Posted on

Michael Flynn’s Attorneys Drop Bomb on Deep State – Suggest CIA Operative Was Spying on Gen. Flynn back in 2015

General Michael Flynn’s attorneys demanded documents from seven meetings connected to the Russia investigation and accused the DOJ f concealing evidence from Flynn and suppressing evidence of General Flynn’s innocence.

The Gateway Pundit reported back in January on the US intelligence hiding exculpatory evidence from Flynn.

Attorney Sidney Powell also revealed in court disclosures that CIA asset Joseph Mifsud was spying on Flynn back in 2015.

Powell is asking for any evidence of Joseph Mifsud’s presence and involvement in engaging or reporting on Mr. Flynn and Mifsud’s presence at the Russia Today dinner in Moscow back in December 2015.

It was already known that Deep State spy Stephan Halper set up Flynn by placing the General Flynn next to Putin at the RT dinner.

As we reported earlier the attorney for Michael Flynn confirmed he was Western Intelligence and NOT a Russian asset as it was claimed by the hacks on the Mueller team in their report.

According to Mr. Mifsud’s attorneys their client was working for the CIA and was NOT a Russian operative as reported by the Mueller witch hunt team of liars.

Mueller and his band of angry Democrats lied in their final report on operative Joseph Mifsud.

Mifsud was NOT a Russian operative as the Mueller report claimed he was.
Mifsud worked for Western intelligence — and now his attorney has confirmed this!

The post Michael Flynn’s Attorneys Drop Bomb on Deep State – Suggest CIA Operative Was Spying on Gen. Flynn back in 2015 appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Posted on

Olympic Officials Asked to Ban Japan’s Use of ‘Rising Sun’ Flag

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has been asked by South Korea to bar Japan from using the “Rising Sun” flag at next year’s Tokyo games, Seoul’s sports ministry said on Wednesday.

South Korea’s sports ministry sent a letter to the IOC to express its “disappointment” over Tokyo’s organising committee’s decision to allow the “Rising Sun” ensign or kyokujitsuki to be displayed, claiming it represents a “militaristic and imperial past.”

The ministry said the standard defies the peaceful spirit of the Olympics as it was a symbol of Japan’s imperialist past that reminds Asian countries of “historical wounds and pains,” and it likened it to the swastika used in Nazi Germany.

The flag, which features a red sun with 16 rays radiating from the center, has been used by Japan for many centuries and is still flown by Japan’s Maritime Self-Defense Force. It differs from the country’s official flag, a red disk on a white background, which will be used by its Olympic team.

The International Olympic Committee on Wednesday confirmed it had received the letter, Reuters reports.

“As the IOC has said from the outset of this discussion, sports stadiums should be free of any political demonstration,” an IOC official said.

Relations between the two countries have soured recently over trade issues and threats to end a military intelligence sharing agreement.

Last year Japan withdrew from an international naval review because South Korea asked that Japan not fly the same “Rising Sun” flag on its warships.

Follow Simon Kent on Twitter: or e-mail to: skent@breitbart.com

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Posted on

Donald Trump Wins ‘Complete Shutdown of the Asylum System’

President Donald Trump has won the power to shut down the asylum system, complain pro-migration advocates, ending a process which has been exploited by millions of economic migrants to get blue collar jobs in the United States.

The protests came late Wednesday after the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would let Trump’s asylum reforms operate while California judges review their legality.

The court’s decision means Trump’s reforms can operate well into 2020, giving voters a clear way to assess the impact of Trump’s 2020 promises.

“Tonight’s news that the Trump administration will be able to move ahead on what is essentially a complete shutdown of the asylum system at the Southern border is truly awful,” said Todd Schulte, the top lobbyist for a group of wealthy West Coast investors. “It will come with tremendous harm and human cost,” added Schulte, who is the director of FWD.us.

His investor group — which reaps large stock market gains whenever Americans’ wages are suppressed — posted a statement:

Tonight’s decision means the Trump Administration will be allowed to essentially terminate the asylum system at the Southern Border. Coupled with the gutting of the refugee program, this is a massive reversal of American leadership to protect the most vulnerable people fleeing extreme violence and persecution from around the world, and is part of an awful pursuit to restrict nearly every legal immigration avenue … tonight, the Trump administration has effectively shut the doors of America to those seeking asylum and a better life.

 

In June, FWD.us campaigned to win drivers’ licenses for illegal migrants in New York, including illegals who could work as drivers for the investors in FWD.us:

The court’s decision should help the border agencies shut off the arrival of new migrants, following the arrival of at least 3.3 million migrants from Central American and Mexico since 2014.

That huge population has used asylum loopholes to squeeze through the border, and then lower wages in blue collar workplaces, raise rents in blue collar neighborhoods and pack classrooms in schools used by the children of blue collar Americans.

The total inflow of 3.3 million adult and child migrants — which does not include the adults who sneaked past border agents — is almost equal to the 4 million Americans who are born each year.

The complaint by business leaders was echoed by their progressive allies in the ACLU. “This is just a temporary step, and we’re hopeful we’ll prevail at the end of the day,” said an ACLU tweet. “The lives of thousands of families are at stake.”

“The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the asylum ban to go into effect (for now) is…. just devastating,” said a statement from Rebecca Kirzner, campaign director of the HIAS group which helps migrants settle in the United States. She continued:

Anyone who has passed through another country (ie, anyone but Mexicans) is going to be denied asylum. For some, that will be a death sentence. The cruelty is overwhelming.

“We’re struggling to find words,” said a tweet from Al Otro Lado, a legal and aid group for migrants.  “There are 10K+ asylum seekers stuck in Tijuana … Our hearts are broken + we’re exhausted.”

“The human toll of today’s asylum ban stay will be horrific,” tweeted Omar Jadwat, the director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project.

The decision was lamented by Supreme Court justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor as bad for foreign migrants:

Although this Nation has long kept its doors open to refugees—and although the stakes for asylum seekers could not be higher—the Government implemented its rule without first providing the public notice and inviting the public input generally required by law. After several organizations representing immigrants sued to stop the rule from going into effect, a federal district court found that the organizations were likely to prevail and preliminarily enjoined the rule nationwide.

…

In effect, the rule forbids almost all Central Americans—even unaccompanied children—to apply for asylum in the United States if they enter or seek to enter through the southern border, unless they were first denied asylum in Mexico or another third country.

The court’s decision was applauded by Trump and his deputies, including Ken Cuccinelli, who was appointed by Trump to run the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency.

The case is East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, et al., Plaintiffs, v. William Barr, et al., Defendants. The case No. 19-cv-04073-JST.

Immigration Numbers:

Each year, roughly four million young Americans join the workforce after graduating from high school or university. This total includes about 800,000 Americans who graduate with skilled degrees in business or health care, engineering or science, software, or statistics.

But the federal government then imports about 1.1 million legal immigrants and refreshes a resident population of about 1.5 million white-collar visa workers — including approximately one million H-1B workers and spouses — and about 500,000 blue-collar visa workers.

The government also prints out more than one million work permits for foreigners, it tolerates about eight million illegal workers, and it does not punish companies for employing the hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants who sneak across the border or overstay their legal visas each year.

This policy of inflating the labor supply boosts economic growth for investors because it transfers wages to investors and ensures that employers do not have to compete for American workers by offering higher wages and better working conditions.

This policy of flooding the market with cheap, foreign, white-collar graduates and blue-collar labor also shifts enormous wealth from young employees towards older investors, even as it also widens wealth gaps, reduces high-tech investment,  increases state and local tax burdens, reduces marriage rates, and hurts children’s schools and college educations.

The cheap-labor economic strategy also pushes Americans away from high-tech careers and sidelines millions of marginalized Americans, including many who are now struggling with fentanyl addictions.

The labor policy also moves business investment and wealth from the Heartland to the coastal cities, explodes rents and housing costs, undermines suburbia, shrivels real estate values in the Midwest, and rewards investors for creating low-tech, labor-intensive workplaces.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Posted on

UPDATES: NYT Says TRUMP Ordered NOAA Statement; Dems Launch Investigation; Trump Responds

What started with a tweet intended to encourage residents of states potentially impacted by Hurricane Dorian to stay safe has escalated to a congressional investigation, a flood of reports making increasingly more dramatic claims, and President Trump, again, pushing back on the "fake news" reports based on unnamed sources.

via Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com/rss.xml

Posted on

Trump administration announces rollback of ‘destructive and horrible’ Obama-era water rule

The following is an excerpt from Blaze Media’s daily Capitol Hill Brief email newsletter:

The Trump administration is set to announce a final repeal of the Obama administration’s “Waters of the United States” rule on Thursday. Environmental Protection Agency administrator Andrew Wheeler made the announcement via an op-ed in the Des Moines Register Thursday morning.

The Obama-era regulation, put forward in 2015, drastically expanded which waterways are subject to federal control under the Clean Water Act to include man-made ditches and streams on private property that only have water in them following rain or snowmelt. It was swamped with litigation from the start. Last month, a federal judge ruled that the Obama administration’s rule violated federal law and sent it back to the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to be reworked.

Wheeler’s op-ed explains that the 2015 rule was “was so far-reaching that they needed to clarify in regulatory text that puddles were excluded.” This created a regulatory headache for farmers, land developers, and anyone confused about whether or not they now needed a federal permit to work on their own land.

President Trump vowed to kill the rule on the campaign trail, and in 2017, he directed the EPA to work on the “elimination of this very destructive and horrible rule.” A proposed rule introduced by the Environmental Protection Agency back in December would relax the definition of what counts as waters that can be regulated. Republican senators tried to pass an amendment repealing the 2015 rule last year, but it failed.

Wheeler wrote that the “new, more precise definition would mean that farmers, land owners, and businesses will spend less time and money determining whether they need a federal permit and more time upgrading aging infrastructure, building homes, creating jobs, and growing crops to feed our families.”

The post Trump administration announces rollback of ‘destructive and horrible’ Obama-era water rule appeared first on Conservative Review.

via Conservative Review

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.conservativereview.com

Posted on

SCOTUS delivers big Trump win and implicit rebuke to San Francisco federal judge’s 50-state injunction on asylum rules change

In a very unusual move, the Supreme Court bypassed the lower courts and issued a decision vacating an injunction issued by Judge Jon Tigar of the San Francisco Federal District Court (who normally sits in the Oakland Federal Courthouse), prohibiting implementation of new rules on asylum. Adam Liptak reports in the New York Times:

The Supreme Court, in a brief, unsigned order, said the administration may enforce new rules that generally forbid asylum applications from migrants who have traveled through another country on their way to the United States without being denied asylum in that country.

The court’s order was a major victory for the administration, allowing it to enforce a policy that will achieve one of its central goals: effectively barring most migration across the nation’s southwestern border by Hondurans, Salvadorans, Guatemalans and others. Mexican migrants, who need not travel through another country to reach the United States, are not affected by the new policy.

This is the second time that Judge Tigar has been overruled in his effort to dictate to the entire nation that a presidential policy not be allowed to take effect because he doesn’t like it. Jared Samilow of Legal Insurrection explains:

This case, East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr, followed the familiar pattern. In July, the Justice Department and Homeland Security issued a new rule denying asylum to most migrants who did not apply for asylum in a third country they transited through on their way to the United States. For example, the rule denies U.S. asylum to someone from Guatemala who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border without having applied for asylum in Mexico. In a lawsuit brought by an asylum organization, Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco granted a nationwide injunction against the rule. The government appealed.

A few weeks later, in a partial ruling for the government, the Ninth Circuit held the record did not support the award of a nationwide injunction. It ordered the rule be blocked only within the Ninth Circuit unless a more developed record showed that broader relief was necessary. Shortly thereafter, Judge Tigar ordered a bit more paperwork, held another hearing, and quickly restored the nationwide scope of the injunction.

The Supreme Court’s ruling allows the rule to go into effect entirely. In other words, the plaintiffs are probably worse off then they would have been had they accepted the Ninth Circuit’s geographic compromise. They paid for being greedy.

There is reason for optimism that the Supreme Court will finally end the recent practice of federal district judges issuing nationwide injunctions preventing implementation of Trump administration policies while court challenges are underway. It makes no sense that a single judge in a deep blue jurisdiction can act to suspend a Trump policy that he or she doesn’t agree with when the appellate courts above district courts can only enforce their judgments within the territory of their jurisdiction, not nationally.

The speed with which the court acted, and the fact that only two justices – Sotomayor and Ginsburg — dissented from the order may indicate that the entire court is ready to slap down the national pretensions of its inferior courts at the district level.  Note that the lawsuit against the new regulations will proceed. This SCOTUS decision does not consider the merits of the case, only the propriety of a nationwide injunction against them while the case is being heard.

Judge Tigar is the very judge that President Trump denounced as an “Obama judge” last November, provoking a widely-derided rebuke from the Chief Justice of the United States:

President Trump scoffed at the judge who held up his order on ending asylum by calling him an “Obama judge,” implying that it was nothing but politics that drove the decision. Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court was having none of it:

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is somethng we should be thankful for.”

The Chief Justice of the United States is ignoring the evidence:

There were 67 decisions after argument in the term that ended in June. In those cases, the four justices appointed by Democratic presidents voted the same way 51 times

More than three-quarters of the time, four Democrat-appointed justices voted in lockstep.  Republican-appointed justices were slightly less partisan, voting in lockstep 55% of the time:

…the five Republican appointees held tight 37 times.

More importantly, in close votes, the Republican appintees were far more likely to stray from the partisan expectations:

And of the 20 cases where the court split 5-4, only seven had the “expected” ideological divide of conservatives over liberals. By the end of the term, each conservative justice had joined the liberals as the deciding vote at least once.

A strong Supreme Court decision forever banning district court judges from nationwide injunctions is desperately needed. The fact that only two Deocrat appointees dissented from the decision in question may yield a 7-to-2 decision.

Photo credit: Pixabay

In a very unusual move, the Supreme Court bypassed the lower courts and issued a decision vacating an injunction issued by Judge Jon Tigar of the San Francisco Federal District Court (who normally sits in the Oakland Federal Courthouse), prohibiting implementation of new rules on asylum. Adam Liptak reports in the New York Times:

The Supreme Court, in a brief, unsigned order, said the administration may enforce new rules that generally forbid asylum applications from migrants who have traveled through another country on their way to the United States without being denied asylum in that country.

The court’s order was a major victory for the administration, allowing it to enforce a policy that will achieve one of its central goals: effectively barring most migration across the nation’s southwestern border by Hondurans, Salvadorans, Guatemalans and others. Mexican migrants, who need not travel through another country to reach the United States, are not affected by the new policy.

This is the second time that Judge Tigar has been overruled in his effort to dictate to the entire nation that a presidential policy not be allowed to take effect because he doesn’t like it. Jared Samilow of Legal Insurrection explains:

This case, East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr, followed the familiar pattern. In July, the Justice Department and Homeland Security issued a new rule denying asylum to most migrants who did not apply for asylum in a third country they transited through on their way to the United States. For example, the rule denies U.S. asylum to someone from Guatemala who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border without having applied for asylum in Mexico. In a lawsuit brought by an asylum organization, Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco granted a nationwide injunction against the rule. The government appealed.

A few weeks later, in a partial ruling for the government, the Ninth Circuit held the record did not support the award of a nationwide injunction. It ordered the rule be blocked only within the Ninth Circuit unless a more developed record showed that broader relief was necessary. Shortly thereafter, Judge Tigar ordered a bit more paperwork, held another hearing, and quickly restored the nationwide scope of the injunction.

The Supreme Court’s ruling allows the rule to go into effect entirely. In other words, the plaintiffs are probably worse off then they would have been had they accepted the Ninth Circuit’s geographic compromise. They paid for being greedy.

There is reason for optimism that the Supreme Court will finally end the recent practice of federal district judges issuing nationwide injunctions preventing implementation of Trump administration policies while court challenges are underway. It makes no sense that a single judge in a deep blue jurisdiction can act to suspend a Trump policy that he or she doesn’t agree with when the appellate courts above district courts can only enforce their judgments within the territory of their jurisdiction, not nationally.

The speed with which the court acted, and the fact that only two justices – Sotomayor and Ginsburg — dissented from the order may indicate that the entire court is ready to slap down the national pretensions of its inferior courts at the district level.  Note that the lawsuit against the new regulations will proceed. This SCOTUS decision does not consider the merits of the case, only the propriety of a nationwide injunction against them while the case is being heard.

Judge Tigar is the very judge that President Trump denounced as an “Obama judge” last November, provoking a widely-derided rebuke from the Chief Justice of the United States:

President Trump scoffed at the judge who held up his order on ending asylum by calling him an “Obama judge,” implying that it was nothing but politics that drove the decision. Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court was having none of it:

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is somethng we should be thankful for.”

The Chief Justice of the United States is ignoring the evidence:

There were 67 decisions after argument in the term that ended in June. In those cases, the four justices appointed by Democratic presidents voted the same way 51 times

More than three-quarters of the time, four Democrat-appointed justices voted in lockstep.  Republican-appointed justices were slightly less partisan, voting in lockstep 55% of the time:

…the five Republican appointees held tight 37 times.

More importantly, in close votes, the Republican appintees were far more likely to stray from the partisan expectations:

And of the 20 cases where the court split 5-4, only seven had the “expected” ideological divide of conservatives over liberals. By the end of the term, each conservative justice had joined the liberals as the deciding vote at least once.

A strong Supreme Court decision forever banning district court judges from nationwide injunctions is desperately needed. The fact that only two Deocrat appointees dissented from the decision in question may yield a 7-to-2 decision.

Photo credit: Pixabay

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Posted on

Fake News, Fake Polls – CNN Edition

It’s been a tough few weeks for CNN. Who knew pushing fake news could be so challenging?

First, they tried to turn President Trump into a rube for suggesting that Alabama could be in the path of Hurricane Dorian. It turns out that CNN suggested the same thing, a few days before Trump did, warning Alabama to “be on the lookout”.

Then came the fiction that Trump outed a Russian informant. Instead the reality was that the decision on any outing or exfiltration occurred before Trump became president. We know whose watch this occurred on, but CNN chose to instead blame the current president.

Now it’s an opinion poll. CNN’s story of the week is, ”6 in 10 say Trump does not deserve a second term.” Well, that settles it. If CNN says so, it must be true. Get ready for President Beto or Pete.

YouTube screen grab

Remember how they said endlessly that Trump colluded with Putin and the Russians to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. And how Trump would soon be frog marched from the White House, if the gaggle of psychiatrists declaring Trump insane didn’t get rid of him first via the 25th Amendment.

CNN told us Stormy Daniels would be the Trump slayer. Or was it Omarosa? Or Michael Cohen? Or Megan Rapinoe? I’ve lost track. Michael Avenatti was the perfect candidate in the eyes of Brian Stelter, host of CNN’s show with the most fraudulent name, “Reliable Sources.”

CNN is giddy over this latest poll, reinforcing their reputation as a hackneyed and partisan propaganda arm of the Democrat Party. This will be the story that reverses Trump’s likely successful bid for reelection. In the minds of Beltway journalists, everyone hates Donald Trump and wants him sent packing in November 2020.

CNN describes their poll by saying, “Overall, the poll paints a picture of a President who has done little to improve negative impressions of him or his work during his time in office.” I wonder if they mean his conservative judicial appointments. Or record low unemployment, particularly for women, blacks and Hispanics. Or America’s energy independence. I guess those achievements cause “negative impressions” for the CNN-watching zombies.

Polls are as good as their survey sample. Conduct a Trump approval poll on the Upper East Side of Manhattan or in Boulder, Colorado and not surprisingly his approval number will be in the low single digits. In this particular poll, the internal methodology illustrates how CNN obtained their desired result by commissioning a poll which oversampled Democrats. “31% described themselves as Democrats, 25% described themselves as Republicans, and 44% described themselves as independents or members of another party.”

The poll oversampled Democrats by 6 percentage points. Of the 44 percent who were either independents or “members of another party,” how many other parties are there? Could some be members of the Green Party or the Democratic Socialists of America, the latter being the party of “The Squad”? Are their opinions more reflective of Republicans or Democrats?

The CNN poll also looked only at self-described registered voters, not likely voters, as other more accurate pollsters survey.  According to CNN, “about 55% of voting age citizens cast ballots” in the 2016 presidential election, meaning half of those surveyed didn’t even bother voting.

For comparison, look back eight years ago when Barack Obama was running for reelection. A Gallup poll from December 2011 found that 55 percent of those surveyed believed that Obama did not deserve reelection. This number is not much different from the Trump number of 60 percent cited in the CNN poll. Yet Obama was reelected easily.

Note also the media coverage, not just by CNN, of President Trump. The Media Research Center found that Trump receives 92 percent negative media coverage. The Pew Research Center agreed, “Trump media three times more negative than for Obama, just 5 percent positive.”

Given the overwhelming difference in media coverage of Trump versus Obama, the fact that they have similar reelection poll results is quite favorable for President Trump. Another way to look at these reelection prospects is to look at approval numbers of Obama versus Trump at similar points in their respective presidencies.

Rasmussen Reports does just that. As an aside, Rasmussen was one of the most accurate pollsters in predicting the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Rasmussen has a Daily Presidential Tracking Poll of likely, not simply registered, voters, creating a more valid survey sample given that half of eligible voters don’t even vote.

On September 10, the total approval number for Trump was 47 percent, compared to 42 percent for Obama exactly eight years ago, the same point in both presidencies. And we know who easily won reelection in 2012.

Is CNN honestly reporting their poll results, based on the confounding factors noted above? Or are they pushing a narrative, trying to create their desired electoral outcome? From their article reporting the poll, “Trump’s approval ratings for handling major issues are largely stagnant, with what little movement there is heading in the wrong direction for the President.”

Democrats, and their media handlers, have learned little since 2016 when their polls all predicted a Hillary Clinton landslide, even on Election Day. Representative Jerry Nadler is pushing impeachment when only 21 percent of voters support going in this direction.

It’s interesting that the media touts polls which support their agenda or their wishful thinking, ignoring any contradictory information. For example, the media pays little attention to Rasmussen polls showing Trump support among black voters hovering around 30 percent last month.

Or a Zogby poll from last month with this result, “Trump’s approval rating has improved with minorities: 28% of African Americans and 49% of Hispanics at least somewhat approve of the president.”

Trump enjoys 88 percent job approval among Republicans according to the recent CNN poll, but that’s not the headline.

Democrats ignore the polls they don’t like or Trump rally crowd sizes and enthusiasm at their own peril. Those who live by fake news polls may have another bad night in November 2020.

Brian C Joondeph, MD, is a Denver based physician, freelance writer and occasional radio talk show host whose pieces have appeared in American Thinker, Daily Caller, and other publications. Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedIn, Twitter, and QuodVerum.

It’s been a tough few weeks for CNN. Who knew pushing fake news could be so challenging?

First, they tried to turn President Trump into a rube for suggesting that Alabama could be in the path of Hurricane Dorian. It turns out that CNN suggested the same thing, a few days before Trump did, warning Alabama to “be on the lookout”.

Then came the fiction that Trump outed a Russian informant. Instead the reality was that the decision on any outing or exfiltration occurred before Trump became president. We know whose watch this occurred on, but CNN chose to instead blame the current president.

Now it’s an opinion poll. CNN’s story of the week is, ”6 in 10 say Trump does not deserve a second term.” Well, that settles it. If CNN says so, it must be true. Get ready for President Beto or Pete.

YouTube screen grab

Remember how they said endlessly that Trump colluded with Putin and the Russians to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. And how Trump would soon be frog marched from the White House, if the gaggle of psychiatrists declaring Trump insane didn’t get rid of him first via the 25th Amendment.

CNN told us Stormy Daniels would be the Trump slayer. Or was it Omarosa? Or Michael Cohen? Or Megan Rapinoe? I’ve lost track. Michael Avenatti was the perfect candidate in the eyes of Brian Stelter, host of CNN’s show with the most fraudulent name, “Reliable Sources.”

CNN is giddy over this latest poll, reinforcing their reputation as a hackneyed and partisan propaganda arm of the Democrat Party. This will be the story that reverses Trump’s likely successful bid for reelection. In the minds of Beltway journalists, everyone hates Donald Trump and wants him sent packing in November 2020.

CNN describes their poll by saying, “Overall, the poll paints a picture of a President who has done little to improve negative impressions of him or his work during his time in office.” I wonder if they mean his conservative judicial appointments. Or record low unemployment, particularly for women, blacks and Hispanics. Or America’s energy independence. I guess those achievements cause “negative impressions” for the CNN-watching zombies.

Polls are as good as their survey sample. Conduct a Trump approval poll on the Upper East Side of Manhattan or in Boulder, Colorado and not surprisingly his approval number will be in the low single digits. In this particular poll, the internal methodology illustrates how CNN obtained their desired result by commissioning a poll which oversampled Democrats. “31% described themselves as Democrats, 25% described themselves as Republicans, and 44% described themselves as independents or members of another party.”

The poll oversampled Democrats by 6 percentage points. Of the 44 percent who were either independents or “members of another party,” how many other parties are there? Could some be members of the Green Party or the Democratic Socialists of America, the latter being the party of “The Squad”? Are their opinions more reflective of Republicans or Democrats?

The CNN poll also looked only at self-described registered voters, not likely voters, as other more accurate pollsters survey.  According to CNN, “about 55% of voting age citizens cast ballots” in the 2016 presidential election, meaning half of those surveyed didn’t even bother voting.

For comparison, look back eight years ago when Barack Obama was running for reelection. A Gallup poll from December 2011 found that 55 percent of those surveyed believed that Obama did not deserve reelection. This number is not much different from the Trump number of 60 percent cited in the CNN poll. Yet Obama was reelected easily.

Note also the media coverage, not just by CNN, of President Trump. The Media Research Center found that Trump receives 92 percent negative media coverage. The Pew Research Center agreed, “Trump media three times more negative than for Obama, just 5 percent positive.”

Given the overwhelming difference in media coverage of Trump versus Obama, the fact that they have similar reelection poll results is quite favorable for President Trump. Another way to look at these reelection prospects is to look at approval numbers of Obama versus Trump at similar points in their respective presidencies.

Rasmussen Reports does just that. As an aside, Rasmussen was one of the most accurate pollsters in predicting the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Rasmussen has a Daily Presidential Tracking Poll of likely, not simply registered, voters, creating a more valid survey sample given that half of eligible voters don’t even vote.

On September 10, the total approval number for Trump was 47 percent, compared to 42 percent for Obama exactly eight years ago, the same point in both presidencies. And we know who easily won reelection in 2012.

Is CNN honestly reporting their poll results, based on the confounding factors noted above? Or are they pushing a narrative, trying to create their desired electoral outcome? From their article reporting the poll, “Trump’s approval ratings for handling major issues are largely stagnant, with what little movement there is heading in the wrong direction for the President.”

Democrats, and their media handlers, have learned little since 2016 when their polls all predicted a Hillary Clinton landslide, even on Election Day. Representative Jerry Nadler is pushing impeachment when only 21 percent of voters support going in this direction.

It’s interesting that the media touts polls which support their agenda or their wishful thinking, ignoring any contradictory information. For example, the media pays little attention to Rasmussen polls showing Trump support among black voters hovering around 30 percent last month.

Or a Zogby poll from last month with this result, “Trump’s approval rating has improved with minorities: 28% of African Americans and 49% of Hispanics at least somewhat approve of the president.”

Trump enjoys 88 percent job approval among Republicans according to the recent CNN poll, but that’s not the headline.

Democrats ignore the polls they don’t like or Trump rally crowd sizes and enthusiasm at their own peril. Those who live by fake news polls may have another bad night in November 2020.

Brian C Joondeph, MD, is a Denver based physician, freelance writer and occasional radio talk show host whose pieces have appeared in American Thinker, Daily Caller, and other publications. Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedIn, Twitter, and QuodVerum.

via American Thinker

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/

Posted on

Andy Biggs, New Chairman of House Freedom Caucus, Vows to Fight for Conservatives

Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., new chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, says he has some big plans for what he’ll accomplish in the role.

“We must fight against increased government spending and for a balanced budget. We must fight for border security and the elimination of all loopholes that incentivize illegal entry into this nation,” Biggs said in a statement released Tuesday by his office. 

Biggs, elected earlier Tuesday by his colleagues in the conservavtive caucus, said he is committed to working with President Donald Trump to advance its priorities. 

“We must work to lower health care costs and improve access and quality for all Americans,” he added. “We will stand with President Trump as he keeps his promises to the American people. And we will never forget the people who sent us to Congress to work on their behalf.”

Biggs, 60, lives in Gilbert, Arizona, a town in Maricopa County southeast of Phoenix. He won election to the House of Representatives in 2016 after serving in the Arizona House and Senate.

Biggs replaces Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., as chairman. The caucus was created in January 2015 by its first chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Biggs thanked both men for their leadership. 

“The House Freedom Caucus has created a national reputation by standing up for Americans who have felt that they didn’t have a voice in Congress,” Biggs said, adding:

Great leaders like Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows have fostered a caucus that is a force for conservative principles, and I am thankful for their continued leadership and mentorship. I’m also thankful to my predecessor, Matt Salmon, who as one of the founding members of the Freedom Caucus laid the groundwork for the future of this caucus.

Salmon, who previously held Biggs’ seat representing Arizona’s 5th Congressional District, announced his retirement from politics in early 2016. 

The Freedom Caucus, which keeps no official roster of its members, is well known for its opposition to the Washington political establishment.

The post Andy Biggs, New Chairman of House Freedom Caucus, Vows to Fight for Conservatives appeared first on The Daily Signal.

via The Daily Signal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailysignal.com/

Posted on

Black Americans Are Doing Great Under Trump

The August jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed more great news for all Americans. And particularly for black Americans.

The nation’s unemployment rate of 3.7% puts it near the lowest ever in the last half-century.

Black unemployment is at an all-time low at 5.5%.

Also at an all-time low is the gap between black and white unemployment. With white unemployment at 3.4%, the gap is 2.1 percentage points. Put in other terms, black unemployment stood 62% higher than white unemployment.

A few years ago, the Pew Research Center looked at BLS unemployment data back to 1954, the first year the data was broken down by race. From 1954 to 2013, white unemployment averaged 5%, and black unemployment averaged 9.9%.

So going back as far as we have data, the black-white unemployment gap averaged a difference of 4.9 percentage points, compared with 2.1 points now. The black rate averaged 100% higher than the white rate compared with 62% now.

This is good news for everyone except those who are more unhappy that Donald Trump is president than they are happy that blacks are working.

CNN’s Don Lemon told blacks that their vote should be influenced more by what is, according to him, Trump’s “racist behavior” than by the strong economy.

According to the BLS report, there were 349,000 more blacks employed in August 2019 compared with August 2018.

So these 349,000 black Americans now working, who weren’t working a year ago, should be thinking when they go to the voting booth that Don Lemon, whose net worth, according to various online sources, is somewhere between $3 million and $10 million, says Trump is a racist?

Lemon continued on with his CNN buddies that all the credit should go to Obama.

According to BLS, the average number of blacks working during 2016, the last year of Obama’s presidency, was 18.2 million compared with 19.5 million now.

My guess is these 1.3 million more black Americans now working will be more prone to listen to Black Entertainment Television founder, America’s first black billionaire, Robert Johnson, who said on CNBC, “I think the economy is doing absolutely great, and it’s particularly reaching into populations that heretofore have had very bad problems in terms of jobs, unemployment and the opportunities that come with full employment, so African-American unemployment is at its lowest level.”

Johnson went on to credit President Trump and the 2017 tax cuts for stimulating the economy.

The World Bank annually publishes a Doing Business report, grading nations on their conditions for starting and doing business. Economic research shows a powerful correlation between this index and economic growth. It is exactly this — a tax and regulatory environment more friendly to business — that the Trump administration has produced. And, as Johnson points out, every community benefits.

Along with the BLS, the National Federation of Independent Business, which represents the nation’s small businesses, also issued a strong report in August, showing an increase in August over July of workers added per firm.

Contrary to the message of Don Lemon, whom CNN pays a seven-figure salary to tell liberal viewers what they want to hear, Donald Trump’s accomplishments for black Americans are impressive.

First, of course, is a great economy. But in addition, the Opportunity Zone initiative has created compelling tax incentives to drive investment to 8,700 distressed ZIP codes nationwide. Criminal justice reform was passed to improve fairness in sentencing and introduce policies to reduce recidivism.

And, Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in the nation and to black Americans, announced withdrawal from the Title X program as result of a new rule prohibiting referrals for abortion except in cases of rape, incest and medical emergency.

Black Americans are doing great under this president, and as this continues, we can expect surprises from this community in November 2020.

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

The post Black Americans Are Doing Great Under Trump appeared first on The Daily Signal.

via The Daily Signal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailysignal.com/