Trump Points Out the ‘Ironic’ ‘Con’ of the Migrant Caravan


We’ve all seen the pictures from the migrant caravan currently working its way up through Mexico toward the United States border. While the phenomenon has gotten less coverage than it did before the midterm elections, there’s one item in particular that you can probably remember from the drone-and-helicopter wide shots showing the crowd: the waving flags.

President Donald Trump wonders why that is.

“Isn’t it ironic that large Caravans of people are marching to our border wanting U.S.A. asylum because they are fearful of being in their country — yet they are proudly waving their country’s flag,” Trump said in a series of Friday tweets.

“Can this be possible? Yes, because it is all a BIG CON, and the American taxpayer is paying for it!”

TRENDING: Breaking: Altered Election Docs Found, Can Be Linked to FL Dem Party

What exactly the con was went unexplained in the presidential tweets, although it didn’t take much to deduce.

Do you think that caravan members should receive asylum in the United States?

Caravans don’t start as an organic phenomenon. People don’t gather ’round the town square in, say, Honduras and say to themselves, “You know, this country is a mess. You know what we should do? Round up tens of thousands of people, march up to the U.S. border and demand asylum or cross over illegally! I bet we can get tons of media coverage along the way, too.”

If you therefore accept that caravans are inorganic phenomena, you also have to accept that there’s a political mover behind it. The most common conspiracy theory on the internet seems to involve George Soros, although no evidence has been produced in this direction.

A much more likely prime mover — indeed, one more than willing to take credit for it — is Bartolo Fuentes, a former Honduran politician who says he organized the march in order to shine a light on the failures of his country’s leaders.

“In Honduras, the government wants to minimize why people are leaving — they know they are going to leave and they want to say they are doing so because of lies and the opposition, not the conditions that they created,” he said, according to the New York Post.

“This is in line with what the United States is saying — that there are false promises being made. And this pro-government news program played into that messaging, trying to say that there is financing when really people just need to get out.”

RELATED: To Feminists’ Horror, Trump Delivers 2 Major Pro-Life Victories

However, as Benjamin Arie pointed out in a Western Journal Op-Ed, Fuentes has quite the radical history. He’s a member of the LIBRE party, a communist-socialist group that proposed repealing the country’s constitution. Fuentes is also tied to far-left former Honduran leader Manuel Zelaya, who was removed from office back in 2009 after allying with former Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez and trying to change the constitution to stay in power, along with other faux pas.

In one blog post defending the former president, Fuentes said the “American empire” needed to face defeat.

“It is necessary to defeat the opposing forces, which are fundamentally the oligarchy … and the American empire that for now is embodied in the gringo ultra-right that sponsored the coup d’état against President Zelaya,” Fuentes said.

Of course, that kind of ideology could explain all of the flags from other countries dotting the caravan route. Or perhaps it’s something deeper. Either way, it certainly is an irony — embracing the symbol of a country they seem so desperate to leave.

One has the utmost sympathy for those who are simply trying to leave poverty, of course. It’s their responsibility, however, to follow the legal route to leave poverty — and that isn’t requesting asylum, which isn’t designed for economic migrants. However, when the point of a caravan is simply a political one, that sympathy is rightly diminished.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

via Conservative Tribune

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

Trump announces solution to Acosta problem and now the media are stuck


President Trump famously proclaims his ability to win, and already has figured out how to turn the loss dealt him by a federal judge that he appointed into a win.


In a preliminary ruling, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., sided with CNN on Friday in its lawsuit against President Trump, ordering the White House to immediately reinstate correspondent Jim Acosta’s press credentials.



U.S. District Court Judge Timothy J. Kelly, who was appointed by Trump, said the White House failed to provide Acosta due process in revoking his access, and he granted a temporary restraining order restoring it. Kelly noted that it was a “very limited” ruling, based on due-process considerations.

President Trump told White House reporters yesterday and repeated in an interview with Fox News that the judge’s demand of due process is easily satisfied by drawing up clear rules of decorum for press conferences:


Now President Trump is vowing to create “rules and regulations” for how White House reporters act. He says “you have to practice decorum” at the White House.


“It’s not a big deal,” Trump told Fox News in an interview on Friday. “What they said, though, is that we have to create rules and regulations for conduct, etcetera. We’re going to write them up. It’s not a big deal. If he misbehaves, we’ll throw him out or we’ll stop the news conference.”



Acosta, of course, held an impromptu press conference of his own to gloat:


 



 



But his bosses at CNN seem to understand that the gloating may be short-lived, citing the presidential promise of rules in the second sentence of its story on the judge’s ruling.  


The New York Times gets it that Trump now has the upper hand in his battle with a media that wants to drive him from office:


“This could backfire,” said William L. Youmans, a professor of media law at George Washington University. Mr. Acosta “gets his credential now, but it empowers the Trump administration to come up with conduct-based criteria.”


“A ‘rudeness’ or ‘aggressive behavior’ policy would have a huge chilling effect, and would be much more damaging to the whole system,” Dr. Youmans added. “If it lowers the bar for pulling credentials, it’s a recipe for a more tepid press.”


And now, the hard truth about Acosta – Trump’s most prominent enemy in the media he describes as “fake news” – will start to come out: his colleagues in the White House press corps mostly hate him. Ryan Saavedra of The Daily Wire has collected the private thoughts of a number of them:


Multiple reporters have privately complained about CNN’s Jim Acosta in recent days as the reporter continues to wait on a federal judge’s ruling as to whether he can at least temporarily restore the White House correspondent’s press credentials.


“A few CNN reporters told me that they’re embarrassed by Acosta & CNN,” Republican strategist Arthur Schwartz said. “A WH correspondent from a major network (not Fox) told me ‘This isn’t the Jim F*ing Acosta Show. We all hate him. He’s an a**hole and he actually is disrespectful to the president.'”


There’s a lot more, so read the whole thing.


Major Garrett of CBS News did not hide his feelings with off-the-record comments, in an appearance with talk show host Larry O’Connor:


O’CONNOR: “I’d love to take this conversation out of the lawsuit question and I certainly don’t want you to critique one of your colleagues there in the press room. I guess I ask a broader question then, taking Jim Acosta out of it. would you would you agree, Major Garrett, that there is a standard of conduct, there is an expected behavior from a White House correspondent that I think that each — all of you would agree upon?”



GARRETT: “There is. No question about it. It’s the most majestic political place in America, the White House. The only place second to that, in my experience, where I spent almost 15 years, is the United States Congress. It can be rough and tumble at times in the White House, but it is a place of institutional heft and commands institutional respect. And I will say on my behalf, the previous press conference we had with President Trump in the Rose Garden, the President looked at me, I thought he called on me. I stood up, the White House aide handed me the microphone, I began to speak to the President of the United States, President Trump looked at me and said ‘No. Behind you, Kaitlan.’ Kaitlan with CNN, Kaitlan Collins.”



O’CONNOR: “CNN, by the way, yes.”



GARRETT: “So I said, oh, and what did I do? I handed back the microphone. Now, some of my colleagues might say, what did you do that for? You had the microphone, you have a voice, you can speak. The President of the United States said ‘not you.’ To my way of thinking, that’s enough. The President said ‘I didn’t call on you, I called on somebody else.’ Alright, then. And I didn’t get a question at the press conference. Some might say, well, you laid down, are you were too differential. I don’t feel that way. I stood up, the President of the United States said ‘No, I don’t mean you, I mean somebody else. Another one of your colleagues.’ So, I deferred, hoping he might call me again he didn’t that’s how I ordered myself to the institution and the person who occupies our institution is chosen by the country. He didn’t. That’s how I orient myself to the institution, and the person who occupies that institution is chosen by the country. And I respect the institution and the country’s choice. And I’m there to, on behalf of everyone, ask questions, and most importantly, Larry, get answers.”



O’CONNOR: “Yea. And Major Garrett — “



GARRETT: “That’s the whole part of this transaction. If you’re not getting answers, then I think there’s part of the job that’s not reaching its fullest capability on striving to accomplish the main goal, which is to get answers.”


 


As so often, Clarice Feldman has a good suggestion to handle the problem with as little fuss (and government intervention) as possible:


Quit televising the pressers or give him the microphone and don’t give it to any other reporter and he’ll end up beaten in a ditch on the outskirts of town.


 


President Trump famously proclaims his ability to win, and already has figured out how to turn the loss dealt him by a federal judge that he appointed into a win.


In a preliminary ruling, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., sided with CNN on Friday in its lawsuit against President Trump, ordering the White House to immediately reinstate correspondent Jim Acosta’s press credentials.


U.S. District Court Judge Timothy J. Kelly, who was appointed by Trump, said the White House failed to provide Acosta due process in revoking his access, and he granted a temporary restraining order restoring it. Kelly noted that it was a “very limited” ruling, based on due-process considerations.


The judge said that Trump does not have to call on Acosta ever again but that the CNN chief White House correspondent is owed due process before the administration can revoke his “hard,” or permanent, press pass.


President Trump told White House reporters yesterday and repeated in an interview with Fox News that the judge’s demand of due process is easily satisfied by drawing up clear rules of decorum for press conferences:


Now President Trump is vowing to create “rules and regulations” for how White House reporters act. He says “you have to practice decorum” at the White House.


“It’s not a big deal,” Trump told Fox News in an interview on Friday. “What they said, though, is that we have to create rules and regulations for conduct, etcetera. We’re going to write them up. It’s not a big deal. If he misbehaves, we’ll throw him out or we’ll stop the news conference.”



Acosta, of course, held an impromptu press conference of his own to gloat:


 



 



But his bosses at CNN seem to understand that the gloating may be short-lived, citing the presidential promise of rules in the second sentence of its story on the judge’s ruling.  


The New York Times gets it that Trump now has the upper hand in his battle with a media that wants to drive him from office:


“This could backfire,” said William L. Youmans, a professor of media law at George Washington University. Mr. Acosta “gets his credential now, but it empowers the Trump administration to come up with conduct-based criteria.”


“A ‘rudeness’ or ‘aggressive behavior’ policy would have a huge chilling effect, and would be much more damaging to the whole system,” Dr. Youmans added. “If it lowers the bar for pulling credentials, it’s a recipe for a more tepid press.”


And now, the hard truth about Acosta – Trump’s most prominent enemy in the media he describes as “fake news” – will start to come out: his colleagues in the White House press corps mostly hate him. Ryan Saavedra of The Daily Wire has collected the private thoughts of a number of them:


Multiple reporters have privately complained about CNN’s Jim Acosta in recent days as the reporter continues to wait on a federal judge’s ruling as to whether he can at least temporarily restore the White House correspondent’s press credentials.


“A few CNN reporters told me that they’re embarrassed by Acosta & CNN,” Republican strategist Arthur Schwartz said. “A WH correspondent from a major network (not Fox) told me ‘This isn’t the Jim F*ing Acosta Show. We all hate him. He’s an a**hole and he actually is disrespectful to the president.'”


There’s a lot more, so read the whole thing.


Major Garrett of CBS News did not hide his feelings with off-the-record comments, in an appearance with talk show host Larry O’Connor:


O’CONNOR: “I’d love to take this conversation out of the lawsuit question and I certainly don’t want you to critique one of your colleagues there in the press room. I guess I ask a broader question then, taking Jim Acosta out of it. would you would you agree, Major Garrett, that there is a standard of conduct, there is an expected behavior from a White House correspondent that I think that each — all of you would agree upon?”



GARRETT: “There is. No question about it. It’s the most majestic political place in America, the White House. The only place second to that, in my experience, where I spent almost 15 years, is the United States Congress. It can be rough and tumble at times in the White House, but it is a place of institutional heft and commands institutional respect. And I will say on my behalf, the previous press conference we had with President Trump in the Rose Garden, the President looked at me, I thought he called on me. I stood up, the White House aide handed me the microphone, I began to speak to the President of the United States, President Trump looked at me and said ‘No. Behind you, Kaitlan.’ Kaitlan with CNN, Kaitlan Collins.”



O’CONNOR: “CNN, by the way, yes.”



GARRETT: “So I said, oh, and what did I do? I handed back the microphone. Now, some of my colleagues might say, what did you do that for? You had the microphone, you have a voice, you can speak. The President of the United States said ‘not you.’ To my way of thinking, that’s enough. The President said ‘I didn’t call on you, I called on somebody else.’ Alright, then. And I didn’t get a question at the press conference. Some might say, well, you laid down, are you were too differential. I don’t feel that way. I stood up, the President of the United States said ‘No, I don’t mean you, I mean somebody else. Another one of your colleagues.’ So, I deferred, hoping he might call me again he didn’t that’s how I ordered myself to the institution and the person who occupies our institution is chosen by the country. He didn’t. That’s how I orient myself to the institution, and the person who occupies that institution is chosen by the country. And I respect the institution and the country’s choice. And I’m there to, on behalf of everyone, ask questions, and most importantly, Larry, get answers.”



O’CONNOR: “Yea. And Major Garrett — “



GARRETT: “That’s the whole part of this transaction. If you’re not getting answers, then I think there’s part of the job that’s not reaching its fullest capability on striving to accomplish the main goal, which is to get answers.”


 


As so often, Clarice Feldman has a good suggestion to handle the problem with as little fuss (and government intervention) as possible:


Quit televising the pressers or give him the microphone and don’t give it to any other reporter and he’ll end up beaten in a ditch on the outskirts of town.


 




via American Thinker Blog

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

Funny business in GOP congressional winner Young Kim’s sudden loss in the recount?


California congressional nominee Young Kim was hailed as the winner with about a three-point margin of victory over her Democratic opponent, Gil Cisneros on election night, with the Associated Press and others reporting 100% of the precincts counted. The Asian and immigrant presses celebrated, and Kim was pictured and seated with the congressional class of 2018 official portrait.


But then something funny happened: She apparently lost last night, as somehow, more votes were counted, and somehow, nearly all of them went for the Democrat, leaving him with a 3,020 surplus.



To her credit, she issued an angry warning a few days earlier:


 



 



She hasn’t said anything since.


She makes three good points: That the Cisneros campaign had been rebuked by a judge for ballot tampering and poll worker intimidation, which ought to trigger far more investigative attention than it’s gotten, because that’s the real thing as far as fraud goes.


Second, she points out that the additonal votes counted, which must be mail-in or provisional ballots that somehow didn’t get counted in the midterm aftermath, ought to be statistically similar to the votes that already were counted. She could be right on that, given that she had obvious majority support from the Asian-American community and among the homeowners and successful legal immigrants who made up her political base in Riverside and Orange counties. It was, after all, the congressional seat held by beloved GOP congressman Rep. Ed Royce, where she had been his top aide and had his hearty endorsement. And she had a very large lead on election night.


Third, she emphasizes that she wants ever legal ballot counted – which is an issue in this part of the world, given the numbers of illegal immigrants who are pressured into voting, given the 2% or 3% voter turnout seen in nearby areas, and the Sacramento machine is doing all it can to get more of them to vote, legally or not.


Cisneros probably had the edge in the illegal immigrant zones of Los Angeles, traditionally an area of low voter turnout, and among the Trump haters. The part of Los Angeles County that made up his base seemed to be a smaller part, at least geographically and likely population-wise of the overall district.


Do I think he could have won? Possibly. All of Orange County flipped to blue with this midterm, and factors such as illegal immigration (and its champions), urbanization, media bias, and the fact that homeowners lost key tax deductions in the big congressional tax cut of last year may have had something to do with it.


And do I think political organization might have had something to do with it? Yes, that, too. Cisneros comes from a dirty political machine in California (Here is how they operate) and he has been known to employ muscle and money to make problems go away, given that he won a $266 million lottery, and bought a house in his district just a year ago just to run for the congressional seat. As I wrote earlier, wondering why the press was ignoring Young Kim’s obvious victory, here is Cisneros in action:


Uses money to buy influence? Check. Uses money to make problems go away? Check. Enough money to get the Democrats to take his side and use their muscle to defend him while lesser lights go crashing down for the same sort of sex-harrassment bahavior? Check. But unlike Harvey Weinstein, who used his money to buy influence and make sex-harrassment problems go away, Cisneros seems to have had even more political influence with his money, because he able to get a credible sex harassment claim dismissed as a “misunderstanding.” And what a coincidence, he has a lot of money for Democrats.


Is the press trying to minimize Kim’s victory based on that kind of influence? Call me paranoid, but look how Cisneros does business: Is he going to accept a defeat from an Asian-American woman? By that narrow margin after all the money he spent? Are some “found” ballots going to be found, and all of them go in Cisneros’ direction? Somehow that doesn’t look right and that could explain why the Democrat-aligned press (but not the ethnic or overseas press) just seems to want to make her go away.


Was the fix already in? Is that why the press ignored her?


 


As for Young Kim, she has national experience and she presents herself wonderfully, and comes off as a solid conservative in ideals, but it’s mostly insider experience, not filthy-politics rough-and-tumble. Could she have underestimated how dirty Cisneros’s political allies were? Quite possibly, but since the race hasn’t been called yet, it may mean she has time to get illegal votes thrown out via the courts. At this point, she’s going to have to fight somehow and fight harder, and it’s going to take a miracle. What it highlights is that Republicans, particularly Asian American Republicans, must build a fighting machine as tough and bare-knuckled as the Democratic political machine that got Cisneros in.


 


Because there’s ample reason for suspicion on this one.


California congressional nominee Young Kim was hailed as the winner with about a three-point margin of victory over her Democratic opponent, Gil Cisneros on election night, with the Associated Press and others reporting 100% of the precincts counted. The Asian and immigrant presses celebrated, and Kim was pictured and seated with the congressional class of 2018 official portrait.


But then something funny happened: She apparently lost last night, as somehow, more votes were counted, and somehow, nearly all of them went for the Democrat, leaving him with a 3,020 surplus.


To her credit, she issued an angry warning a few days earlier:


 



 



She hasn’t said anything since.


She makes three good points: That the Cisneros campaign had been rebuked by a judge for ballot tampering and poll worker intimidation, which ought to trigger far more investigative attention than it’s gotten, because that’s the real thing as far as fraud goes.


Second, she points out that the additonal votes counted, which must be mail-in or provisional ballots that somehow didn’t get counted in the midterm aftermath, ought to be statistically similar to the votes that already were counted. She could be right on that, given that she had obvious majority support from the Asian-American community and among the homeowners and successful legal immigrants who made up her political base in Riverside and Orange counties. It was, after all, the congressional seat held by beloved GOP congressman Rep. Ed Royce, where she had been his top aide and had his hearty endorsement. And she had a very large lead on election night.


Third, she emphasizes that she wants ever legal ballot counted – which is an issue in this part of the world, given the numbers of illegal immigrants who are pressured into voting, given the 2% or 3% voter turnout seen in nearby areas, and the Sacramento machine is doing all it can to get more of them to vote, legally or not.


Cisneros probably had the edge in the illegal immigrant zones of Los Angeles, traditionally an area of low voter turnout, and among the Trump haters. The part of Los Angeles County that made up his base seemed to be a smaller part, at least geographically and likely population-wise of the overall district.


Do I think he could have won? Possibly. All of Orange County flipped to blue with this midterm, and factors such as illegal immigration (and its champions), urbanization, media bias, and the fact that homeowners lost key tax deductions in the big congressional tax cut of last year may have had something to do with it.


And do I think political organization might have had something to do with it? Yes, that, too. Cisneros comes from a dirty political machine in California (Here is how they operate) and he has been known to employ muscle and money to make problems go away, given that he won a $266 million lottery, and bought a house in his district just a year ago just to run for the congressional seat. As I wrote earlier, wondering why the press was ignoring Young Kim’s obvious victory, here is Cisneros in action:


Uses money to buy influence? Check. Uses money to make problems go away? Check. Enough money to get the Democrats to take his side and use their muscle to defend him while lesser lights go crashing down for the same sort of sex-harrassment bahavior? Check. But unlike Harvey Weinstein, who used his money to buy influence and make sex-harrassment problems go away, Cisneros seems to have had even more political influence with his money, because he able to get a credible sex harassment claim dismissed as a “misunderstanding.” And what a coincidence, he has a lot of money for Democrats.


Is the press trying to minimize Kim’s victory based on that kind of influence? Call me paranoid, but look how Cisneros does business: Is he going to accept a defeat from an Asian-American woman? By that narrow margin after all the money he spent? Are some “found” ballots going to be found, and all of them go in Cisneros’ direction? Somehow that doesn’t look right and that could explain why the Democrat-aligned press (but not the ethnic or overseas press) just seems to want to make her go away.


Was the fix already in? Is that why the press ignored her?


 


As for Young Kim, she has national experience and she presents herself wonderfully, and comes off as a solid conservative in ideals, but it’s mostly insider experience, not filthy-politics rough-and-tumble. Could she have underestimated how dirty Cisneros’s political allies were? Quite possibly, but since the race hasn’t been called yet, it may mean she has time to get illegal votes thrown out via the courts. At this point, she’s going to have to fight somehow and fight harder, and it’s going to take a miracle. What it highlights is that Republicans, particularly Asian American Republicans, must build a fighting machine as tough and bare-knuckled as the Democratic political machine that got Cisneros in.


 


Because there’s ample reason for suspicion on this one.




via American Thinker Blog

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

US House Reverses 181-Year-Old-Rule To Appease Newly Elected Muslim


For 181 years, you haven’t been able to wear head coverings on the floor of the House of Representatives. Now, however, after the election of the first hijab-wearing Muslim representative, that’s about to be changed.

According to the New York Post, the election of Minnesota’s Ilhan Omar will put an end to a rule that was originally meant to differentiate Congress from British Parliament.

Parlimentarians had a tradition of wearing hats on the floor of Westminster. Given that we took up coffee as our national beverage (and even threw that dastardly tea over the sides of some ships in Boston Harbor) to let the British know how we felt about their institutions, banning hats only seemed to come naturally.

However, in the age of Ilhan Omar, that’s changing.

“There are those kinds of policies that oftentimes get created because people who have blind spots are in positions of influence and positions of power,” Omar said Thursday.

TRENDING: Out-of-Shape Soldiers Just Got Horrible News from Trump — You’re Out

“I think it will be really exciting to see the stuff that we notice within the rules that don’t work for a modern-day America.”

The new rules will allow head coverings for religious reasons or medical treatment. Democrat Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, who has lost her hair due to chemotherapy, also applauded the decision.

“I just have a bald head and I’m somewhat getting used to it hoping that it’s a very temporary thing,” Coleman said. “I don’t think I would start wearing a (hat) now, but I recognize that if someone else has the same issue and wants to, they should be able to.”

There have been numerous changes to dress code in Congress over the years; women were forbidden to wear pants on the floor until 1993, and bare arms were first allowed under Paul Ryan’s speakership.

Do you agree with this rule change?

So, the times they do a-change when it comes to congressional styles. However, the aforementioned rules were based around gender biases and the norms of the era; there wasn’t any real or symbolic reasoning behind them. In this case, it isn’t quite that simple.

As the House’s website notes, proposals to ban head coverings dated back to 1822. In 1833, future president James K. Polk proposed that the House “provide that the members should sit in the House uncovered, unless under special leave of the Speaker.”

Others pointed out “the symbolic value of the tradition, noting that members of the British House of Commons wore hats during debate to symbolize that body’s independence from the King of England.”

In the end, head coverings were eliminated in 1837, and it’s been that way ever since.

Of course, the case could be made that a religious argument against it could have existed since 1845, when Lewis Charles Levin became the first Jewish man elected to Congress.

RELATED: Austrians Deliver Bad News to Shariah Islamists Living in Their Country

Granted, Levin is probably best remembered as a vicious anti-Catholic, anti-foreigner zealot, but the point still holds that for 173 of the 181 years that the head-covering ban has existed, there’s likely been a compelling reason to abandon it for Jewish men who wish to wear the kippah. Yet, we’ve seen no movement on the matter until now.

Should the tradition be amended? It’s interesting that the only representative who plans to take advantage of this new rule is Representative-elect Omar; even Watson Coleman says she’s not going to be taking advantage of it.

While we appreciate the fact that the hijab is part of Omar’s religious dress, we also appreciate that head coverings have likely been the part of other representatives’ religious dress, and they also haven’t been able to wear them on the floor, either. This wasn’t just some “blind spot” but part of congressional heritage.

Positioning the rule as being part of the ignorance of those “positions of influence and positions of power” isn’t necessarily a good look — even if one agrees Omar should be able to wear her hijab anywhere in the Capitol that she sees fit.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

via Conservative Tribune

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

Iran to Be Declared in Breach of Chemical Weapons Bans


Iranian President Hassan Rouhani

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani / Getty Images

BY:

The Trump administration is set to announce that Iran is not in compliance with the Chemical Weapons Conventions, marking a significant departure from that of the Obama administration, which refrained from making such a declaration amid efforts to solidify the landmark nuclear agreement.

The declaration comes in the aftermath of a flurry of activity by both the White House and State Department highlighting Iran’s malign activities across the globe. A bevy of economic sanctions on Iran were reimposed earlier this month, and the chemical weapons action is likely to further tighten the noose on the Iranian regime as part of what the administration has called a “maximum pressure” campaign on Tehran.

Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, backed by Iranian forces, is believed by the international community to have deployed chemical weapons, with support given by Tehran.

Multiple sources with knowledge of the matter confirmed that next week the Trump administration will transmit a formal finding to Congress regarding Iran’s non-compliance with the conventions, which ban stockpiling and use of these lethal weapons.

The use of chemical weapons in the Middle East has created scores of civilian casualties just in Syria alone.

The Obama administration stopped short of declaring Iran in non-compliance during its time in office, but did inform Congress that it was not able to verify Iran as upholding the conventions.

One senior congressional official with knowledge of the CWC announcement told the Washington Free Beacon this designation is a long time coming.

“No one who’s actually an adult is surprised by this news,” said the source, who could only speak on background about upcoming actions. “The Iranians have never met an arms control agreement they didn’t violate. That’s why the nuclear deal was such a transparent joke. The IAEA verifies what it’s allowed to verify and on everything else the Iranians cheat. The Trump administration should draw the logical conclusion and force the Europeans out of the deal, which so far they’ve refused to do.”

via Washington Free Beacon

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

Democrat Eric Swalwell: If Gun Owners Defy ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban, ‘The Government Has Nukes’


Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) defended a potential “assault weapons” buyback Friday afternoon, saying that if gun owners defy a legislative ban, “the government has nukes.”

The exchange began with conservative Twitter commentator Joe Biggs responding to a story on Swalwell’s Thursday op-ed in USA Today, titled “Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters.” “@RepSwalwell wants a war,” Biggs wrote. “Because that’s what you would get.”

Swalwell responded by noting the government’s nuclear arsenal, writing: “And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.”

Biggs responded by asking, “So our government would nuke its own country in order to take guns? Wow.”

Swalwell countered by asking Biggs to quit being “dramatic” about the casual reference to weapons of mass destruction:

On May 21, 2018, Breitbart News reported that Swalwell pushed an “assault weapons” ban that would be based on buybacks with criminal charges for those who did not comply. A similar buyback was used by the Australia government.

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News, the host of the Breitbart podcast Bullets with AWR Hawkins, and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.

via Breitbart News

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

FBI Releases Second Installment of its Internal Investigation of McCabe – But All 752 Pages Are Withheld


FBI Releases Second Installment of its Internal Investigation of McCabe – But All 752 Pages Are Withheld

Cristina Laila
by Cristina Laila
November 16, 2018


Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe

The FBI released its second installment of its Office of Professional Responsibility investigation of fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe on Friday and all 752 pages were withheld. 

Last month the FBI released part one of its Office of Professional Responsibility investigation into McCabe and it revealed the bureau investigated the former FBI Deputy Director in March of 2017 for an unauthorized media leak about General Mike Flynn.

The leak occurred in February of 2017, shortly before General Flynn was fired from his post as National Security Advisor, according an FBI document published as part of a tranche of FOIA documents released.

Details about the nature of the leak were not provided.

“OPA EM was electronically contacted by (redacted) regarding a media leak involving a statement overheard in early February 2017, allegedly made by FBI EM,” the document reads “Specifically, the alleged comments were made by DD A.G. McCabe and pertained to General Michael T. Flynn and the POTUS.”

Andrew McCabe was fired from his position as FBI Deputy Director in mid-March after Inspector General Michael Horowitz concluded he ‘lacked candor’ and lied to investigators, including under oath several times.

A Grand Jury has been impaneled to investigate Andrew McCabe.

Comments

As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning. Guest posting is disabled for security reasons.

via The Gateway Pundit

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

Swalwell Suggests Nuking America if Gun Rights Supporters Were to Resist Gun Control Measures


Rep. Eric Swalwell / Getty Images

BY:

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D., Calif.) suggested the United States government would use nuclear weapons in a theoretical war against gun rights supporters who refuse to give up assault weapons.

The Democratic congressman’s comments were prompted by a Twitter user’s response to an article about Swalwell’s call to force gun owners to relinquish assault weapons. The piece recounts how Swalwell “has proposed outlawing ‘military-style semiautomatic assault weapons’ and forcing existing owners to sell their weapons or face prosecution.”

“So basically @RepSwalwell wants a war. Because that’s what you would get. You’re outta your fucking mind if you think I’ll give up my rights and give the [government] all the power,” Twitter user Joe Biggs said.

“And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities,” Swalwell tweeted in reply.

“So our government would nuke its own country in order to take guns? Wow,” Biggs responded.

“Don’t be so dramatic. You claiming you need a gun to protect yourself against the government is ludicrous. But you seem like a reasonable person. If an assault weapons ban happens, I’m sure you’ll follow law,” Swalwell tweeted back.

A poll obtained by the Washington Free Beacon found that repealing the Second Amendment is the second most important issue for Democrats in this country, behind only single payer health care. Twenty-four percent of Democrats said it was their most important issue.

Swalwell has been floated as a potential 2020 presidential candidate, and the congressman said earlier this month he is “absolutely” looking into a run.

via Washington Free Beacon

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

Secretive Liberal Donor Network Plots 2020 Strategy in DC


George Soros / Getty Images

Secretive Liberal Donor Network Plots 2020 Strategy in DC

Democracy Alliance held fall investment conference blocks away from White House


Brent Scher and Joe Schoffstall

Politics

A secretive dark money network comprised of powerful liberal donors who help set the Democratic agenda descended on Washington, D.C., to begin plotting strategy for the next two years leading up to the 2020 elections.

The Democracy Alliance, a donors’ club of liberal millionaires and billionaires that counts George Soros as a member, gathered just blocks away from the White House at the Capital Hilton hotel for the group’s fall investment conference to discuss post-midterm election strategy, according to a conference agenda obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

“Two years ago, on the day after Donald Trump’s surprise victory, we threw out the planned agenda for that year’s upcoming conference and got to work with colleagues and allies trying to understand what hit us,” the agenda reads. “Now we meet at a different moment—still with much work to do, but with the wind at our backs.”

“Everything we need to digest, review, and address cannot be covered in two days alone, which is why this conference is a starting point for the work of the next two years to build an America where everyone can participate fairly in the democratic process, that supports an economy built on inclusivity, that leads to a safe environment and healthy communities, and that is equitable and just.”

The conference—which is not publicly announced—features heavy security in the area where the donors and activists gather for their sessions, which are off-limits to anyone not involved with the group. The alliance additionally warns its members to “refrain from leaving sensitive materials in public spaces” and to dispose of all paperwork in “specifically-identified recycling bins.”

Partners of the alliance, each obligated to spend at least $200,000 a year in support of approved groups, hosted representatives from a number of liberal organizations and Democratic politicians to discuss how to expand the electorate leading up to the 2020 elections, bankrolling and assisting youth voter efforts, and pushing a more progressive agenda in Congress, among other objectives.

Environmental billionaire Tom Steyer, a partner in the alliance who is leading the campaign to impeach President Donald Trump, was listed as the host of a Thursday panel where members were briefed on “how we as a donor community can support efforts to grow more permanent, stronger youth power for 2020.”

Soros’s lobbying group, the Open Society Policy Center, hosted a session called “After Kavanaugh,” where members were briefed on strategies for future judicial nomination fights.

“The fight over the Kavanaugh nomination saw unprecedented grassroots activity to defeat an unpopular and damaged nominee,” the agenda explains. “But as we now know, it was insufficient. With a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, how should we prepare for the next vacancy, and what will be needed to bring a similar sense of urgency to the lower federal courts and the state courts?”

Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), who will soon chair the House Intelligence Committee, held a three-hour closed-door briefing with partners in the alliance on Friday morning. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D., Wash.) took part in a session on “exercising progressive power in Congress.”

Also giving a presentation was former Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe, who argued that embracing education as a political issue could lead to “a super majority in the U.S. Senate and a Democrat in the White House.” A focus on education, the agenda explains, “is the key for progressives to carry 30 states in the next presidential election and get 60 votes in the Senate.”

“This is not a pipe dream,” the agenda declares. McAuliffe last year told the Free Beacon he was the party’s best candidate to oppose President Donald Trump in 2020.

Spotted on site were David Brock, the longtime Clinton ally who founded a constellation of liberal groups including Media Matters and American Bridge, Center for American Progress president Neera Tanden, and former Democratic congressman Tom Perriello, whose failed gubernatorial bid last year was bankrolled by Soros.

The conference’s closing dinner Friday night will be headlined by Planned Parenthood’s new president, Dr. Leana Wen.

The alliance’s fall gathering last year featured representatives Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), Maxine Waters (D., Calif.), and Ben Ray Lujan (D., N.M.), who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) introduced Soros via video message while Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.) also pretaped a message for the group.

The agenda this year again included a warning to its members saying not to subject others to “unwanted sexual advances, coercion or bullying of a sexual nature, or the explicit or implicit promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors” and not to engage in any behavior that is “verbally or physically unwelcome, harassing, or bullying on any basis.”

The Democracy Alliance has steered more than $500 million in funding to progressive organizations and infrastructure since its founding in 2005. Each member vows to push at least $200,000 annually to approved groups of the organization that include the likes of Media Matters for America, American Civil Liberties Union, and the Center for Popular Democracy, along with dozens of other left-wing organizations.

via Washington Free Beacon

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

Amazon Was Offered Universities, Exclusive Airport Lounge, and More by Cities Bidding for HQ2


Amazon was offered a variety of incentives besides billions of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks from cities aroud the country in return for the company’s newest headquarters location.

Before Amazon decided on New York City and Arlington, Virginia, as the locations for HQ2 this week, the company received appeals from hundreds of cities, counties, and states, which were all willing to give Amazon a range of incentives to entice it into basing its headquarters in the area.

According to BuzzFeed, Atlanta, Georgia, offered Amazon “a state university–affiliated education program featuring 24-week boot camp programs for company employees; an exclusive lounge — with free parking — for Amazon executives at one of the busiest airports in the world, Hartsfield-Jackson International; and the possible addition of a car on Atlanta’s MARTA trains to help ‘distribute products around the city.’”

Boston, Massachusetts, tried to entice Amazon by offering to “help eligible Amazon employees purchase homes in Boston by providing zero-interest loans to help with down payments,” among other financial perks, while Chicago, Illinois, commissioned Star Trek actor William Shatner to voice the city’s appeal video, knowing that Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos is a Star Trek fan.

Dallas, Texas, offered Amazon “a new university” called “Amazon U,” and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, offered to exempt Amazon from a 1 percent construction tax which applies to everyone else.

All of the cities and states were also prepared to give Amazon hundreds of millions, if not billions, in tax breaks and subsidies.

After facing criticism, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo defended the $1.5 billion in tax credits and $1.2 billion in tax breaks New York gave to Amazon, claiming it, “Cost us nothing.”

It was also revealed this week that Virginia will help the company fight Freedom of Information Act requests as part of its deal.

In response to the Internet retail giant choosing New York City and Washington, D.C. neighbor Arlington after making other cities beg, Breitbart News Senior Tech Reporter Allum Bokhari described the move as “sadistic.”

“Amazon has finally picked the new locations of its east-coast headquarters, and they’re pretty obvious choices: New York City and the Washington D.C. metropolitan area. But that wasn’t before the tech giant sadistically made virtually every other metropolitan area beg for its patronage,” Bokhari declared. “It’s no surprise that Amazon chose to locate its new headquarters in NYC and DC, the twin hubs of finance, media, and political power in America. But before the company made its eminently predictable decision, other cities still felt compelled to kiss Jeff Bezos’ ring, in the vain hope of attracting the same tech giant whose rise has gutted their local main streets.”

“Some of the behavior by city governments was pretty humiliating. Kansas City mayor Sly James personally bought and reviewed 1,000 Amazon products (all 5-star reviews, of course), in an effort to persuade the company to set up shop in his city,” he continued. “And in Georgia, the town of Stonecrest offered to rename itself ‘Amazon, Georgia’ if the tech giant picked them.”

Charlie Nash is a reporter for Breitbart Tech. You can follow him on Twitter @MrNashington, or like his page at Facebook.

via Breitbart News

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