions that skyrocket our taxes

A Study of American Salaries 2013-16 Shows Americans Spend More on Taxes Than Food and Clothing Combined

As revealed by a 30 August 2017 CNSnews article, it seems that our own Bureau of Labor Statistics figures show Americans spend more on taxes than on food and clothing combined.

Americans on average spent more on taxes in 2016 than they did on food and clothing combined, according to data released this week by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The same data also shows that in three years—from 2013 to 2016—the average tax bill for Americans increased 41.13 percent.

In 2016, according to BLS, “consumer units” (which include families, financially independent individuals, and people living in a single household who share expenses) spent more on average on federal, state and local taxes ($10,489) than they did on food ($7,203) and clothing ($1,803) combined ($9,006).

The average tax bill for American “consumer units” increased from $7,423 in 2013 to $10,489 in 2016, according to data released this week by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The tax-and-spending data was collected as part of the BLS’s Consumer Expenditure Survey, which is conducted for the BLS by the Census Bureau. The survey measures the expenditures and incomes of American consumers.

The survey publishes the itemized expenditures of what it refers to as “consumer units,” which include “all members of a particular household who are related by blood, marriage, adoption, or other legal arrangements,” or “a person living alone or sharing a household with others or living as a roomer in a private home or lodging house or in a permanent living quarters in a hotel or motel, but who is financially independent,” or “two or more persons living together who use their income to make joint expenditure decisions.” The BLS said that a consumer unit generally refers to a family.

In 2016, according to the survey, there were 129,549,000 “consumer units” in the United States. The average before-tax income of an American consumer unit was $74,664 for the year. The consumer unit then paid an average of $10,489 in personal taxes—including $8,367 in federal income taxes, $2,046 in state and local income taxes, and $75 in other taxes.

Three years before that, in 2013, according to the survey, there were 125,670,000 “consumer units” in America. The average before-tax income of these consumer units that year was $63,784. In 2013, consumer units paid an average of $7,432 in taxes—including $5,743 in federal income taxes, $1,629 in state and local income taxes, and $60 in other taxes.

From 2013 to 2016, overall personal taxes climbed from $7,432 to $10,489—an increase of $3,057 or 41.13 percent. Federal income taxes climbed from $5,743 to $8,367—an increase of $2,624 or 45.7%.  State and local income taxes climbed from $1,629 to $2,046—an increase of $417 or 25.6 percent. Other taxes climbed from $60 to $75—an increase of $15 or 25 percent.

(Read more at CNSnews)

Until we can get rid of the continuing resolutions and implement Trump’s plan for tax reform, this will remain the same.

Food Stamp Applications Reach Record Highs in Early 2016

MRCtv reported in a 29 February 2016 article that food stamp applications had reached record highs.

Despite the unemployment rate being at an eight-year low (4.9 percent as of January 2016), the number of people on food stamps remains near an all-time high which was 47,636,000 in 2013.

Why the disparity in the numbers? Well, the unemployment rate does not take into account people who are not in, or have dropped out of, the workforce altogether.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported in January of this year that approximately 94 million Americans are not participating in the workforce.

But the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) has been hovering around 46 million participants since 2011. The current figure, as of February 2016, shows average SNAP participation at 45.8 million Americans receiving food stamps in 2015.

(Read more at MRCtv)

For 45.8 million Americans to have to depend on food stamps, the Obama years were not progress.

Under Trump, Food Stamp Applications Fall, Entertainment Spending Rises

According to a 31 August 2017 Washington Post article, Trump’s economy has two strong indicators of improvement.

Forget the soaring stock market. Here’s the real evidence the U.S. economy is getting better: Food stamp usage is down, and spending on entertainment — everything from Netflix to Disney World trips — is up.

The average American household now spends more than $2,900 a year, a record high, on entertainment, according to data released Tuesday by the Labor Department. That’s a good sign the middle class is feeling better about how much money is in their piggy banks.

At the same time, the number of Americans on food stamps is dropping rapidly, according to the latest report from on the U.S. Department of Agriculture, an indication the poor are finally seeing some benefits of the recovery too.

Food stamp usage spiked after the Great Recession when many Americans couldn’t find jobs and struggled to eat. Nearly 48 million people relied on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in 2013, an all-time high. Since then, businesses have gone on a hiring spree. As more people get jobs, they are dropping out of SNAP, which is exactly what is supposed to happen.

There were 41.5 million people on food stamps in May, the latest month that data is available.

“SNAP is a program that is designed to help people get through difficult times when they are not working,” says Robert Doar, a senior fellow at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute and former head of New York City’s public assistance programs, including food stamps, for Mayor Michael Bloomberg. “It’s taken a long time, but more people are working now.”

The number of Americans relying on food stamps is still far higher than before the recession, when fewer than 30 million people were on SNAP. But it’s now at the lowest level since 2010, and the decline has been accelerating in recent months. Two million people left the program in the past year alone.

“In almost every state, a smaller share of the population received SNAP in January 2017 than four years earlier,” wrote Brynne Keith-Jennings, a SNAP expert at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in a recent report.

(Read more at Washington Post)

While Trump has brought progress, we need his tax policy to really cement the record.

Media Silent (Part 4)

Media Silent on Venezuelan Depths of Socialism

MRCtv tells of Chaos in Venezuela

Through a series of short videos, MRCtv tells of the political assassinations, attacks on police, attacks by police on protesting civilians, and attacks on army vehicles.

Venezuelan government kidnaps opposition leaders

In a 1 August 2017 article, The Guardian provides proof of political kidnappings in Venezuela.

Venezuela opposition leaders Leopoldo López and Antonio Ledezma have been taken from their homes, where they were under house arrest, family members of the two have tweeted.

López’s wife and Ledezma’s daughter said they would hold President Nicolás Maduro responsible for the fate of the two men.

Both leaders in recent days have called on Venezuelans to join protests against Maduro over the creation of an all-powerful legislative body called the constituent assembly, which was elected on Sunday.

The vote for the assembly was boycotted by the opposition and has been criticised around the world as an assault on democratic freedoms.

“12:27 in the morning: the moment when the dictatorship kidnaps Leopoldo at my house,” López’s wife, Lilian Tintori, wrote on Twitter.

She included a video of what appears to be López being led into a vehicle emblazoned with the word Sebin, Venezuela’s intelligence agency. Vanessa Ledezma posted a similar video of Ledezma.

(Read more on The Guardian)

As these current videos and articles and previous posts on the starving Venezuela prove, socialism provides little to anyone but those at the top of the socialistic pyramid. Socialism works only as the worst of all Ponzi schemes.

Media Silent on Democrats with Felony Charges

Media Silent on the Conviction of the Doctor Accused of Bribing Senator Menendez

USA Today reported in a 28 April 2017 article on the half of this equation who has been accused of bribing Senator Menendez and now stands convicted of medicare fraud.

A Florida jury convicted eye doctor Salomon Melgen of Medicare fraud on Friday, increasing the pressure he may face to testify against Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., in September when the two go on trial in New Jersey on corruption charges.

“By having two separate trials, it raises the stakes for Dr. Melgen and gives the government enormous additional leverage,” said Robert Mintz, a former federal and state prosecutor who chairs the white collar criminal defense section at McCarter & English in Newark, N.J.

“Rather than being able to roll the dice on the question of whether to go to trial or cooperate — assuming he has information the government would be interested in — he knows with certainty he’s going to jail and the only way to reduce his sentence would be to cooperate,” Mintz said.

An April 2015 indictment handed up by a Newark grand jury accused Melgen of providing contributions to political committees and luxury travel, including flights on his private jet and vacations at his home in a Dominican Republic resort, as bribes to get Menendez to take official actions to benefit Melgen financially. One charge accuses Menendez of pressuring Medicare officials about a regulation at the heart of a $9 million billing dispute Melgen had with the government.

Both Menendez and Melgen have pleaded not guilty to the charges in Newark.

Menendez’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, said Melgen’s convictions related to “day-to-day operations of his medical practice and the private care of his patients — specifics of which the senator could not be aware, nor has it ever been suggested otherwise.”

“From the beginning, Senator Menendez has been clear that he has always acted in accordance with the law and his appropriate legislative oversight role as a member of Congress. When all the facts are heard, he is fully confident that a jury will agree and he will be vindicated,” Lowell said.

(Read more at USA Today)

Senator Menendez Shows His Faith in the Democrat Media through a Request to the Judge

In a 25 August 2017 Politico article, Senator Bob Menendez demonstrated extreme chutzpah even for a Democrat senator.

With numerous high-stakes votes approaching in Congress, lawyers for U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) are pleading with a federal judge to recess the Democrat’s impending corruption trial on days he is needed in Washington.

The lawyers, who were unable to convince U.S. District Court Judge William H. Walls of their arguments during a hearing in New Jersey earlier this week, say in a new motion that the senator’s absence from the Capitol could imperil votes to raise the debt ceiling and to avoid a government shutdown.

The situation is creating a “clash of values,” the senator’s lawyers say, that could force Menendez to make an unfair choice: Set aside his right to confront his accusers so he can make it to Washington for big votes, or shirk his constitutional obligations to the people who elected him so he can sit through the full trial.

“Senator Menendez, like any criminal defendant whose individual liberty is at stake, has a clear and unqualified interest in being present at his own trial,” attorneys Abbe Lowell and Raymond M. Brown wrote in their motion, filed Thursday evening.

“However,” the lawyers wrote, “a trial taking place during a session of Congress risks involuntarily denying Senator Menendez his rights to due process and confrontation, unless he elects to forego his constitutional duty to cast his vote on critical issues pending before Congress so that he can be present in the courtroom.”

Menendez, New Jersey’s senior senator, is accused of dolling out political favors for Florida eye doctor Salomon Melgen, a close friend, in exchange for lavish vacations, private jet flights and campaign cash.

The trial, set to begin on Sept. 6 in Newark, could last for months and also butt up against a vote on the National Flood Insurance Program, which covers 200,000 New Jersey policyholders and is a top issue for Menendez.

(Read more at Politico)

Should Anyone be Surprised When We Consider a 2016 National Review Article

Michelle Malkin produced a 13 July 2016 National Review article detailing the corruption of several members of the Congressional Black Caucus. This post teases with Michelle’s first two picks.

Too many black leaders would rather break the law to line their pockets than take care of their constituents. We’re naming names.

If Black Lives Matter, then why have entrenched members of the Congressional Black Caucus spent more time enriching themselves than taking care of their neglected constituents?

Too many social-justice protesters are busy throwing shade, rocks, bottles, concrete blocks, and vicious death threats at police officers of all colors who are trying to keep the peace.

Instead of moaning about “#WhitePrivilege,” I invite radical racial identity warriors to join me in taking on the black political elites selling out their people.

  • Corrine Brown:This twelve-term Democrat from Florida received a 24-count federal indictment last week while her Congressional Black Caucus colleagues tried to drown out the news with diversionary gun-control theatrics. Brown and her chief of staff are charged with creating a fraudulent education charity to collect over $800,000 in donations from major corporations and philanthropies for their own private slush fund between 2012 and early 2016.

    The director of the hoax group, dubbed One Door for Education, Inc., pleaded guilty last year to fraud and conspiracy. Prosecutors say that two relatives of Brown and her chief of staff steered tens of thousands of dollars in cash deposits to their accounts. The charitable contributions paid for lavish galas, NFL tickets, concert luxury box seats, golf tournaments, and apparently Brown’s tax bills.

    Despite raising nearly a million bucks, Brown’s “charity” issued only two measly educational scholarships for minority students. So while shamelessly claiming this week to be a martyr akin to the murdered Dallas police officers and victims of the Orlando jihad, Brown is embroiled in a sordid scandal that exploited black children to line her own pockets.

    You can’t blame righty or whitey this time, Crooked Corrine.

  • Chaka Fattah: This eleven-term Pennsylvania Democrat was convicted in late June on 23 charges of racketeering, money laundering, and fraud, along with four other co-defendants. His son was sentenced earlier this year to a five-year prison term after being found guilty of 22 counts of separate federal bank- and tax-fraud charges related to his misuse of business loans and federal education contracts to pay for designer clothes, massive bar tabs, and luxury cars.

    Fattah the Elder’s crimes are tied to schemes to repay an illegal $1 million campaign loan. Like his rotten apple of a son, Fattah siphoned off federal grant money and nonprofit funds (including donations to his educational foundation — sound familiar?) to pay off political consultants.

    The con artists inside your own communities are your own worst enemies.

(Read Michelle’s full list of corrupt Democrats at National Review)

For those of us who remember Ray Nagin, Marion Barry, William J. Jefferson, Rod Blagojevich, Anthony Weiner, Jesse Jackson, Laura Richardson, Frank Ballance, and Jim Traficant, there remains a bit of distrust of Democrats.

The Trump Administration on Religious Freedom

The 2016 International Religious Freedom Report Underscores Foundational American Values

In the following 15 August 2017 announcement by Secretary Tillerson, the Trump administration acknowledged America’s basis in religious freedom and the genocide occurring among Christians in the Middle East.

Why would the media want to ignore a statement that affirms the religious freedom? The Democrat-favoring media might skip over this report in order to hide the pro-Muslim bias of the Obama administration.

Secretary Tillerson Contradicts the Anti-Terrorism Stance of Trump

According to a 15 August 2017 Clarion Project article, the Tillerson State Department has taken a different route than the stated route of Donald Trump.

On the very positive side, an alliance of Gulf and other Muslim states led by Saudi Arabia and including Egypt, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen and others severed all relations with Qatar because of Qatar’s funding of terrorism (Hamas, the <a class="glossaryLink " data-cmtooltip="A worldwide Islamist organization founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna that seeks to implement Sharia-based governance globally.

 ” href=”; rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” title=”Glossary: Muslim Brotherhood”>Muslim Brotherhood, the Taiban and Al Qaeda) and Qatar’s ties with Iran and Turkey.

Yet, while Trump himself expressed support for the Arab World’s unprecedented pressure on Qatar and described Qatar as a major terror-financier, Trump’s Secretary of State Rex Tillerson publicly criticized Saudi Arabia, called Qatar “very reasonable” in its reaction to the pressure, said the U.S. is “mystified” by their complaints and made moves towards Turkey (who was aiding Qatar in the crisis).

Tillerson then signed a counter-terrorism agreement with Qatar, spitting in the faces of the Arab countries fed up with Qatar’s support of terrorism.

(Perhaps Tillerson’s favoring of Qatar has something to do with the close relationship he had with the Qatari government as a businessman with ExxonMobil, which has a decades-long association with Qatar’s rulers.)

Immediately after signing the deal, Qatar reiterated its commitment to Hamas, a foreign terrorist organization as designated by the U.S.

The Trump administration agreed to sell 36 fighter jets to Qatar right after the Arabs launched their campaign.

Tillerson also signaled his opposition to designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization in mid-June.

(Read more at the Clarion Project)

Why is it that the Department of State always runs counter to American values? It doesn’t matter whether an anti-American president like Obama directs the US or a populist like Trump, the Department of State does its own thing. Maybe we should have new blood in the department.

Five of the Clarion Project‘s 25 Reasons to Reassign General H.R. McMaster

In a 27 August 2017 Clarion Project article, Ryan Mauro presented 25 reasons why President Trump should remove Gen. McMaster from his current position. Here are the first five.

  1. He is not on board with Trump’s vision of waging an ideological war against radical Islam (or whatever terminology you prefer).

    You simply cannot have a national security adviser who is at odds with the fundamental pillar of your national security strategy.

    In 2014, McMaster said that the “Islamic State is not Islamic.” He went so far as to describe jihadists as “really irreligious organizations.”

    In that speech, he rejected the notion that jihadists are motivated by a religion-based ideology. Instead, he claimed they are motivated by “fear,” a “sense of honor” and their “interests,” which he described as the roots of human conflict for thousands of years. He recommended that the U.S. must begin “understanding those human dimensions.”

    In May, McMaster stated in an interview that the jihadists “are not religious people.”

    A source close to National Security Council (NSC) personnel revealed that McMaster opposed President Trump’s summit in Riyadh, one of the high points of his presidency thus far. McMaster felt it was “too ambitious.”

    In Trump’s speech announcing his strategy for Afghanistan, words like “radical Islamic terrorism” were missing. This is clearly the influence of McMaster. In his resignation letter to Trump, Dr. Gorka referenced these omissions and said it “proves that a crucial element of your presidential campaign has been lost.”

    Here’s the Clarion take:

  2. Endorsed a book favorable towards “non-militant” Islamists

    In 2010, McMaster endorsed a book that states, as one of its central arguments, “It is the Militant Islamists who are our adversary…They must not be confused with Islamists.”

    The book contends that our policy should not be aimed at Islamism overall but only Islamist terrorist groups. That is the mindset of those who advocate working with the “moderate” <a class="glossaryLink " data-cmtooltip="A worldwide Islamist organization founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna that seeks to implement Sharia-based governance globally.

     ” href=”; rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” title=”Glossary: Muslim Brotherhood”>Muslim Brotherhood and the “moderate” Taliban.

    McMaster describes the book as “excellent” and “deserv[ing] a wide readership.” Raymond Ibrahim reviewed the book and found serious errors, ones that now have dangerous consequences with McMaster as national security adviser.

  3. Opposes designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization

    Based on the above two issues, it should be no surprise that McMaster reportedly opposes designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

  4. Opposes a tough stance on Qatar’s support of terrorism and extremism

    McMaster opposed President Trump’s tough stance on Qatar when our Arab allies confronted the tiny country, despite the sea of proof that our so-called “ally” is a major sponsor of Islamist terrorism and extremism, including the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Al-Qaeda.

    McMaster, like Secretary of Defense Mattis, was concerned about the U.S. base in Qatar.

    This means that McMaster essentially supports allowing the Qatari government to use our own base—which protects them—to decide U.S.policies.

    The UAE has recommended that we move the base. There are no indications that McMaster is advocating that we do that so we can exert more pressure Qatar in the future.

  5. The book endorsed by McMaster legitimizes Hamas

    Aaron Klein, a senior Middle East reporter, read the book that McMaster endorsed as “excellent” and, shockingly, found that the author never characterizes Hamas as a terrorist group. Instead, the author refers to Hamas as an “Islamist political group” that is among Islamists “who do not fit into a neat category.”

    “The question for Americans is whether Hamas is an Islamist or Militant Islamist group,” the author, Youssef H. Aboul-Enein, writes.

    He’s as wrong as someone can possibly be wrong. Beside the fact that Hamas has been designated by the U.S. as a Foreign Terrorist Organization for 10 years, there is no question that Hamas is a terrorist group. In fact, there isn’t much of a substantive difference between Hamas and ISIS.

    Aboul-Enein’s argument is that the U.S. should only target “Militant Islamists” and not more generic Islamists. By questioning whether Hamas qualifies as Militant Islamist, Aboul-Enein is questioning whether the U.S. should target Hamas.

    The book also moves the reader away from understanding that Islamists’ preaching of armed jihad rests upon a strong theological foundation. Based on Klein’s description, the author makes it sound as if Islamists are motivated by reasonable grievances against policies and then sit down and conjure up a convoluted way to describe their violent response as “jihad.”

    If we don’t acknowledge the deep theological basis of the Islamists’ worldview, we will not be able to effectively respond to the ideology and its related narratives.

    There is an important side note as well: Klein points out that the author of the book is the chair of Islamic Studies at National Defense University (which is funded by the Department of Defense) and a senior adviser and analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency’s Joint Intelligence Task Force for Combating Terrorism. This means that these views are being taught to very important students.

(Read the other 20 reasons at the Clarion Project)

The first reason was enough for me.

Media Silent (Part 2)

Pelosi would like to have the Democrat party work both ways on the pro-life/pro-abortion debate,
but the pro-abortionists won’t have it.

Media Silent on Democrats Departing from the Pro-Abortion Orthodoxy

As reported in a 31 July 2017 Daily Caller article, Nancy Pelosi may be facing a fight over a commitment made by the Party.

The Democratic party is facing a revolt from the left after the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman said the party would back pro-life candidates in 2018.

The DCCC chairman, Rep. Ben Ray Lujan, told The Hill that there will not be “a litmus test” for candidates on the subject of abortion. Lujan’s comments come as Democrats attempt to rebuild a broken party that has hemorrhaged elected offices on both the state and national level.

Lujan’s comments sparked immediate outrage from left-wingers.

“I’m afraid I’ll be with holding support for the DCCC if this is true,” said former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, whose name was briefly floated this year as a candidate for DNC chair.

“What better strategy than to betray their base and reaffirm that women’s basic rights are negotiable and disposable,” said prominent liberal columnist Jill Filipovic.

“Reducing the rights of those with child-bearing capacity to a mere matter of opinion is utterly unconscionable,” declared New Republic writer Rachel Cote. She added: “The Democratic Party is in fact saying that there’s ‘no litmus test’ regarding their colleagues’ support of basic bodily autonomy. Terrible.”

“This is a betrayal of every woman who has ever supported the Democratic party,” said liberal journalist Lauren Duca, whose work Hillary Clinton has personally praised.

Renee Sherman, a board member of the pro-choice group NARAL Pro-Choice America, called Lujan out by name on Twitter for not kicking pro-life candidates out of the party.

“I had an abortion. I’d love to chat with you about why my healthcare access is up for debate to win elections. Let’s talk,” said Sherman. She added: “I understand not everyone supports abortion, but you don’t have to put party money behind candidates who will take access away.”

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

With the Democrat’s “new message” about a “Better Deal,” seems like that message is just lipstick on a pig. As much as I would like to see a pro-life Democrat candidate, the money flowing from Cecile Richards and Planned Parenthood-affiliated seems to have gagged the Democrat party.

Tweets Relevant to this Democrat Civil War over Pro-Life/Pro-Abort




Tiara Brooke Lycans

Media Silent on Lesbian Trying to Silence a Christian Judge

A 29 July 2017 New York Daily News article provides witness to anti-Christian bigotry of the Left.

A Christian judge has twice declined to recuse himself from a divorce case, after a lesbian mother filed motions citing his stance against homosexuality.

Tiara Brooke Lycans also petitioned the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, which denied her request for recusal Thursday.

She also argued that Bell, a political conservative and member of the Baptist church, “publicly expressed belief that homosexual relationships and marriages are contrary to God’s Law” — a stance she believes could influence his ruling on the custody of her child with husband, Zachary Lycans, court documents show, reported.

Judge Bell has, in his initial pending ruling on custody, granted the Lycans joint physical custody of their child alternating weekly. The appeals court noted that he had ruled the same way in two other divorce cases involving lesbian mothers.

(Read more at the New York Daily News)

If she can find proof that this judge has ruled in ways that would shift power from the powerless, then she should speak out. Otherwise, she is just posturing for the court.

A Tweet Relevant to the Case


Media Silent on Trump Successes

Although the press has made scattered notes of Trump’s successes (each linked below), they uniformly avoid puling together a list of his successes like the one that follows.

Thanks to the American Family Association, Investor’s Business Daily commentaries on 29 April 2017 and 7 August 2017, and the White House web page for his 100-day event.

President Trump Seeks the Release of a Wrongfully Imprisoned Pastor

Trump Goes to Bat for the Wrongfully Imprisoned Pastor

During a 16 May 2017 White House meeting with Turkish President Erdogan, President Trump mentioned the wrongful imprisonment of American pastor Andrew Brunson three times.

The Christian Broadcasting Network story

A 17 May 2016 Christian Broadcasting Network article began:

“The case of Pastor Andrew Brunson, who has been imprisoned in Turkey since October, was brought up not once, not twice, but three times during President Donald Trump’s meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan Tuesday.

‘Unfortunately, Pastor Andrew Brunson is now a pawn, kind of a trump card in Erdogan’s hand. There’s absolutely no rule of law, no due process in that case, it’s a completely bogus case. Anyone who has looked at the case knows that these are trumped up charges,’ said Dr. Aykan Erdemir, a former member of Turkey’s Parliament who has advocated for the release of Pastor Brunson for months.”

(Read more at CBN)

Let’s pray that Pastor Brunson become a gesture of good will from the Turkish President or otherwise find favor in the eyes of this man.

The Washington Times Reports

The Washington Times reported in a 16 May 2017 story:

“President Trump urged the president of Turkey Tuesday to release an American pastor who’s been held behind bars since last October.

The White House said Mr. Trump ‘raised the incarceration of Pastor Andrew Brunson and asked that the Turkish government expeditiously return him to the United States.’

Neither Mr. Trump nor Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan spoke publicly about that case during Tuesday afternoon at their first meeting at the White House.

The American Center for Law and Justice, which is advocating for Mr. Brunson’s family, said it had submitted a formal written statement to the U.N. Human Rights Council in his case.

The pastor and his family say he’s being held on false charges. He and his wife were detained by authorities in the Turkish town of Izmir, where he has carried out his ministry for two decades.”

(Read more at the Washington Times)

CNN Report

CNN had the following to say in a 17 May 2017 article:

“US President Donald Trump raised the issue of a US pastor imprisoned in Turkey three times during a meeting with the Turkish president Tuesday, according to the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).

The White House confirmed Trump had raised the subject of Brunson during his meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Washington, their first face-to-face meeting since Trump took office in January.

‘President Trump raised the incarceration of Pastor Andrew Brunson and asked that the Turkish Government expeditiously return him to the United States,’ the White House said in a statement after the meeting.

The ACLJ celebrated the news in a statement on its website: ‘This is exactly what we asked the President to do and is a major sign of significant progress toward bringing Pastor Andrew home.’

At a time of strained relations between the United States and Turkey, Erdogan was in Washington to meet Trump and discuss cooperation in fighting terrorism, as well as building economic and trade ties.

The Turkish leader said that he and Trump were ‘laying a foundation of a new era of relations between our two countries.’

Brunson, a North Carolina native, was arrested in October in Izmir on Turkey’s Aegean coast, where he was pastor at the Izmir Resurrection Church.

According to a petition from the ACLJ to the United Nations dated May 15, 2017, Brunson was told that he was being detained as a ‘national security risk.’ The document said Brunson’s ‘detention appears to be related to his work as a Christian minister.’

CNN affiliate CNN Turk reported at the time that Brunson was arrested for membership in FETO, the organization led by cleric Fetullah Gulen.

The Turkish-US relationship has been strained by the US refusal to extradite Fethullah Gulen, a Turkish cleric living in Pennsylvania whom Erdogan blames for orchestrating the coup attempt against him.”

(Read more at CNN)

The plight of Pastor Andrew Brunson was discussed on this blog during February 2017.

Things Democrats Wish They Could Remember About Donald Trump

Failure to Disclose Russian Donors

Remember when Donald Trump failed to disclose Russian donors to his charitable foundation before coming into office?

Actually, Hillary Clinton did that before becoming Secretary of State (as reported by the New York Times).

Inordinate Pay for a Moscow Speech

Remember when Donald Trump gave a speech in Moscow and was paid $500,000.00?

Oh, yeah. That was what Bill Clinton did while Hillary was Secretary of State, as reported by National Review.

A Pledge to Strengthen Russia

Remember how Donald Trump said that “Our goal is to help strengthen Russia” on Russian national TV?

Again, that was Hillary Clinton, trying to explain her poorly-translated “reset” button to Vladimir Posner, as reported by Nationl Review.

Russian Business Partners Raise $35 Million from Russian Government

Remember Donald Trump going into business with Russian partners and the company received $35 million from the Russian government?

Nope, that was Hillary campaign manager John Podesta, as reported by CNN.

Transfer of US Uranium to Russian company

Remember how Donald Trump arranged for a Russian firm to receive 20% of United States uranium reserves in exchange for millions to the family charitable foundation?

That was Hillary Clinton, as reported by the New York Times.

Protected by Two Departments of US Law Enforcement

Remember how the head of the FBI and the Justice Department worked to provide Donald Trump cover?

That was Hillary Clinton to whom James Comey (as reported by the New York Times) and Loretta Lynch (as reported by Cybercast News) sought to provide political cover.

A NYU play accidentally proves why Trump won

In a play, Trump and Hillary are flipped across the gender divide

As a result, new details become evident

As reported by Amer Athey in a Camput Reform 9 March 2017 article,

“An experiment designed to reveal gender bias by reenacting the presidential debates with the candidates’ genders reversed found that Hillary Clinton would have been even less likeable as a man.

Maria Guadalupe and Joe Salvatore, two professors at New York University, planned to demonstrate the alleged gender bias Clinton faced in the 2016 election by acting out the presidential debates with Trump as a woman and Hillary as a man, reports NYU News.

The goal of the ‘Her Opponent’ project was to prove that people would not have accepted Trump’s aggressive behavior had it come from a woman, and that Hillary’s debate style would be much more likable if she were a man.

The professors and audiences of the mock debates, however, were ‘unsettled’ to discover that the opposite was true—Trump became more likable as a woman and Hillary became even less likable as a man.

To isolate the gender variable to the greatest extent possible, the actors portraying the candidates sought to emulate their debate performances exactly, down to gestures and intonation, though it was necessary in some instances to tweak the language to reflect the gender reversal.”

‘We both thought that the inversion would confirm our liberal assumption—that no one would have accepted Trump’s behavior from a woman, and that the male Clinton would seem like the much stronger candidate,’ Salvatore explained. ‘But we kept checking in with each other and realized that this disruption—a major change in perception—was happening. I had an unsettled feeling the whole way through.’

Salvatore also related that several audience members felt they finally understood how Trump won after watching the gender-swapped debate.”

(Read more at Campus Reform)

To further illustrate this point, consider the video provided by The Guardian and their video subsidiary Guardian Wires.