For decades, journalists and other Democrats have played the race card and sex card in elections because they can’t win based on their policies.  For the last few years, they have added the Russian card to their hand to play tricks on the public.  We knew that the Russian card has been played in the presidential election, but on Thursday, I saw that they also played it in the special election in Alabama in 2017.

It starts off with a story that shows up at the Washington Post after decades of Roy Moore running for office – that Moore pursued young girls.  Democrats had little chance to win this Senate seat, but all of a sudden, after Moore won the primary and after Republicans couldn’t replace him, this story shows up – not at an Alabama newspaper, but in the hands of a national Democrat-supporting newspaper.  With no actual evidence, this story was run throughout the U.S continuously to destroy Moore.  It worked.

As insurance, Democrat operatives flooded social networks pretending to be Russians.  With no actual evidence, media outlets said Russians wanted Moore in the Senate.

A group of tech experts working as Democratic operatives were paid $100,000 to orchestrate an elaborate “false flag” disinformation campaign during the hotly contested 2017 special election between Roy Moore and Democratic Sen. Doug Jones. 

The group, funded by liberal billionaire Reid Hoffman, created over 1,000 Russian-language Twitter accounts that followed Roy Moore overnight in order to link the embattled Republican candidate to Russian influence campaigns, according to a Wednesday report in the New York Times. …

Democrats involved in the scheme have likened it to fighting fire with fire. 

Robert Mueller indicts a total of thirteen Russians and Russian businesses, spreading the news widely that they had attempted to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.  Mueller fully expected that none of these people or businesses would show up, so the Justice Department wouldn’t have to actually show evidence to support the claim.

Heaven forbid, one of the defendants showed up and demanded a trial and wanted to see the evidence, and Mueller wouldn’t provide it.  When the government charges someone, shouldn’t it be prepared immediately to at least show the person they charge what it has?

The playbook is always the same but has different variations.

No matter how much Trump helps minorities and women move up the economic ladder and no matter how many immigrants are let in each year, journalists and other Democrats just repeat over and over again that Trump is a racist, xenophobe, and sexist and say how divisive he is.

The DNC won’t let anyone in government see their computers, but we are told over and over again that Russians hacked them with no evidence.

There never has been any actual evidence of Russian collusion with Trump, but that is repeated over and over again as if it were absolutely true.

Without evidence, we were told over and over again how Brett Kavanaugh abused women.

No matter how many times experts flip and flop between warming and cooling, and no matter how many times they adjust numbers when their predictions don’t match the actual climate, we are told over and over that humans, CO2, and fossil fuels are causing warming and the science is settled.

No matter how good the economic statistics, we are told over and over again that a recession is coming up to discourage Americans and to lower Trump’s approval.  Never mind that many of these same people said the economy could never grow this fast and that Trump’s policies would have crashed the economy by now.

It is a shame so many are influenced so much by Democrat propaganda, pushed by complicit journalists.

For decades, journalists and other Democrats have played the race card and sex card in elections because they can’t win based on their policies.  For the last few years, they have added the Russian card to their hand to play tricks on the public.  We knew that the Russian card has been played in the presidential election, but on Thursday, I saw that they also played it in the special election in Alabama in 2017.

It starts off with a story that shows up at the Washington Post after decades of Roy Moore running for office – that Moore pursued young girls.  Democrats had little chance to win this Senate seat, but all of a sudden, after Moore won the primary and after Republicans couldn’t replace him, this story shows up – not at an Alabama newspaper, but in the hands of a national Democrat-supporting newspaper.  With no actual evidence, this story was run throughout the U.S continuously to destroy Moore.  It worked.

As insurance, Democrat operatives flooded social networks pretending to be Russians.  With no actual evidence, media outlets said Russians wanted Moore in the Senate.

A group of tech experts working as Democratic operatives were paid $100,000 to orchestrate an elaborate “false flag” disinformation campaign during the hotly contested 2017 special election between Roy Moore and Democratic Sen. Doug Jones. 

The group, funded by liberal billionaire Reid Hoffman, created over 1,000 Russian-language Twitter accounts that followed Roy Moore overnight in order to link the embattled Republican candidate to Russian influence campaigns, according to a Wednesday report in the New York Times. …

Democrats involved in the scheme have likened it to fighting fire with fire. 

Robert Mueller indicts a total of thirteen Russians and Russian businesses, spreading the news widely that they had attempted to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.  Mueller fully expected that none of these people or businesses would show up, so the Justice Department wouldn’t have to actually show evidence to support the claim.

Heaven forbid, one of the defendants showed up and demanded a trial and wanted to see the evidence, and Mueller wouldn’t provide it.  When the government charges someone, shouldn’t it be prepared immediately to at least show the person they charge what it has?

The playbook is always the same but has different variations.

No matter how much Trump helps minorities and women move up the economic ladder and no matter how many immigrants are let in each year, journalists and other Democrats just repeat over and over again that Trump is a racist, xenophobe, and sexist and say how divisive he is.

The DNC won’t let anyone in government see their computers, but we are told over and over again that Russians hacked them with no evidence.

There never has been any actual evidence of Russian collusion with Trump, but that is repeated over and over again as if it were absolutely true.

Without evidence, we were told over and over again how Brett Kavanaugh abused women.

No matter how many times experts flip and flop between warming and cooling, and no matter how many times they adjust numbers when their predictions don’t match the actual climate, we are told over and over that humans, CO2, and fossil fuels are causing warming and the science is settled.

No matter how good the economic statistics, we are told over and over again that a recession is coming up to discourage Americans and to lower Trump’s approval.  Never mind that many of these same people said the economy could never grow this fast and that Trump’s policies would have crashed the economy by now.

It is a shame so many are influenced so much by Democrat propaganda, pushed by complicit journalists.

President Trump has been proven right after warning America’s rich that voting for Democrats in the 2018 midterms would crash U.S. stock markets.

The president took to Twitter on October 31 to warn: “The Stock Market is up massively since the Election, but is now taking a little pause – people want to see what happens with the Midterms.  If you want your Stocks to go down, I strongly suggest voting Democrat.  They like the Venezuela financial model, High Taxes & Open Borders!  Maybe it’s time to rebrand the Democrats as the party of the rich.”

Many progressive Democrats have been cheering for an American economic disaster, if it would politically undermine Donald Trump’s populist support.  The host of Politically Incorrect, Bill Maher, who has am over $100 million net worth, passionately stated in June:

I think one way to get rid of Trump is a crashing economy.  So please bring on a recession. Sorry if it hurts people, but its either root for a recession or lose your democracy.

Maher seems to be getting his wish since the November 6 elections.  The Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index led by Silicon Valley tech giant shares is down 10.6 percent in the month for the worst December plunge since 1931 during the Great Depression.

Although Democrats claim to be the party of social justice for the poor, Williams College political science professor Darrel Paul’s 2018 analysis of wealthy Congressional districts found that the real story surrounding the Democrat’s 40-seat gain to take control of the U.S. House of Representatives was due to “the swing of the rich toward the Democrats.”

The nonpartisan OpenSecrets website that tracks Federal Election Commission (FEC) campaign filings for political spending found that midterm spending hit a record $5.2 billion in 2018, up over a third from the $3.8 billion in 2014 and triple the $1.6 billion in 1998.

Republicans in the five prior congressional midterms spent slightly more than Democrats each cycle.  But 2018 Democrat candidates spent $2.53 billion versus about $2.20 billion for Republican candidates, a $330-million “blue wave” cash advantage.

OpenSecrets found that Democrats concentrated their funding advantage on the 435 U.S. House seats, where Democratic candidates raised $951 million versus just $637 million for Republican contenders. That gave Democrats a massive 49-percent funding advantage.

The Center for Responsive Politics found that with the rise of Democrat Barack Obama since 2008, Silicon Valley’s annual lobbying expenditures skyrocketed by 800 percent, from $17.8 million to $139.5 million.  CRP wrote, “Just as water flows downhill, money in politics flows to where the power is.”  

The TechCrunch named Silicon Valley the “Valley of the Democrats” after PayPal cofounder and top venture capitalist Peter Thiel commented in a 2015 interview that 83 percent of political contributions by the area’s tech executives went solely to Democrats.

When Thiel announced he was leaving America’s tech capital in February, he commented that although Silicon Valley claims to have been incredibly successful for America over the last decade, “I think the truth has been more one of specific success, but more general failure.”

President Trump has been proven right after warning America’s rich that voting for Democrats in the 2018 midterms would crash U.S. stock markets.

The president took to Twitter on October 31 to warn: “The Stock Market is up massively since the Election, but is now taking a little pause – people want to see what happens with the Midterms.  If you want your Stocks to go down, I strongly suggest voting Democrat.  They like the Venezuela financial model, High Taxes & Open Borders!  Maybe it’s time to rebrand the Democrats as the party of the rich.”

Many progressive Democrats have been cheering for an American economic disaster, if it would politically undermine Donald Trump’s populist support.  The host of Politically Incorrect, Bill Maher, who has am over $100 million net worth, passionately stated in June:

I think one way to get rid of Trump is a crashing economy.  So please bring on a recession. Sorry if it hurts people, but its either root for a recession or lose your democracy.

Maher seems to be getting his wish since the November 6 elections.  The Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index led by Silicon Valley tech giant shares is down 10.6 percent in the month for the worst December plunge since 1931 during the Great Depression.

Although Democrats claim to be the party of social justice for the poor, Williams College political science professor Darrel Paul’s 2018 analysis of wealthy Congressional districts found that the real story surrounding the Democrat’s 40-seat gain to take control of the U.S. House of Representatives was due to “the swing of the rich toward the Democrats.”

The nonpartisan OpenSecrets website that tracks Federal Election Commission (FEC) campaign filings for political spending found that midterm spending hit a record $5.2 billion in 2018, up over a third from the $3.8 billion in 2014 and triple the $1.6 billion in 1998.

Republicans in the five prior congressional midterms spent slightly more than Democrats each cycle.  But 2018 Democrat candidates spent $2.53 billion versus about $2.20 billion for Republican candidates, a $330-million “blue wave” cash advantage.

OpenSecrets found that Democrats concentrated their funding advantage on the 435 U.S. House seats, where Democratic candidates raised $951 million versus just $637 million for Republican contenders. That gave Democrats a massive 49-percent funding advantage.

The Center for Responsive Politics found that with the rise of Democrat Barack Obama since 2008, Silicon Valley’s annual lobbying expenditures skyrocketed by 800 percent, from $17.8 million to $139.5 million.  CRP wrote, “Just as water flows downhill, money in politics flows to where the power is.”  

The TechCrunch named Silicon Valley the “Valley of the Democrats” after PayPal cofounder and top venture capitalist Peter Thiel commented in a 2015 interview that 83 percent of political contributions by the area’s tech executives went solely to Democrats.

When Thiel announced he was leaving America’s tech capital in February, he commented that although Silicon Valley claims to have been incredibly successful for America over the last decade, “I think the truth has been more one of specific success, but more general failure.”

While Bernie Sanders and other Democrats go around the country scaring seniors and others about Republicans talking about controlling entitlement costs in the future, why aren’t they confronted with the fact that President Obama and the Democrats cut Medicare funding twice during Obama’s eight years?

When Democrats passed Obamacare in 2010, they cut Medicare funding by over $700 billion to pretend to pay for Obamacare and say it would reduce the deficit.  Cutting Medicare at that time had to reduce the long-term viability of the program.

Then, in 2013, they cut Medicare spending again, and as a result, at least 30 long-term care facilities have closed.  I wonder why this story isn’t reported widely on networks and in print.

Democrats also act as if Medicare has no limits (as they forced private health insurance to have no annual or lifetime limits), but as the article says below, Medicare cuts rates 60% to 70% in long-term care facilities if patients don’t spend three days in a hospital before they go to the nursing homes.

I had a personal experience with these Medicare restrictions last summer.  I took my 91-year-old mother to the hospital in severe pain, as she had fallen.  They shot her up with morphine and other drugs to reduce the pain.  They took an X-ray, and it turned out she had a broken back.  They told me they probably couldn’t admit her because a broken back wasn’t a good enough reason to stay, but the main reason was that Medicare didn’t want to pay for part of the rehab.

After nine days in the hospital, they sent her to a rehab facility.  After around one month in rehab, Medicare said she was good enough to go home.  Mom couldn’t eat, couldn’t bathe, was aspirating her food, couldn’t walk, couldn’t dress herself, couldn’t medicate herself, couldn’t go to the bathroom, and Medicare said she could go home.  They were nuts.  Ten days later, she died.

No one should believe that government-run health care is the solution.  I would always have a better chance dealing with private health insurance instead of the powerful, greedy government.

Democrats are pushing for Medicare for all, saying how wonderful it is for all Americans.  If death rates went up after Obamacare passed, and if Medicare punishes people for using too much care, is that really a good alternative?

The goal of Democrats on almost all things is government control.  Results don’t matter.  It is truly a shame that most journalists just repeat Democrat talking points pushing their agenda while sometimes reporting the truth.

While Bernie Sanders and other Democrats go around the country scaring seniors and others about Republicans talking about controlling entitlement costs in the future, why aren’t they confronted with the fact that President Obama and the Democrats cut Medicare funding twice during Obama’s eight years?

When Democrats passed Obamacare in 2010, they cut Medicare funding by over $700 billion to pretend to pay for Obamacare and say it would reduce the deficit.  Cutting Medicare at that time had to reduce the long-term viability of the program.

Then, in 2013, they cut Medicare spending again, and as a result, at least 30 long-term care facilities have closed.  I wonder why this story isn’t reported widely on networks and in print.

Democrats also act as if Medicare has no limits (as they forced private health insurance to have no annual or lifetime limits), but as the article says below, Medicare cuts rates 60% to 70% in long-term care facilities if patients don’t spend three days in a hospital before they go to the nursing homes.

I had a personal experience with these Medicare restrictions last summer.  I took my 91-year-old mother to the hospital in severe pain, as she had fallen.  They shot her up with morphine and other drugs to reduce the pain.  They took an X-ray, and it turned out she had a broken back.  They told me they probably couldn’t admit her because a broken back wasn’t a good enough reason to stay, but the main reason was that Medicare didn’t want to pay for part of the rehab.

After nine days in the hospital, they sent her to a rehab facility.  After around one month in rehab, Medicare said she was good enough to go home.  Mom couldn’t eat, couldn’t bathe, was aspirating her food, couldn’t walk, couldn’t dress herself, couldn’t medicate herself, couldn’t go to the bathroom, and Medicare said she could go home.  They were nuts.  Ten days later, she died.

No one should believe that government-run health care is the solution.  I would always have a better chance dealing with private health insurance instead of the powerful, greedy government.

Democrats are pushing for Medicare for all, saying how wonderful it is for all Americans.  If death rates went up after Obamacare passed, and if Medicare punishes people for using too much care, is that really a good alternative?

The goal of Democrats on almost all things is government control.  Results don’t matter.  It is truly a shame that most journalists just repeat Democrat talking points pushing their agenda while sometimes reporting the truth.

BY: Jeffrey Cimmino Follow
@jeffcimmino

December 22, 2018 5:00 am

Egypt’s Christians continue to struggle to get government approval for church building and repair projects despite the reforms implemented by a church construction law approved in 2016. A new report by the Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED) concluded that “the positive impact” of the law “has been minimal.”

Christians make up about 10 percent of Egypt’s population—most belong to the Coptic Orthodox Church. The country’s Christian community faces numerous legal and nonlegal obstacles to church construction.

“Local sensitivities” sometimes manifest in the form of Muslim community members opposing, even by violent means, the building of a church, according to the report. Security agencies also influence the process governing church construction and have been known to stop or limit construction and repairs in the interest of addressing genuine or apparent security threats.

Prior to 2016, the legal framework for church construction was rooted in decrees extending back to the mid-19th century. In the 1990s and early 2000s, President Hosni Mubarak made several changes to church construction laws but retained for himself the power to approve requests for new church construction.

In 2013, a military coup overthrew the ruling Muslim Brotherhood. The Coptic Orthodox Church supported the military due to concerns that the Brotherhood posed an existential threat to Egypt’s Christians. The current president, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, developed a strong relationship with Coptic Pope Tawadros II, making the time ripe for new reforms to church construction laws.

Kurt Werthmuller, a policy analyst at the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, acknowledged the commission still has many concerns about the status of Egypt’s Coptic community, but said Sisi, “at least ostensibly … has said things and made, sort of, grand gestures to the Coptic community that other Egyptian presidents either haven’t wanted to or haven’t bothered to do,” which has strengthened the relationship between the Coptic Church and the government.

Werthmuller pointed to Sisi attending Coptic Christmas liturgy as an example. “Those sorts of visible, public gestures are important for the Coptic Orthodox leadership,” he told the Washington Free Beacon.

In 2016, the Church Construction and Renovation Law (Law 80/2016) went into effect. Among its various provisions, the law “regulates the process of obtaining permits for constructing, expanding, modifying, renovating, reconstructing, and making external repairs to a church, a church annex, a service building, or an abbey,” and “mandates that the Cabinet of Ministers create a committee to oversee applications to legalize unlicensed churches and adjacent buildings such as abbeys, church annexes, and event halls.” That committee was created in 2017.

The POMED report outlines positive features of the law: It puts governors in charge of approving church construction, likely making the approval process easier since governors are easier to reach than the president; it requires a response to permit requests within four months instead of an indefinite period of time; and it allows religious rituals to be performed in unlicensed churches while their applications are being processed.

Claire Evans, regional manager for the Middle East at the nonprofit International Christian Concern, told the Free Beacon that control of application approvals by governors could be an issue “if the governor doesn’t like Christians.”

The law contains other problems, including its ambiguous requirement that a church should be “proportional to the size and needs of the community it serves.” The law does not define “‘proportional’ or ‘needs’ or who makes such a determination.”

Another issue is that security agencies are given “a legal role with regard to church issues for the first time in Egypt’s history” through their presence on the committee overseeing applications of unlicensed churches.

As for its practical effects, the law does not appear to have expedited the approval of church construction projects. As of last month, the government had issued only eight permits for new church construction, an approval rate that appears to be lower than during the administration of Mubarak. It should be noted, however, that no state entity has revealed how many permits have been requested or rejected.

Applications from unlicensed churches seem to be moving more quickly—508 have been recognized as houses of worship. But even this constitutes “only 14 percent of the total number of applications.”

There are multiple possible explanations for why the law’s positive impact has been limited. Bureaucratic inefficiency is likely one culprit: Information provided by unlicensed churches has to be examined by officials on the legalization committee, leaving the door open “for officials at various levels to hold up approvals for any number of reasons, including bias against church building that continues to exist within parts of the state apparatus.”

Similarly, administrative confusion may have delayed the law’s implementation. For almost a year after the law was approved, some officials thought implementation “was awaiting the issuance of executive regulations (explanatory by-laws),” until it was eventually clarified that the law was, in fact, in effect.

The authors of the report argue “a unified houses of worship law, with the same rules for churches, mosques, and other places of worship, will be essential to remove the discrimination inherent in the current system.”

Prior to such a law being approved, the report suggests other solutions, such as setting a deadline for legalizing unlicensed churches, removing security agencies from the approval process, and enforcing the law’s provision which prohibits closing unlicensed churches with pending applications.

The United States should push for long-term changes such as a unified law for all houses of worship, said Mahmoud Farouk, one of the authors of the report, in an email to the Washington Free Beacon. It should also press for “promoting tolerance through the media and educational system.”

“The United States should raise these issues privately with Egyptian officials and address them publicly, including through congressional hearings,” wrote Farouk.

When you wake up this morning, unless the Democrats get some sort of Christmas miracle that would make Clarence the Angel look like a pair of socks under the tree, parts of the federal government are going to be shut down. More’s the pity.

The sad thing is that a government shutdown isn’t really a government shutdown; the mail will still arrive, your entitlement checks will still get there and almost everything will end up being paid for. The only real good news is that 52,000 IRS employees are getting furloughed. Furloughs, of course, are temporary, so even that’s tempered with the knowledge that the good times aren’t going to roll.

The genesis of the shutdown involves funding for the border wall. A funding proposal with the money in it passed the House but neither the president nor the Democrats in the Senate seemed to like it, which means a shutdown — and potentially a long one — is all but a given.

However, if you’re a Trump supporter and despair of whether a shutdown is worth it, the president is working to sure your eyes stay on the prize.

On Friday, as the deadline for the shutdown loomed, the president tweeted a picture showing an artist’s rendition of his “big, beautiful wall.”

TRENDING: Photos: If You Donate to Border Wall, Do It Anonymously. Leftists Doxing, Endangering Donors

“A design of our Steel Slat Barrier which is totally effective while at the same time beautiful!” Trump said in his tweet.

A design of our Steel Slat Barrier which is totally effective while at the same time beautiful! pic.twitter.com/sGltXh0cu9

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 21, 2018

The internet, with a level of predictability usually reserved for the likelihood of a credits cookie at the end of a Marvel film, lost its mind.

Here’s a really nice designed steel barrier which is totally effective while at the same time beautiful. #ComboverCriminal pic.twitter.com/ARoNlF8EgK

— Cuddlefudge (@Cuddlefudge) December 22, 2018

What is beautiful about a bunch of giant nails?

— Star Stuff (@Statistar30) December 22, 2018

It’s VERY beautiful! If you rotate it, it looks like one of Mueller’s redacted documents #TrumpResign#TrumpCrimeFamily pic.twitter.com/ZpmNoutmkS

— Rich Grant (@RichCareer) December 22, 2018

RELATED: Luis Gutierrez Thanks God Trump Wasn’t Around To Help Herod Kill Jesus, Walks Out When Challenged

Even Yashar Ali — a liberal, but one who usually maintains some level of restraint, fairness and decorum — seemed to have one of the more preposterous complaints regarding the fence design — and one which was echoed in other corners of Twitter.

I love the emphasis on the pointy part….don’t worry folks, these aren’t nice slats…you could easily impale yourself! https://t.co/vt0ykU1fZT

— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) December 21, 2018

The point of a wall (and of a “pointy part”), last I checked, was deterrence. Is Mr. Ali’s grievance that it’s too hard to scale? I’m somewhat surprised there was no complaint regarding the lack of a ladder. OSHA should really do something about that.

Hilariously, one respondent said that this spiky design should be applied to the White House as a form of turnabout, only to discover it was already there.

That’s already tjere pic.twitter.com/xG4ndLysQ4

— Nick (@NcHawk17) December 22, 2018

Well, that was awkward.

How much funding will be allocated for the wall — if any — remains to be seen. After all, the shutdown is just hours old at this point. Trump has already rejected a continuing resolution to keep the government open from the Senate, given that it didn’t have any money for the wall. The House’s bill, which contains funding for the wall, is essentially dead in the Senate.

So, brace yourselves, small percentage of government employees affected by the shutdown — winter break is coming.

If Trump does manage to come out on top, though, his supporters will have quite the wall to look forward to. Pointy part and all.

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

Don’t mess with United States Marines — even if they’ve been out of the service for a while.

That’s the lesson that one would-be robber found out the hard way in Pennsylvania, after he made the mistake of pointing a gun at a retired combat veteran.

According to WJAC News, a man entered a bar in Altoona in the early morning hours on Tuesday. His plan was to rob the place, but he didn’t count on the bartender being a retired Marine who was not in the mood to be a victim.

Instead of handing over cash, the veteran — who is not being identified — fought the criminal and disarmed him. Then the Marine bashed the thug with his own gun.

“Police said the two got into a struggle, and one round was fired from the gun. Neither of them was hit by the bullet, but police said they believe the suspect has obvious facial injuries from being hit with the gun,” WJAC reported.

TRENDING: Photos: If You Donate to Border Wall, Do It Anonymously. Leftists Doxing, Endangering Donors

Incredible video from the bar’s surveillance cameras captured the incident, and shows the veteran making a courageous lunge for control of the gun. It may have been an extremely bold move, but it worked.

A second angle from the security footage shows the Marine holding the criminal at gunpoint in front of, appropriately enough, a “USA” poster on the side of the bar.

However, the failed robber did manage to flee on foot.

“According to police, the would-be robber got away and fled on foot northbound across Maple Ave. A blood trail led police to the backyard of a home on not far from the bar,” the local news station reported.

The gun used in the crime was recovered, and police said it came back as stolen from several months ago.

“Police said the man was last seen wearing a blue winter jacket, blue winter hat, jeans and a gray/red plaid scarf that covered most of his face. Police said he is 5 feet 7 inches tall and 180 pounds with an Afro-style hair cut,” the station continued.

There are a few important points from this incident. The first is that while it worked, taking on an armed person who was demanding cash was a very risky move. The fact that several rounds were fired in the struggle shows how quickly this tactic could have gone sour, but thankfully the veteran walked away unscathed.

RELATED: Carjacker Ends Up in Literal Gun Fight After Jumping into the Wrong Car

Which brings us to the second point: The bartender here would have had many more options had he been legally armed. Interestingly, Pennslyvania is one of the few states that does permit concealed carry in bars, which would have made this a viable option. At the same time, the thug’s stolen gun was already illegal, making it clear that once again, criminals don’t follow laws.

Self defense is a human right, whether it takes place at home, in the street, or behind a bar. Luckily, the good guy got to go home, and hopefully the criminal will be in handcuffs soon.

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

Does the United States have the money for a border wall? Opponents of President Donald Trump — both Democrat and Republican — insist not, but the numbers tell a different story.

On Friday, CNS News Editor-in-Chief Terence P. Jeffrey pointed out a staggering statistic: Despite constant foot-dragging in Congress, the sum requested by Trump for the southern border security wall is just a drop in the bucket compared to how much the nation spends on food stamps.

“The federal government spent more money on the food stamp program in October, which was the first month of fiscal 2019, than President Donald Trump now wants the Congress to approve for the border wall for the entirety of fiscal 2019,” he wrote.

Sure enough, information from the Department of the Treasury confirmed that the federal government spent $5,892,000,000 on food stamps through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

And that was just for one month.

TRENDING: Photos: If You Donate to Border Wall, Do It Anonymously. Leftists Doxing, Endangering Donors

“In November, according to the statement for that month, the federal government spent another $5,428,000,000 on the food stamp program, bringing the total so far for fiscal 2019 (after only two months) to $11,320,000,000 — or an average of $5,660,000,000 per month,” Jeffrey explained.

All told, over $68 billion was spent on the food stamp program during all of fiscal year 2018.

But the amount Trump requested to fund the border wall? About $5.7 billion for the entire year, or the equivalent of one month of SNAP payments.

“That is $181,643,000 less than the federal government spent on the food stamp program in the month of October alone and about one twelfth (or 8.3 percent) of the amount the government spent on the food stamp program for all of fiscal 2018,” Jeffrey wrote.

Beginning in fiscal year 2010, the SNAP program has cost at least $65 billion annually, or an average of $5.4 billion or more monthly, according to federal government data.

These facts fly in the face of lawmakers who have repeatedly insisted that America can’t afford the wall project to safeguard the border.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called $5 billion for the wall “exorbitant” on Wednesday.

“(T)he president held out for $5 billion for his wall, at the exorbitant cost of $31 million per mile, straight from the American taxpayer’s pocket,” he declared.

Schumer did not specify how much money was acceptable when it came to securing the nation he swore an oath to protect.

RELATED: Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump’s Asylum Rules After Conservative Justice Flips

Money certainly doesn’t seem to be an issue for other liberals, including newly elected Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.

When asked by reporters including CNN’s Jake Tapper to explain how America would fund her shockingly expensive college-for-all and Medicare-for-all demands, she brushed the question aside and implied that we could afford it if we wanted to.

It’s also worth pointing out that in many cases, widespread illegal immigration leads to more people on welfare, thus creating a vicious cycle. Not long ago, California became the state with the highest poverty rate in America. There’s no disputing that “sanctuary city” policies and unrestricted immigration played a major role in this situation.

As yet another excuse used by political elitists falls apart, it’s worth asking what their actual goals are.

Why are so many politicians, particularly Democrats, almost fanatical in their opposition to effective border security methods like a wall, and so focused on ramping immigration — both legal and illegal — to record levels?

The answer, most likely, is future votes. If so, that would mean that politicians are now putting their careers above law enforcement and border security, while lying about what we can afford.

That should make every American take pause.

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

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday dealt a major blow to President Donald Trump, declaring that his proposed rule change for border asylum will be thrown out as invalid.

Trump previously tried to restrict who can officially request asylum after entering the United States. His plan would have limited asylum for people who crossed the border illegally, and required that anybody who wanted to make this claim enter the country at an official port of entry.

According to Reuters, Chief Justice John Roberts, a generally conservative judge nominated by President George W. Bush, cast the key vote — and it was against Trump’s policy.

“Roberts, who last month rebuked Trump over his criticism of the judiciary, joined liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor against the administration,” the news wire stated.

“Trump’s two high court appointees, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, joined the two other conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, in dissent,” Reuters continued.

TRENDING: Photos: If You Donate to Border Wall, Do It Anonymously. Leftists Doxing, Endangering Donors

The president’s push to limit who can seek asylum was triggered by the recent rush of migrants who come north via “caravans” through Central America and Mexico. Some of those caravan members recently clashed with U.S. Border Patrol after trying to enter the country illegally.

Unsurprisingly, liberals cheered the court’s decision and held it up as a major win against Trump.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to leave the asylum ban blocked will save lives and keep vulnerable families and children from persecution. We are pleased the court refused to allow the administration to short-circuit the usual appellate process,” declared Lee Gelernt from the American Civil Liberties Union.

Seeking asylum has been used recently as a sort of “back door” tactic for entering and staying in the United States.

While originally intended for people who are clearly fleeing a specific persecution — Jews escaping Nazi Germany is a classic example — many migrants have been vaguely claiming hardship because their home country has high crime and general instability.

“On Wednesday, a different judge blocked another of Trump’s asylum-related orders, this one aimed at restricting asylum claims by people citing gang or domestic violence in their home countries,” Reuters explained.

The use of asylum has also been a controversial topic because many Hispanic caravan migrants admit when interviewed that they want to enter the United States for economic or job reasons, not because they’re fleeing targeted persecution back home.

While the Supreme Court decision is certainly not the end of the border debate, it is definitely a disappointing result for Trump and many conservatives.

The ruling also raises more questions. One of the biggest centers on official ports of entry. If refugees truly qualify for asylum because of persecution, then what is the problem with asking them to show up at an official border checkpoint to begin that process?

RELATED: Federal Government Spent More on Food Stamps in 1 Month Than Trump Wants for 1 Year on Wall

Despite the frequent narratives, most conservatives are not against immigration, they’d just prefer it if people showing up followed the rules and used the front door instead of sneaking through the back window.

What the court ruling has essentially done is encourage more illegal border crossing. Asylum can now be used as a backup tactic– ignore ports of entry, cross the border illegally, and just declare asylum if you happen to get caught. It will be interesting to see how this change plays out in the coming months.

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

Reports of the impending massacre of Kurdish forces in Syria and the resuscitation of ISIS following the U.S. pullout of Special Forces from Syria – like those of Mark Twain’s death – appear to be greatly exaggerated.  Consider these responses from countries in the region, nations whose safety and vital interests are far more acutely impacted by events in Syria than our own.

Reuters reports:

Turkey will take over the fight against Islamic State militants in Syria as the United States withdraws its troops, President Tayyip Erdogan said on Friday, in the latest upheaval wrought by Washington’s abrupt policy shift.

For Turkey, the step removes a source of friction with the United States.  Erdogan has long castigated his NATO ally over its support for Syrian Kurdish YPG fighters against Islamic State.  Turkey considers the YPG a terrorist group and an offshoot of the armed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), fighting for Kurdish autonomy across the border on Turkish soil.

In a speech in Istanbul, Erdogan said Turkey would mobilize to fight remaining Islamic State forces in Syria and temporarily delay plans to attack Kurdish fighters in the northeast of Syria – shifts both precipitated by the American decision to withdraw.

Turkey is not the only regional power that hates and fears ISIS.  And the Kurds are not without allies besides the United States.

Kurdish PKK forces (photo credit: KurdishStruggle).

Middle East Monitor reminded us a month ago that Saudi Arabia and the UAE already have forces in Syria fighting ISIS while protecting the Kurds:

Saudi Arabia and the UAE have sent military forces to areas controlled by the Kurdish YPG group in north-east Syria, Turkey’s Yenisafak newspaper reported.

The paper said the forces will be stationed with US-led coalition troops and will support its tasks with huge military enforcements as well as heavy and light weapons.

Quoting the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, the newspaper reported that a convoy of troops belonging to an Arab Gulf state recently arrived in the contact area between the Kurdish PKK/YPG and Daesh in the Deir Ez-Zor countryside.

This comes at a time when Ankara is preparing to launch an expanded military operation with the Free Syrian Army against the Kurdish PKK group in the northeast of Syria.

So the Syrian withdrawal has forestalled a potentially explosive conflict between two allies already at each other’s throats.  This should count as an immediate Trump foreign policy achievement, but don’t hold your breath waiting for anyone in the swamp to acknowledge that.  Neither Turkey nor the Saudis want a direct conflict between their forces, so they are likely to keep each other in check on the Kurds, and focus on the joint project of eradicating ISIS.

Also stepping up is Israel:

Israel will escalate its fight against Iranian-aligned forces in Syria after the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the country, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Thursday. …

“We will continue to act very aggressively against Iran’s efforts to entrench in Syria,” Netanyahu said in televised remarks, referring to an Israeli air campaign in Syria against Iranian deployments and arms transfers to Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas, carried out with Moscow often turning a blind eye.

“We do not intend to reduce our efforts.  We will intensify them, and I know that we do so with the full support and backing of the United States.”

Trump cited what he described as victory over Islamic State militants in Syria as warranting the U.S. withdrawal.  Israel has long tried to persuade Washington that Iran and its Shi’ite Muslim militias, sent to reinforce Damascus, pose the greater threat.

“Daesh (Islamic State) has indeed been defeated in Syria, and this is greatly thanks to America,” Israeli Education Minister Naftali Bennett, a member of Netanyahu’s security cabinet, said in a statement to Reuters.

But Israel is naturally concerned that Iran will be emboldened:

Some Israeli officials have said U.S. President Donald Trump’s move, announced on Wednesday, could help Iran by removing a U.S. garrison that stems the movement of Iranian forces and weaponry into Syria from Iraq.

Israel also worries that its main ally’s exit could reduce its diplomatic leverage with Russia, the Syrian government’s big-power backer.

Israel is most concerned with Iran’s efforts to establish a land bridge through Iraq (de facto handed over to Iran as a Shiite ally by the naïve insistence on popular democracy and Obama’s pullout of U.S. forces many times the size of the U.S. forces in Syria).  But Israel now has Saudi Arabia and the UAE, armed with the latest weapons form the U.S. arsenal (as is Israel), as allies with a huge interest in preventing this.  

Of course, there are risks.  U.S. forces are no longer serving as “tripwire” hostages, so Iran may be emboldened.  But is that the best use of American lives – especially the lives of our voluntary military forces?  Young Americans sign up to defend the United States, not to serve as hostages.   

The “bipartisan foreign policy establishment” absolutely hates Trump’s withdrawal, based on the consensus that the USA must sacrifice blood and treasure wherever evildoers threaten the peace.  This consensus was forged in the wake of World War II, when the U.S. alone had the wherewithal to stand up and militarily act to guarantee the freedom of our allies and innocent countries under threat.  At that historical moment, it was communism that was aggressively expanding its domains.  In today’s world, violent jihad and China (along with its semi-vassal state North Korea) are the premier threats.  But the U.S. is no longer the sole economic colossus able to stanch the tide of tyranny.

President Trump is in the process of adjusting U.S. foreign policy to the era in which the U.S. is a global economic competitor hobbled by our role as defender of free nations, who get to freeload.  This is an unmistakable necessity, for we are locked into an economic decline relative to our competitors if we bear a vastly disproportionate burden of defense.

I share some of the concerns of the critics of the withdrawal, but I also appreciate how necessary it is to protect our own most vital interests and to persuade or force our allies to bear an appropriate share of the burden.

Reports of the impending massacre of Kurdish forces in Syria and the resuscitation of ISIS following the U.S. pullout of Special Forces from Syria – like those of Mark Twain’s death – appear to be greatly exaggerated.  Consider these responses from countries in the region, nations whose safety and vital interests are far more acutely impacted by events in Syria than our own.

Reuters reports:

Turkey will take over the fight against Islamic State militants in Syria as the United States withdraws its troops, President Tayyip Erdogan said on Friday, in the latest upheaval wrought by Washington’s abrupt policy shift.

For Turkey, the step removes a source of friction with the United States.  Erdogan has long castigated his NATO ally over its support for Syrian Kurdish YPG fighters against Islamic State.  Turkey considers the YPG a terrorist group and an offshoot of the armed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), fighting for Kurdish autonomy across the border on Turkish soil.

In a speech in Istanbul, Erdogan said Turkey would mobilize to fight remaining Islamic State forces in Syria and temporarily delay plans to attack Kurdish fighters in the northeast of Syria – shifts both precipitated by the American decision to withdraw.

Turkey is not the only regional power that hates and fears ISIS.  And the Kurds are not without allies besides the United States.

Kurdish PKK forces (photo credit: KurdishStruggle).

Middle East Monitor reminded us a month ago that Saudi Arabia and the UAE already have forces in Syria fighting ISIS while protecting the Kurds:

Saudi Arabia and the UAE have sent military forces to areas controlled by the Kurdish YPG group in north-east Syria, Turkey’s Yenisafak newspaper reported.

The paper said the forces will be stationed with US-led coalition troops and will support its tasks with huge military enforcements as well as heavy and light weapons.

Quoting the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, the newspaper reported that a convoy of troops belonging to an Arab Gulf state recently arrived in the contact area between the Kurdish PKK/YPG and Daesh in the Deir Ez-Zor countryside.

This comes at a time when Ankara is preparing to launch an expanded military operation with the Free Syrian Army against the Kurdish PKK group in the northeast of Syria.

So the Syrian withdrawal has forestalled a potentially explosive conflict between two allies already at each other’s throats.  This should count as an immediate Trump foreign policy achievement, but don’t hold your breath waiting for anyone in the swamp to acknowledge that.  Neither Turkey nor the Saudis want a direct conflict between their forces, so they are likely to keep each other in check on the Kurds, and focus on the joint project of eradicating ISIS.

Also stepping up is Israel:

Israel will escalate its fight against Iranian-aligned forces in Syria after the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the country, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Thursday. …

“We will continue to act very aggressively against Iran’s efforts to entrench in Syria,” Netanyahu said in televised remarks, referring to an Israeli air campaign in Syria against Iranian deployments and arms transfers to Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas, carried out with Moscow often turning a blind eye.

“We do not intend to reduce our efforts.  We will intensify them, and I know that we do so with the full support and backing of the United States.”

Trump cited what he described as victory over Islamic State militants in Syria as warranting the U.S. withdrawal.  Israel has long tried to persuade Washington that Iran and its Shi’ite Muslim militias, sent to reinforce Damascus, pose the greater threat.

“Daesh (Islamic State) has indeed been defeated in Syria, and this is greatly thanks to America,” Israeli Education Minister Naftali Bennett, a member of Netanyahu’s security cabinet, said in a statement to Reuters.

But Israel is naturally concerned that Iran will be emboldened:

Some Israeli officials have said U.S. President Donald Trump’s move, announced on Wednesday, could help Iran by removing a U.S. garrison that stems the movement of Iranian forces and weaponry into Syria from Iraq.

Israel also worries that its main ally’s exit could reduce its diplomatic leverage with Russia, the Syrian government’s big-power backer.

Israel is most concerned with Iran’s efforts to establish a land bridge through Iraq (de facto handed over to Iran as a Shiite ally by the naïve insistence on popular democracy and Obama’s pullout of U.S. forces many times the size of the U.S. forces in Syria).  But Israel now has Saudi Arabia and the UAE, armed with the latest weapons form the U.S. arsenal (as is Israel), as allies with a huge interest in preventing this.  

Of course, there are risks.  U.S. forces are no longer serving as “tripwire” hostages, so Iran may be emboldened.  But is that the best use of American lives – especially the lives of our voluntary military forces?  Young Americans sign up to defend the United States, not to serve as hostages.   

The “bipartisan foreign policy establishment” absolutely hates Trump’s withdrawal, based on the consensus that the USA must sacrifice blood and treasure wherever evildoers threaten the peace.  This consensus was forged in the wake of World War II, when the U.S. alone had the wherewithal to stand up and militarily act to guarantee the freedom of our allies and innocent countries under threat.  At that historical moment, it was communism that was aggressively expanding its domains.  In today’s world, violent jihad and China (along with its semi-vassal state North Korea) are the premier threats.  But the U.S. is no longer the sole economic colossus able to stanch the tide of tyranny.

President Trump is in the process of adjusting U.S. foreign policy to the era in which the U.S. is a global economic competitor hobbled by our role as defender of free nations, who get to freeload.  This is an unmistakable necessity, for we are locked into an economic decline relative to our competitors if we bear a vastly disproportionate burden of defense.

I share some of the concerns of the critics of the withdrawal, but I also appreciate how necessary it is to protect our own most vital interests and to persuade or force our allies to bear an appropriate share of the burden.