53percenter's Blog

A new survey found that 27 percent of Americans want Santa Claus to be rebranded as either female or gender-neutral.

A new survey by a graphic design company revealed that 27 percent of Americans want to see Santa rebranded as a female or a gender-neutral figure. More than 10 percent of respondents said that Santa should be a woman. A whopping 17 percent said that Santa should be a “gender-neutral” figure.

“I picture a woman giving presents,” one New Jersey resident said. “I just feel like a white, old man giving presents is kind of creepy.”

“I think Santa is a mystical creature, so it can be whatever you want it to be,” said another New Jersey resident said, referring to the belief that Santa could be a “gender-neutral” figure.

Santa Claus is based on St. Nicholas, a historical figure who lived between 270 and 343 AD. St. Nicholas inspired the traditional Santa Claus figure due to his real-life habit of secret gift-giving.

Paris Dennard explained to Breitbart News how he was kept off television networks following his suspension by CNN in August, his former employer. He spoke with Breitbart News Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow on Friday’s edition of SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Daily.

Dennard was suspended days after appearing on a CNN segment in which he explained how security clearances are monetized by former government officials seeking employment with news media outlets and other outfits in Washington, DC.

President Donald Trump praised Dennard’s commentary the next day via Twitter:

Just watched former Intelligence Official Phillip Mudd become totally unglued and weird while debating wonderful @PARISDENNARD over Brennan’s Security Clearance. Dennard destroyed him but Mudd is in no mental condition to have such a Clearance. Should be REVOKED? @seanhannity

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

Dennard said of his August segment, “After that episode, if you will, I wasn’t back on the network, and I guess if you’re going to go out, that’s the way you want to go out; totally destroying — in the president’s words, when he tweeted about it — Phil Mudd’s argument and the claims that he was making and having a solid, thoughtful, insightful, and calm approach to his points.”

Dennard added, “If that’s my finest hour, if that was threatening enough, then that’s a good way to go out on the network. So I’m proud, and I stand by everything I said in that exchange.”

Dennard spoke about his conversation with a Washington Post reporter who wrote an ostensible investigative report of allegations of sexual harassment made against him in 2014.

Dennard said, “I asked him ‘Why? What is the relevancy of this?’ and he linked it back to the president and my commentary in support of the president. And he said, ‘You had defended President Trump in the past. So why can’t we bring up things from your past?’ I said, ‘This is about the president?’ When I heard that, I knew then this was not about justice, this wasn’t about #MeToo, this wasn’t because somebody had come forward — none of that.”

Dennard went on:

It was because they were upset — “they” meaning the deep state, meaning those impacted by the CIA operative Phil Mudd, or my former employer, whoever it was — they didn’t like that exchange, didn’t like my voice, didn’t like the points that I made, and knew this was on the pulse of the midterm election coming up, that my objective commentary needed to be silenced, and they felt this was the best way to do it because of the climate that we’re in in this country.

Dennard continued, “They effectively went forth with this article, and it was very hard to deal with, calling my mother, talking to my girlfriend — who already knew about this situation — but it was just [hard], to see that in print. We’ve seen it before. We’ve seen other people go through it, but it’s a different story when it’s you, personally.”

CNN suspended Dennard hours after the Washington Post published its aforementioned report.

“I got a call immediately — that night,” recalled Dennard. “That evening, I got a call from CNN saying that I was suspended pending an investigation. A suspension meant I could not be booked on CNN by their bookers because I was a paid commentator. After that, I stayed off of social media to respect their investigative process, whatever that was. I don’t know what that was, and they did not put me back on the air.”

Dennard explained how CNN’s decision to suspend — not terminate — his contract meant he could not procure political commentary employment elsewhere.

“They did not fire me like they did Marc Lamont Hill,” remarked Dennard:

It wasn’t a pay-per-hit [contract with CNN]. It was sort of a retainer, if you will. I was still paid, no matter what, but they just decided to keep me off the air. Because I was under contract with CNN — which was exclusive — I could not appear on any other network. Effectively, what they did was kept me off CNN and also kept me off of any other network because I refused to resign because that’s not who I am.

Dennard added, “I was going to fight this, which I did fight that as hard as I could. It was a clear example to me that they had no intention of putting me back on the air. They wanted to get me off the air and keep me off the air throughout the midterms and through 2018, and that’s why I called it … a political hit job. It had nothing to do with anything but politics, and the Washington Post reporter told me that from day one: this was about the president.”

Dennard stated, “I have returned on Twitter because I wanted to be respectful of CNN’s quote-unquote investigation, and I’m back. I’m commenting. I’m doing radio, and if anybody wants to have my commentary, I’m available to do that, and I will fight back and continue to speak up and support this president, this administration, and the values I believe as a black conservative.”

Dennard said, “Because of CNN’s disparate treatment towards me compared to others who have done and said things — allegedly — my position is going to be different. The way I react is going to be different. I will fight back, and I won’t be silenced. I am going to continue.”

Dennard praised Breitbart News’s coverage of his fallout with CNN.

“If they thought — whoever they are who tried to silence me and others like me — if they thought that’s the last they got of Paris Dennard, think again,” cautioned Dennard. “I’m appreciative of outlets and people like you, Alex, and like Breitbart, and all of your readers and viewers and listeners who stand by the truth and know exactly what these things are. They’re political hit jobs, the politics of personal destruction.”

Dennard concluded, “We’re not going to stand for it. I’m going to move forward. We, collectively, are going to continue to fight against what we know to be people with hatred over conservatives who dare to speak out. I’m going to keep fighting.”

Both CNN and the Washington Post market themselves as politically objective and non-partisan news media outlets, branding themselves with the slogans, “Facts First” and “Democracy Dies In Darkness,” respectively.

Breitbart News Daily broadcasts live on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.

Follow Robert Kraychik on Twitter.

A federal appeals court blocked the Trump administration’s religious and moral exceptions to the Obamacare birth control mandate from being implemented in five states.

On Thursday, a split three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction by the district court. Judges John Clifford Wallace, a Richard Nixon nominee, and Susan Graber, an appointee of Bill Clinton, upheld the district court’s ruling.

The decision allows the states of California, Delaware, Virginia, Maryland, and New York to ignore the Trump administration’s rules that protect employers with religious or moral objections to abortion-inducing drugs and birth control from being forced to provide them to workers.

In the majority opinion, Wallace wrote that women who are denied free birth control through employer health insurance plans will end up costing states more money.

“The declarations submitted by the states further show that women losing coverage from their employers will turn to state-based programs or programs reimbursed by the state,” he wrote, though he added that the record did not support affirming the district court’s ruling on a nationwide basis.

The dissenting judge, Andrew Kleinfeld, a George H.W. Bush appointee, said the states lack standing in the case because their problem of incurring more costs for contraception that may result from the Trump administration’s rules is “self-inflicted.” The problem occurred for the states, according to the dissent, because lawmakers decided to promise free birth control to women in response to the release of the Trump administration’s rules.

“The reason they lack standing is that their injury is what the Supreme Court calls ‘self-inflicted,’ because it arises solely from their legislative decisions to pay these moneys,” Kleinfeld wrote, adding:

The federal regulatory change itself imposes no obligation on the states to provide money for contraception. The plaintiff states choose to provide some contraception benefits to employees of employers exempted by the federal insurance requirement, so the narrowing of the federal mandate may lead to the states spending more because some employers may spend less.

Planned Parenthood celebrated the ruling on Twitter:

This is a win! Access to birth control is crucial, and the admin’s interim rules to roll back birth control coverage are harmful and show their disdain for our health care. We won’t stop fighting to protect our care. #fight4birthcontrol #courtsmatter https://t.co/VCxbfl8aPG

— Planned Parenthood Action (@PPact) December 13, 2018

In November, Trump’s Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Labor, and the Treasury issued two rules intended to protect those with religious or moral objections to Obamacare’s mandate for most employers to provide abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, or sterilization procedures – free of charge – to employees via health insurance plans.

The first rule provided an exemption from the contraceptive coverage mandate to entities that object to services covered by the mandate on the basis of faith beliefs. The second final rule provided protections to nonprofit organizations and small businesses that have non-religious, moral convictions opposing the services covered by the mandate.

The religious and conscience exemptions provided by these rules also applied to institutions of education, issuers, and individuals. The rules were scheduled to go into effect at the start of 2019.

The Trump administration can now petition the Supreme Court to take up the case.

The case is California v. Azar, No. 18-15166, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

What was once an outstanding source of great conservative writing is no more. The Weekly Standard officially folded yesterday, making it the first actual fatality attributable to Trump Derangement Syndrome. That cause of death seems indisputable to me, even though John Podhoretz, who was involved in the creation TWS and now publishes Commentary, vehemently disagrees, charging that TWS was “murdered”:

There is no real reason we are witnessing the magazine’s demise other than deep pettiness and a personal desire for bureaucratic revenge on the part of a penny-ante Machiavellian who works for its parent company.

There would at least be a larger meaning to the Standard’s end if it were being killed because it was hostile to Donald Trump. But I do not believe that is the case. Rather, I believe the fissures in the conservative movement and the Republican party that have opened up since Trump’s rise provided the company man with a convenient argument to make to the corporation’s owner, Philip Anschutz, that the company could perhaps harvest the Standard’s subscriber-base riches and then be done with it.

That this is an entirely hostile act is proved by the fact that he and Anschutz have refused to sell the Standard because they want to claim its circulation for another property of theirs. This is without precedent in my experience in publishing, and I’ve been a family observer of and active participant in the magazine business for half a century.

Though I am not familiar with its books, my understanding is that from the beginning TWS was on financial life support, requiring million-dollar-plus subsidies to stay alive, first from News Corporation, and subsequently from Colorado Billionaire Philip Anschutz, who also publishes the Examiner and other media properties. Conservatives may fiercely debate whether or not removing life support from a human in a coma is murder, but the Constitution offers no guarantee of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” to publications, only to humans. So, removing the financial life support cannot be considered murder, much though those involved with publications consider them to be living organisms.

Daniel McCarthy, who founded The American Conservative, sagely comments on why money-losing magazines about politics sometimes enjoy life support form billionaires:

The Weekly Standard’s value lay in the fact that it was an insider magazine. It was a top-down product — there was never an independent mass audience clamoring for a second National Review or for a specifically neoconservative publication. (Commentary, as a monthly, already served that market as far as demand could justify.) What was important was that the magazine be read not by a mass market but by Republican officials and their staff and various other influential persons, primarily in Washington, D.C. If officialdom read the Weekly Standard, then it was worth continuing to spend millions on it.  (snip)

The person most identified with the brand is Kristol, by far. He stepped down as editor at the end of 2016, but his public persona still defines the magazine: his bitter, flippant, or sarcastic tweets about Trump and Trump supporters are the Weekly Standard’s brand in the public’s eye. Few people look at the masthead of a magazine closely enough to realize when a prominent editor such as Kristol has been replaced by a less prominent once such as Steve Hayes — and because Kristol remains on the masthead as editor-at-large, ordinary readers have even more cause for confusion. (‘Editor-at-large’ sounds a lot like ‘editor’ to most people, but in fact usually means ‘ex-editor.’)

Fairly or not, Bill Kristol is the brand.

With Trump administration officials ignoring TWS, and Dems not interested in a conservative publication that is most closely identified with enthusiastic support for the Iraq War and occupation, what real benefit would any prospective owner of TWS be getting?

From the standpoint of a wealthy subsidizer of conservative journalism, the subscriber database of TWS is far more valuable as a way of launching a new, not anti-Trump weekly magazine. That would help the new magazine reach the target audience that is worth spending money to reach.

Selling the magazine or its subscriber database to others, would actually frustrate that initiative, as there would be competition for those subscribers, and less reach for the new magazine.

When I founded American Thinker, I resolved to not be dependent on a wealthy patron for our survival. The dangers involved in that sort of relationship are now apparent with the death of TWS. For better or worse, we depend on advertising revenue and the kind donations of individual readers.

What was once an outstanding source of great conservative writing is no more. The Weekly Standard officially folded yesterday, making it the first actual fatality attributable to Trump Derangement Syndrome. That cause of death seems indisputable to me, even though John Podhoretz, who was involved in the creation TWS and now publishes Commentary, vehemently disagrees, charging that TWS was “murdered”:

There is no real reason we are witnessing the magazine’s demise other than deep pettiness and a personal desire for bureaucratic revenge on the part of a penny-ante Machiavellian who works for its parent company.

There would at least be a larger meaning to the Standard’s end if it were being killed because it was hostile to Donald Trump. But I do not believe that is the case. Rather, I believe the fissures in the conservative movement and the Republican party that have opened up since Trump’s rise provided the company man with a convenient argument to make to the corporation’s owner, Philip Anschutz, that the company could perhaps harvest the Standard’s subscriber-base riches and then be done with it.

That this is an entirely hostile act is proved by the fact that he and Anschutz have refused to sell the Standard because they want to claim its circulation for another property of theirs. This is without precedent in my experience in publishing, and I’ve been a family observer of and active participant in the magazine business for half a century.

Though I am not familiar with its books, my understanding is that from the beginning TWS was on financial life support, requiring million-dollar-plus subsidies to stay alive, first from News Corporation, and subsequently from Colorado Billionaire Philip Anschutz, who also publishes the Examiner and other media properties. Conservatives may fiercely debate whether or not removing life support from a human in a coma is murder, but the Constitution offers no guarantee of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” to publications, only to humans. So, removing the financial life support cannot be considered murder, much though those involved with publications consider them to be living organisms.

Daniel McCarthy, who founded The American Conservative, sagely comments on why money-losing magazines about politics sometimes enjoy life support form billionaires:

The Weekly Standard’s value lay in the fact that it was an insider magazine. It was a top-down product — there was never an independent mass audience clamoring for a second National Review or for a specifically neoconservative publication. (Commentary, as a monthly, already served that market as far as demand could justify.) What was important was that the magazine be read not by a mass market but by Republican officials and their staff and various other influential persons, primarily in Washington, D.C. If officialdom read the Weekly Standard, then it was worth continuing to spend millions on it.  (snip)

The person most identified with the brand is Kristol, by far. He stepped down as editor at the end of 2016, but his public persona still defines the magazine: his bitter, flippant, or sarcastic tweets about Trump and Trump supporters are the Weekly Standard’s brand in the public’s eye. Few people look at the masthead of a magazine closely enough to realize when a prominent editor such as Kristol has been replaced by a less prominent once such as Steve Hayes — and because Kristol remains on the masthead as editor-at-large, ordinary readers have even more cause for confusion. (‘Editor-at-large’ sounds a lot like ‘editor’ to most people, but in fact usually means ‘ex-editor.’)

Fairly or not, Bill Kristol is the brand.

With Trump administration officials ignoring TWS, and Dems not interested in a conservative publication that is most closely identified with enthusiastic support for the Iraq War and occupation, what real benefit would any prospective owner of TWS be getting?

From the standpoint of a wealthy subsidizer of conservative journalism, the subscriber database of TWS is far more valuable as a way of launching a new, not anti-Trump weekly magazine. That would help the new magazine reach the target audience that is worth spending money to reach.

Selling the magazine or its subscriber database to others, would actually frustrate that initiative, as there would be competition for those subscribers, and less reach for the new magazine.

When I founded American Thinker, I resolved to not be dependent on a wealthy patron for our survival. The dangers involved in that sort of relationship are now apparent with the death of TWS. For better or worse, we depend on advertising revenue and the kind donations of individual readers.

President Trump took a lot of flak from the left for warning that the migrant caravan, heading up to the U.S. from Honduras, had a lot of “stone cold criminals” in its ranks.  Here’s a Nov. 26 report from USA Today to show just how insistent the left was with that “narrative”:

President Donald Trump continued his attacks against a caravan of Central American immigrants [sic] Monday, describing some of them as “stone cold criminals,” but his administration provided scant details to back up the president’s assertion.

Trump’s attempts to portray members of the caravan as criminals capped off a chaotic weekend that saw immigrants [sic] rushing the San Ysidro Port of Entry and U.S. agents responding by firing tear gas into the crowd, leaving a tense standoff that could escalate in the days to come.

Snopes, too, got into the act, tut-tutting that any mention of criminals in the caravan is just “fear-mongering, misinformation, and hoaxes“:

Several caravans of migrants originating in Central America headed toward the U.S. border, although they were still hundreds of miles away in southern Mexico, proved a constant target in the U.S. for fear-mongering, misinformation, and hoaxes in the lead-up to consequential 2018 midterm elections[.]

Well, now we know that Trump was right: there certainly were criminals in that caravan – and they haven’t hesitated to provide demonstrations of what they do to the good citizens of Tijuana.  Here’s a Tijuana city councilman (known as a delegate in that city) describing the scope of the caravan crime just in Tijuana:

House break-ins. A three-week school shutdown.  Filth and garbage.  Robberies galore.  Two hundred eighty arrests and counting.

Such nice people, and the left – Nancy Pelosi, Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, assorted archbishops and clerics, lefty activists – would like them all up here.  They’d like to bring them in ahead of legitimate immigrants and asylum-seekers, cutting the line in the criminal fashion, if not slipping under the fence and getting an asylum claim filed right then and there as others wait in Mexico or back in Honduras.

This is how criminals behave.  They lack the wherewithal to wait their turn in line as a matter of fairness and insist on cutting ahead, getting theirs, and to hell with the others.  They litter.  They steal.  They block roads.  Now 280 have proven their criminal intent by getting themselves arrested, and those are the 280 the Tijuana cops were able to catch.  The rest are still getting away with it.  Yet Democrats call it an “injustice” not to just wave them all in.  And they’re still yelling about not building a fence.

The Tijuana official, like many of the people being heard from in Tijuana, are losing a lot from involuntarily hosting these crooks, courtesy of the rabid far left and their liberation-theology enablers.  The city’s critical tourism industry is down, their maquiladoras – which are some of the world’s best medical equipment- and oil drilling equipment-manufacturers – are facing uncertainty and higher costs on the prospect of additional border shutdowns, and their people are being robbed blind and littered on like nobody’s business.

The city councilman in the Carlson report, Genaro López, sounded so reasonable, not foreign at all, a normal person who wants to live in normal place, in normal peace that all people deserve, and he’s looking on in disgust as his city’s efforts are crushed by the rabid left and the mainstream press.

Should anyone have to put up with this?  Should we?  Yet the left just won’t stop insisting that we import them all here.  The only thing, in fact, standing between us and the large numbers of crooks in that mob are the Tijuana cops.  Trump was right about the nature of these hoods, and Democrats should be held up to shame for this outrageous scheme to inflict these criminals on all of us here.

Image credit: Grabien screen grab of Fox News report.

President Trump took a lot of flak from the left for warning that the migrant caravan, heading up to the U.S. from Honduras, had a lot of “stone cold criminals” in its ranks.  Here’s a Nov. 26 report from USA Today to show just how insistent the left was with that “narrative”:

President Donald Trump continued his attacks against a caravan of Central American immigrants [sic] Monday, describing some of them as “stone cold criminals,” but his administration provided scant details to back up the president’s assertion.

Trump’s attempts to portray members of the caravan as criminals capped off a chaotic weekend that saw immigrants [sic] rushing the San Ysidro Port of Entry and U.S. agents responding by firing tear gas into the crowd, leaving a tense standoff that could escalate in the days to come.

Snopes, too, got into the act, tut-tutting that any mention of criminals in the caravan is just “fear-mongering, misinformation, and hoaxes“:

Several caravans of migrants originating in Central America headed toward the U.S. border, although they were still hundreds of miles away in southern Mexico, proved a constant target in the U.S. for fear-mongering, misinformation, and hoaxes in the lead-up to consequential 2018 midterm elections[.]

Well, now we know that Trump was right: there certainly were criminals in that caravan – and they haven’t hesitated to provide demonstrations of what they do to the good citizens of Tijuana.  Here’s a Tijuana city councilman (known as a delegate in that city) describing the scope of the caravan crime just in Tijuana:

House break-ins. A three-week school shutdown.  Filth and garbage.  Robberies galore.  Two hundred eighty arrests and counting.

Such nice people, and the left – Nancy Pelosi, Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, assorted archbishops and clerics, lefty activists – would like them all up here.  They’d like to bring them in ahead of legitimate immigrants and asylum-seekers, cutting the line in the criminal fashion, if not slipping under the fence and getting an asylum claim filed right then and there as others wait in Mexico or back in Honduras.

This is how criminals behave.  They lack the wherewithal to wait their turn in line as a matter of fairness and insist on cutting ahead, getting theirs, and to hell with the others.  They litter.  They steal.  They block roads.  Now 280 have proven their criminal intent by getting themselves arrested, and those are the 280 the Tijuana cops were able to catch.  The rest are still getting away with it.  Yet Democrats call it an “injustice” not to just wave them all in.  And they’re still yelling about not building a fence.

The Tijuana official, like many of the people being heard from in Tijuana, are losing a lot from involuntarily hosting these crooks, courtesy of the rabid far left and their liberation-theology enablers.  The city’s critical tourism industry is down, their maquiladoras – which are some of the world’s best medical equipment- and oil drilling equipment-manufacturers – are facing uncertainty and higher costs on the prospect of additional border shutdowns, and their people are being robbed blind and littered on like nobody’s business.

The city councilman in the Carlson report, Genaro López, sounded so reasonable, not foreign at all, a normal person who wants to live in normal place, in normal peace that all people deserve, and he’s looking on in disgust as his city’s efforts are crushed by the rabid left and the mainstream press.

Should anyone have to put up with this?  Should we?  Yet the left just won’t stop insisting that we import them all here.  The only thing, in fact, standing between us and the large numbers of crooks in that mob are the Tijuana cops.  Trump was right about the nature of these hoods, and Democrats should be held up to shame for this outrageous scheme to inflict these criminals on all of us here.

Image credit: Grabien screen grab of Fox News report.

Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel’s Office (SCO) destroyed a potential treasure trove of evidence about the “insurance policy” Trump-haters Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were implementing against the Trump administration as it prepared to take office and establish itself in its first few months.  Whatever the purported lovebirds texted each other and others during the tumultuous period, the SCO thought it was not worth scrutiny by outsiders not on the team.

Given the scandalous earlier texts between the two released by the OIG, this claim is so arrogant that it would be laughable, but for the profound implications of a rogue law enforcement operation covering its tracks, secure in its belief that it will never be prosecuted thanks to Deep State operatives throughout the FBI and DoJ.

We learn of this destruction of evidence only now thanks to the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General, headed by Michael Horowitz, who issued a report on its investigation of the “gap” in the text messages of the two from 12/15/16 to 5/17/17.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) initiated this investigation upon being notified of a gap in text message data collection during the period December 15, 2016, through May 17, 2017, from Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) mobile devices assigned to FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page relevant to a matter being investigated by the OIG’s Oversight and Review Division.  Specifically, the OIG’s Cyber Investigations Office (CYB ER) was asked to attempt recovery of these missing text messages for the referenced period from FBI issued mobile devices issued to Strzok and Page.

But when the OIG went looking for the phones, there were two different sets of smart phones in use by Strzok and Page, apparently.  The SCO issued iPhones to them, in addition to Samsung Galaxy phones that the FBI had utilized.  Those SCO-issued iPhones, like dead men, will tell no tales (emphasis added):  

The OIG was told that the DOJ issued iPhone previously assigned to Strzok had been re-issued to another FBI agent following Strzok’s departure from the SCO.  The SCO obtained the iPhone from that individual and provided it to the OIG.  CYB ER obtained a forensic extraction of the iPhone previously assigned to Strzok; however.  [T]his iPhone had been reset to factory settings and was reconfigured for the new user to whom the device was issued.  It did not contain data related to Strzok’s use of the device.  SCO’s Records Officer told the OIG that as part of the office’s records retention procedure, the officer reviewed Strzok’s DOJ issued iPhone after he returned it to the SCO and determined it contained no substantive text messages.

But relax: according to the SCO, none of Strzok’s text messages would be of any interest, so we should just chill out.  We are supposed to trust the merry band of Clinton donors, because we can rely on the integrity of people like Andrew Weissman.

Page’s smartphone was treated even more cavalierly:

The SCO was unable to locate the iPhone previously assigned to Page, which had been returned to DOJ’s Justice Management Division (JMD).  Subsequently, in early September 2018, JMD informed the OIG that it had located the iPhone that had been assigned to Page.  The OIG took custody of the device.  Page’s iPhone had been reset to factory settings on July 31, 2017, but had not been reissued to a new user.  (The Office of the Deputy Attorney General told the OJG that the Department routinely resets mobile devices to factory settings when the device is returned from a user to enable that device to be issued to another user in the future.)  The OJG forensic review of the phone determined that it did not contain any data related to Page’s use of the device.  SCO’s Records Otlicer [sic] stated that she did not receive the phone following Page’s departure from the $CO [sic] and therefore she did not review Page’s iPhone for records that would possibly need to be retained prior to the phone having been reset.

But the FBI-issued Galaxy phones apparently left some digital footprints, so we have some of the evidence.

The OIG asked the FBI Inspection Division to locate the FBI issued Samsung Galaxy S5 devices formerly assigned to the subject employees and to obtain from the same individuals their assigned FBI issued Samsung Galaxy S7 devices.  The FBI provided these four devices to the OIG in late January 2018.  CYBER utilized digital forensic tools to obtain data extractions from the four FBI issued mobile devices.  To ensure the thoroughness of text message recovery efforts, OIG also consulted with the Department of Defense, conducted additional quality assurance steps and hired a Subject Matter Expert.  The result of these steps was the recovery of thousands of text messages within the period of the missing text messages, December 15, 2016 through May 17, 2017, as well as hundreds of other text messages outside the gap lime [sic] period that had not been produced by the FBI due to technical problems with its text message collection tool.

This is absolutely outrageous coming from team Mueller, so anxious to construe crimes related to the president, but blithely deep-sixing whatever data it wishes, telling the public to trust them.

Julie Kelly of American Greatness connects the timeline dots:

Think about it: Mueller was investigating Flynn for lying to the FBI. One of the agents who interviewed Flynn – Peter Strzok – was on the team. But after he was fired for biased texts on his FBI phone, someone scrubbed his SCO iPhone… a few weeks after the date on Flynn’s 302. https://t.co/WCb6fGw8fY

— Julie Kelly (@julie_kelly2) December 13, 2018

Mueller’s office is thumbing its nose at us.  The MSM will bury this story.  How about a special counsel to investigate the Mueller special counsel?

Image credit: Donkey Hotey

Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel’s Office (SCO) destroyed a potential treasure trove of evidence about the “insurance policy” Trump-haters Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were implementing against the Trump administration as it prepared to take office and establish itself in its first few months.  Whatever the purported lovebirds texted each other and others during the tumultuous period, the SCO thought it was not worth scrutiny by outsiders not on the team.

Given the scandalous earlier texts between the two released by the OIG, this claim is so arrogant that it would be laughable, but for the profound implications of a rogue law enforcement operation covering its tracks, secure in its belief that it will never be prosecuted thanks to Deep State operatives throughout the FBI and DoJ.

We learn of this destruction of evidence only now thanks to the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General, headed by Michael Horowitz, who issued a report on its investigation of the “gap” in the text messages of the two from 12/15/16 to 5/17/17.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) initiated this investigation upon being notified of a gap in text message data collection during the period December 15, 2016, through May 17, 2017, from Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) mobile devices assigned to FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page relevant to a matter being investigated by the OIG’s Oversight and Review Division.  Specifically, the OIG’s Cyber Investigations Office (CYB ER) was asked to attempt recovery of these missing text messages for the referenced period from FBI issued mobile devices issued to Strzok and Page.

But when the OIG went looking for the phones, there were two different sets of smart phones in use by Strzok and Page, apparently.  The SCO issued iPhones to them, in addition to Samsung Galaxy phones that the FBI had utilized.  Those SCO-issued iPhones, like dead men, will tell no tales (emphasis added):  

The OIG was told that the DOJ issued iPhone previously assigned to Strzok had been re-issued to another FBI agent following Strzok’s departure from the SCO.  The SCO obtained the iPhone from that individual and provided it to the OIG.  CYB ER obtained a forensic extraction of the iPhone previously assigned to Strzok; however.  [T]his iPhone had been reset to factory settings and was reconfigured for the new user to whom the device was issued.  It did not contain data related to Strzok’s use of the device.  SCO’s Records Officer told the OIG that as part of the office’s records retention procedure, the officer reviewed Strzok’s DOJ issued iPhone after he returned it to the SCO and determined it contained no substantive text messages.

But relax: according to the SCO, none of Strzok’s text messages would be of any interest, so we should just chill out.  We are supposed to trust the merry band of Clinton donors, because we can rely on the integrity of people like Andrew Weissman.

Page’s smartphone was treated even more cavalierly:

The SCO was unable to locate the iPhone previously assigned to Page, which had been returned to DOJ’s Justice Management Division (JMD).  Subsequently, in early September 2018, JMD informed the OIG that it had located the iPhone that had been assigned to Page.  The OIG took custody of the device.  Page’s iPhone had been reset to factory settings on July 31, 2017, but had not been reissued to a new user.  (The Office of the Deputy Attorney General told the OJG that the Department routinely resets mobile devices to factory settings when the device is returned from a user to enable that device to be issued to another user in the future.)  The OJG forensic review of the phone determined that it did not contain any data related to Page’s use of the device.  SCO’s Records Otlicer [sic] stated that she did not receive the phone following Page’s departure from the $CO [sic] and therefore she did not review Page’s iPhone for records that would possibly need to be retained prior to the phone having been reset.

But the FBI-issued Galaxy phones apparently left some digital footprints, so we have some of the evidence.

The OIG asked the FBI Inspection Division to locate the FBI issued Samsung Galaxy S5 devices formerly assigned to the subject employees and to obtain from the same individuals their assigned FBI issued Samsung Galaxy S7 devices.  The FBI provided these four devices to the OIG in late January 2018.  CYBER utilized digital forensic tools to obtain data extractions from the four FBI issued mobile devices.  To ensure the thoroughness of text message recovery efforts, OIG also consulted with the Department of Defense, conducted additional quality assurance steps and hired a Subject Matter Expert.  The result of these steps was the recovery of thousands of text messages within the period of the missing text messages, December 15, 2016 through May 17, 2017, as well as hundreds of other text messages outside the gap lime [sic] period that had not been produced by the FBI due to technical problems with its text message collection tool.

This is absolutely outrageous coming from team Mueller, so anxious to construe crimes related to the president, but blithely deep-sixing whatever data it wishes, telling the public to trust them.

Julie Kelly of American Greatness connects the timeline dots:

Think about it: Mueller was investigating Flynn for lying to the FBI. One of the agents who interviewed Flynn – Peter Strzok – was on the team. But after he was fired for biased texts on his FBI phone, someone scrubbed his SCO iPhone… a few weeks after the date on Flynn’s 302. https://t.co/WCb6fGw8fY

— Julie Kelly (@julie_kelly2) December 13, 2018

Mueller’s office is thumbing its nose at us.  The MSM will bury this story.  How about a special counsel to investigate the Mueller special counsel?

Image credit: Donkey Hotey

President Donald Trump is an army of one. At least in Washington, DC and other elite enclaves. Sure, he has his base of deplorables, those who wait on mile-long lines to attend his rallies and those who voted for him two years ago.

Yet look at the forces arrayed against him.  The US media is on the warpath against Trump and his family, coverage 93 percent negative, although I suspect that number is closer to 100 percent. It’s rare to pick up a US newspaper or watch any television news and see anything remotely positive about Trump. Great economic news is always shrouded in a black cloud, as if low unemployment or strong economic growth is racist, sexist, or simply a mirage.

The Deep State, Democrats and Republicans alike, are in lock step trying to remove Trump from office. If only they were in similar agreement on securing the border, cutting regulations, or growing the economy than they are against Trump.

Rep Adam Schiff thinks Trump is heading to jail. Rep Maxine Waters agrees saying, “President Donald Trump is a ‘criminal’ who should be impeached.” It never ends.

When does Trump say, “Enough is enough!”?

Enough can have two meanings here. One meaning is the junkyard dog being taunted until it bares its teeth and attacks ferociously. Trump has that power as President. Assuming Huber and Horowitz have been doing more than playing board games with their reams of lawyers and investigators for the past year, there should be indictments and prosecutions. Not to mention releasing FISA warrant applications and similar documents.

From the Clinton Foundation to the Spygate scandal. From Hillary Clinton’s emails to bogus FISA warrants, there is much for the junkyard dog to attack. When is enough? When does Trump go “scorched earth[TL1] ” through transparency against those conspiring to destroy him?  

Declassify the FISA warrant and expose the collaboration of his Deep State enemies with foreign intelligence agencies. As the Clinton Foundation scandals become public, hammer away via tweets and public comments.  If Trump believes he is going down, he will bring half of Washington, DC with him.

Trump can simply release the hidden information and instruct his Justice department to pursue any and all crimes committed. Regardless of the political party of the perpetrators. That’s not weaponization of his administration, but instead simply the pursuit of justice and accountability. Let the chip fall where they may, across the political spectrum.

This would be the “draining the swamp” we were promised. Despite assurances that “pain is coming”, the deep state swamp is in full bloom. Yet the deplorables have Trump’s back with a 49 percent approval in the December 11 Rasmussen daily presidential tracking poll.

The other enough is for him personally. A billionaire businessman with a successful reality television show, he had it all. A comfortable life with his family. Money, influence, and popularity. He gave that up try to make a difference for America and the world. This campaign speech is an excellent summary of what the Trump presidency is all about, why he was elected and why the deep state is hell bent on destroying him.

For his efforts, he is ridiculed and scorned. Not only by his political opponents, but by those in his own party. NeverTrumpers in Congress and the media who would be ecstatic if a President Bush, Kasich, or Rubio were implementing everything Trump is doing, yet Trump’s conservative accomplishments mean nothing because he tweets and calls his detractors mean names.

He is not one of them, not part of their elite club, not a dues-paying member of the establishment. So those who have been advocating for conservative policies their entire political careers have turned on a dime, throwing their conservatism to the wind, embracing Democrat policies instead, all because they don’t like the messenger.

Trump must have believed he would be embraced by the GOP for his advancement of long-talked-about but never-implemented policies. These include fair trade deals, lower taxes and regulations, border enforcement, economic growth, and conservative judges.

The more Trump does, the more the opposition grows. To the point that he has few friends in Washington, DC. Especially in his own party.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller will undoubtedly cook up something for House Democrats to use for impeachment. For every line that Trump may have crossed, Obama, Clinton, and their minions crossed a parking lot full of lines, all without consequence. It’s not simply two standards of justice, it’s no justice at all. It’s Stalinesque justice where the deep state makes up the rules as they go along, favoring themselves with kangaroo courts for their opponents.

Conventional wisdom is that Senate Republicans would never vote to remove an impeached President Trump from office. Oh really? How many will see obstruction of justice in Trump firing James Comey, after his deputy attorney general recommended, and his attorney general agreed, that he should do just that? Or his perfectly legitimate nondisclosure agreements with payment.

So what if Trump personally paid Stormy Daniels to keep quiet? Obama’s campaign, not him personally, paid Reverend Wright hush money during the 2008 campaign and I don’t recall any special counsel investigations or Congressional hearings into campaign finance violations.

What a daily drag for President Trump to pick up the newspaper or watch a bit of cable news and hear a constant drumbeat of how he is evil incarnate and about to be removed from office and sent to prison!  Not simply disagreement over policy, but personal vitriol and hatred toward him and his family. How many of us could withstand such an onslaught from all directions, day after day, without saying enough is enough?

The fact that Trump is still upbeat and optimistic, accomplishing more in a day than his predecessors did in a week, is beyond amazing. But at some point, the human spirit breaks. How many slings and arrows will Trump take before he’s had enough?

How long do political and media hacks pursue trivial matters while danger lurks in all corners of the globe? What kind of example is America, as the world’s lone superpower, setting for the rest of the world with American politicians reenacting “Mean Girls” against the duly elected president?

His supporters wait, hoping and praying that he is able to turn the tables against the deep state. But the deep state isn’t letting up. Mueller’s jihad against the sitting president continues, opposition research funded not by the Clinton campaign and Fusion GPS but by you and me, the American taxpayer.

When does Donald Trump say, “Enough is enough!”?

Photo credit: Michael Vadon

Brian C Joondeph, MD, MPS, a Denver based physician and writer. Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedIn and Twitter.

President Donald Trump is an army of one. At least in Washington, DC and other elite enclaves. Sure, he has his base of deplorables, those who wait on mile-long lines to attend his rallies and those who voted for him two years ago.

Yet look at the forces arrayed against him.  The US media is on the warpath against Trump and his family, coverage 93 percent negative, although I suspect that number is closer to 100 percent. It’s rare to pick up a US newspaper or watch any television news and see anything remotely positive about Trump. Great economic news is always shrouded in a black cloud, as if low unemployment or strong economic growth is racist, sexist, or simply a mirage.

The Deep State, Democrats and Republicans alike, are in lock step trying to remove Trump from office. If only they were in similar agreement on securing the border, cutting regulations, or growing the economy than they are against Trump.

Rep Adam Schiff thinks Trump is heading to jail. Rep Maxine Waters agrees saying, “President Donald Trump is a ‘criminal’ who should be impeached.” It never ends.

When does Trump say, “Enough is enough!”?

Enough can have two meanings here. One meaning is the junkyard dog being taunted until it bares its teeth and attacks ferociously. Trump has that power as President. Assuming Huber and Horowitz have been doing more than playing board games with their reams of lawyers and investigators for the past year, there should be indictments and prosecutions. Not to mention releasing FISA warrant applications and similar documents.

From the Clinton Foundation to the Spygate scandal. From Hillary Clinton’s emails to bogus FISA warrants, there is much for the junkyard dog to attack. When is enough? When does Trump go “scorched earth[TL1] ” through transparency against those conspiring to destroy him?  

Declassify the FISA warrant and expose the collaboration of his Deep State enemies with foreign intelligence agencies. As the Clinton Foundation scandals become public, hammer away via tweets and public comments.  If Trump believes he is going down, he will bring half of Washington, DC with him.

Trump can simply release the hidden information and instruct his Justice department to pursue any and all crimes committed. Regardless of the political party of the perpetrators. That’s not weaponization of his administration, but instead simply the pursuit of justice and accountability. Let the chip fall where they may, across the political spectrum.

This would be the “draining the swamp” we were promised. Despite assurances that “pain is coming”, the deep state swamp is in full bloom. Yet the deplorables have Trump’s back with a 49 percent approval in the December 11 Rasmussen daily presidential tracking poll.

The other enough is for him personally. A billionaire businessman with a successful reality television show, he had it all. A comfortable life with his family. Money, influence, and popularity. He gave that up try to make a difference for America and the world. This campaign speech is an excellent summary of what the Trump presidency is all about, why he was elected and why the deep state is hell bent on destroying him.

For his efforts, he is ridiculed and scorned. Not only by his political opponents, but by those in his own party. NeverTrumpers in Congress and the media who would be ecstatic if a President Bush, Kasich, or Rubio were implementing everything Trump is doing, yet Trump’s conservative accomplishments mean nothing because he tweets and calls his detractors mean names.

He is not one of them, not part of their elite club, not a dues-paying member of the establishment. So those who have been advocating for conservative policies their entire political careers have turned on a dime, throwing their conservatism to the wind, embracing Democrat policies instead, all because they don’t like the messenger.

Trump must have believed he would be embraced by the GOP for his advancement of long-talked-about but never-implemented policies. These include fair trade deals, lower taxes and regulations, border enforcement, economic growth, and conservative judges.

The more Trump does, the more the opposition grows. To the point that he has few friends in Washington, DC. Especially in his own party.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller will undoubtedly cook up something for House Democrats to use for impeachment. For every line that Trump may have crossed, Obama, Clinton, and their minions crossed a parking lot full of lines, all without consequence. It’s not simply two standards of justice, it’s no justice at all. It’s Stalinesque justice where the deep state makes up the rules as they go along, favoring themselves with kangaroo courts for their opponents.

Conventional wisdom is that Senate Republicans would never vote to remove an impeached President Trump from office. Oh really? How many will see obstruction of justice in Trump firing James Comey, after his deputy attorney general recommended, and his attorney general agreed, that he should do just that? Or his perfectly legitimate nondisclosure agreements with payment.

So what if Trump personally paid Stormy Daniels to keep quiet? Obama’s campaign, not him personally, paid Reverend Wright hush money during the 2008 campaign and I don’t recall any special counsel investigations or Congressional hearings into campaign finance violations.

What a daily drag for President Trump to pick up the newspaper or watch a bit of cable news and hear a constant drumbeat of how he is evil incarnate and about to be removed from office and sent to prison!  Not simply disagreement over policy, but personal vitriol and hatred toward him and his family. How many of us could withstand such an onslaught from all directions, day after day, without saying enough is enough?

The fact that Trump is still upbeat and optimistic, accomplishing more in a day than his predecessors did in a week, is beyond amazing. But at some point, the human spirit breaks. How many slings and arrows will Trump take before he’s had enough?

How long do political and media hacks pursue trivial matters while danger lurks in all corners of the globe? What kind of example is America, as the world’s lone superpower, setting for the rest of the world with American politicians reenacting “Mean Girls” against the duly elected president?

His supporters wait, hoping and praying that he is able to turn the tables against the deep state. But the deep state isn’t letting up. Mueller’s jihad against the sitting president continues, opposition research funded not by the Clinton campaign and Fusion GPS but by you and me, the American taxpayer.

When does Donald Trump say, “Enough is enough!”?

Photo credit: Michael Vadon

Brian C Joondeph, MD, MPS, a Denver based physician and writer. Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedIn and Twitter.

You’ve heard the claim, whether spoken plainly or implied: America is deeply racist.

The United States hates anyone with dark skin, or so the narrative goes. We can’t stand foreigners and see everyone else as inferior.

Take this recent September piece in Time Magazine, for instance. Princeton University professor Eddie S. Glaude, Jr. bemoaned how “Americans have grown comfortable with racism resting just beneath the surface of our politics,” stating this as accepted fact with only vague anecdotes to back it up.

The view that Americans are xenophobic and racist pervades the media, but is it true? A recent study from the Pew Research Center suggests not.

It turns out that the U.S. is actually rather open and welcoming to different races from all over the world who want to come to our country … and there are many other nations who are far less welcoming.

TRENDING: The Incredible Gary Sinise Just Flew 1,000 Gold Star Kids to Disney World for Christmas…and Their Surviving Parents

“As the number of international migrants reaches new highs, people around the world show little appetite for more migration — both into and out of their countries,” the non-partisan research group explained.

Pew surveyed people in 27 different countries, and found an interesting trend: A high number of nations around the world are not open to increased immigration from foreigners. The United States, however, is among the most welcoming of all countries.

“Across the countries surveyed, a median of 45% say fewer or no immigrants should be allowed to move to their country,” Pew discovered. “Just 14% say their countries should allow more immigrants.”

European countries have historically been a hotbed of migration, particularly in recent years under the European Union. But Pew found that several EU nations which have been magnets for asylum-seekers and refugees are largely fed up with those foreigners, and would like to see them leave.

“In Europe, majorities in Greece (82%), Hungary (72%), Italy (71%) and Germany (58%) say fewer immigrants or no immigrants at all should be allowed to move to their countries,” Pew reported.

What do those places have in common? “Each of these countries served as some of the most popular transit or destination countries during Europe’s recent surge in asylum seekers.”

According to the study’s findings, only 29 percent of Americans said that there should be fewer or no immigrants coming to the United States. Only Canada and Japan had lower percentages of people saying the same, which means that Americans are actually among the most welcoming to immigrants.

It’s a similar story when the flip side of the same question is examined. Twenty-four percent of Americans said that they’d like to see more immigrants. While not a giant number, that’s among the highest in the world, with only Spain having more citizens who wanted to welcome more migrants.

In other words, the U.S. is second in the world when it comes to supporting more immigration to their country.

RELATED: Feinstein Tries To Corner Border Official on Tear Gassing Caravan Kids, He Smacks Her Down Over & Over

Once again, a frequent charge leveled at Americans by many leftists and other nations has fallen on its face when the real facts are examined.

As conservatives have pointed out for years, there’s a huge difference between illegal and legal immigration. This distinction seems to be constantly lost on the media and the left, which accuse citizens of xenophobia and racism for wanting our border laws enforced.

The fact of the matter is that the United States already welcomes over a million legal immigrants, every single year.

Being against law-breakers while still acknowledging that America is a nation of immigrants isn’t as inconsistent as many voices would have you believe.

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

The commission investigating the February 14 Parkland school shooting voted 13 to 1 Wednesday to arm teachers.

The Associated Press reports that the commission recommended allowing “teachers who volunteer and undergo extensive background checks and training…to carry concealed guns on campus to stop future shootings.”

The vote comes just weeks after Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri, lead investigator on the commission, announced that he wanted to see teachers armed in Florida.

Sheriff investigating the Parkland massacre says teachers SHOULD be armed so they can stop school shooters https://t.co/dySSsV5oKv

— Daily Mail US (@DailyMail) November 21, 2018

On November 21, Breitbart News reported that Gualtieri said the investigation into the Parkland shooting had changed his views on armed teachers; that he went from opposing it to supporting it. He noted, “People need to keep an open mind to it as the reality is that if someone else in that school had a gun it could have saved kids’ lives.”

Gualtieri’s observation is poignant in light of the fact that Parkland shooter paused five times to reload during his attack, but no teachers or staff were armed to take advantage of the lull in attack.

Constitutional attorney and author Mark W. Smith spoke to Breitbart News about the commission vote, saying:

The Parkland Commission’s decision in favor of arming teachers is rational and founded in common sense. While many commissions often come to feel good, but ineffective, conclusions, the Parkland commission here came to very effective, clear and definitive recommendations that if adopted will make a major improvement in protecting the lives of the children and teachers in Florida. And it is worth mentioning that this conclusion was reached by the overwhelming majority of this commission by a 13 to 1 vote. Hopefully, other states will look at this commission’s recommendations and adopt their very sensible recommendation.

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.