53percenter's Blog

That pesky First Amendment once again is frustrating Representative Ted Lieu over items like this one from me: Dem Rep. Ted Lieu says that he’d ‘love to be able to regulate the content of speech’.  Paul Crookston writes in the Free Beacon:

Rep. Ted Lieu (D., Calif.) released a statement Thursday saying he supports the First Amendment and criticizing “conservative media” for mischaracterizing him. (snip) on CNN Wednesday, Lieu made news by saying, “I would love to be able to regulate the content of speech. The First Amendment prevents me from doing so, and that’s simply a function of the First Amendment, but I think over the long run, it’s better the government does not regulate the content of speech.”

Some questioned whether he’s committed to the principle of free speech given the content of that statement, and he hit back Thursday by saying he considers himself an “ardent defender of the First Amendment” and on CNN he was merely making the point that the First Amendment prevents him from regulating speech.

So, what did he mean by saying that he’d “love to be able to regulate the content of free speech.”? Who says such things, other than people who lust to silence their opponents?

“In the interview, I again stated the First Amendment prevents government from regulating the content of speech. I also made the point that it was the First Amendment that prevents me from regulating speech. I have been, and always will be, an ardent defender of the First Amendment,” he said.

Let’s try an analogy. What if Ted had said, “I’d love to be able to rape attractive women, but the criminal justice system prevents me from doing so, and that’s simply a function of the criminal justice system, but I think over the long run, it’s better that the government regulate rape.”? Do you think that the feminists would be cool with a powerful lawmaker saying that but for the law he’d be out there raping attractive women?

He slammed “conservative media,” including Fox News host Tucker Carlson, for its response to his comment on CNN.

I’m jealous that I was not named, but then like everyone else Lieu disagrees with, I must be “stupid.” Take a look at who and what he regards as stupid:

That pesky First Amendment once again is frustrating Representative Ted Lieu over items like this one from me: Dem Rep. Ted Lieu says that he’d ‘love to be able to regulate the content of speech’.  Paul Crookston writes in the Free Beacon:

Rep. Ted Lieu (D., Calif.) released a statement Thursday saying he supports the First Amendment and criticizing “conservative media” for mischaracterizing him. (snip) on CNN Wednesday, Lieu made news by saying, “I would love to be able to regulate the content of speech. The First Amendment prevents me from doing so, and that’s simply a function of the First Amendment, but I think over the long run, it’s better the government does not regulate the content of speech.”

Some questioned whether he’s committed to the principle of free speech given the content of that statement, and he hit back Thursday by saying he considers himself an “ardent defender of the First Amendment” and on CNN he was merely making the point that the First Amendment prevents him from regulating speech.

So, what did he mean by saying that he’d “love to be able to regulate the content of free speech.”? Who says such things, other than people who lust to silence their opponents?

“In the interview, I again stated the First Amendment prevents government from regulating the content of speech. I also made the point that it was the First Amendment that prevents me from regulating speech. I have been, and always will be, an ardent defender of the First Amendment,” he said.

Let’s try an analogy. What if Ted had said, “I’d love to be able to rape attractive women, but the criminal justice system prevents me from doing so, and that’s simply a function of the criminal justice system, but I think over the long run, it’s better that the government regulate rape.”? Do you think that the feminists would be cool with a powerful lawmaker saying that but for the law he’d be out there raping attractive women?

He slammed “conservative media,” including Fox News host Tucker Carlson, for its response to his comment on CNN.

I’m jealous that I was not named, but then like everyone else Lieu disagrees with, I must be “stupid.” Take a look at who and what he regards as stupid:

Contrary to liberal media reporting, the Oval Office meeting with President Trump, Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was a win for Trump, both in substance and in tone.

The meeting gave people an opportunity to see who fears transparency, who’s misrepresenting his/her position and who is being the aggressor in the border debate, and it’s not Donald Trump.

Instead of listening to the media’s version, watch the video. President Trump set the tone of the meeting, and it was decidedly cordial, saying it was a great honor to have Pelosi and Schumer there and acknowledging that they’ve worked very hard on various bipartisan initiatives, such as criminal justice reform and the farm bill.

Trump then turned to “the wall,” saying Republicans support it and he would like to avoid a government shutdown over the issue while acknowledging that it is a very difficult issue because Republicans and Democrats are “on very opposite sides.”

When Trump surrendered the floor to Pelosi, she immediately invoked the subject of a government shutdown, saying the American people recognize that we must keep the government open — as if that, and not border security, were the overriding issue — and warning, “You should not have a Trump shutdown.”

Notice the blatantly calculating way she spun this as a “Trump shutdown” rather than a possible impasse that could lead to a government shutdown. Also note: Pelosi drew first blood, and it was deliberate.

After a minor skirmish over whether Trump should initiate a bill in the House that would be sure to fail in the Senate, Pelosi, playing to the camera, said, “We’re here to have a conversation in a prayerful way, so I don’t think we should have a debate in front of the press.” Pelosi knows that a House bill could not survive a Democratic filibuster in the Senate, yet she continued to press Trump to offer a bill.

Schumer began his remarks by insulting Trump, saying The Washington Post gave him “a whole lot of Pinocchios” on the wall and stressing that Democrats have “a disagreement … not on border security but on the wall.” He chided Trump for calling for a shutdown 20 times, ignoring that Trump had specifically said in this meeting that he does not want that.

Then a frustrated Pelosi said they needed to call a halt to the discussion because they had come in to the meeting in good faith to discuss with Trump how they could keep the government open. Again, Trump was not the one talking about a shutdown; he was talking about the wall and border security, the former being indispensable to the latter. Like Pelosi, Schumer said they should “debate in private,” while Pelosi was insultingly mumbling, “We have taken this conversation to a place that is devoid, frankly, of fact.” In other words, “You’re lying, President Trump, because you won’t agree to our partisan version of reality.”

Schumer insisted that border security is possible without a wall and that experts say a wall would be wasteful — implying, with a straight face, that the Democratic leadership can get exercised over the expenditure of government money. Pelosi lamented again that they were having the debate in public after having come in to the meeting in good faith, and Trump rightly noted, “It’s not bad, Nancy. It’s called transparency.” So it was Nancy’s “good-faith” expectation that Trump would just sit back and take their insults and not discuss the issue that could lead to the dreaded shutdown?

Pelosi responded, “It’s not transparency when we’re not stipulating to a set of facts.” Are you kidding me? Unless you agree with Democrats on the facts, the discussion can’t be transparent? This is the same logic by which leftists ban expression of opinions that don’t agree with theirs. I hope people are paying attention.

Just as the mood was beginning to soften, Schumer again turned to Trump and accused him of wanting to shut the government down, and again Trump denied it. It was only after repeated haranguing that Trump indicated he was tired of playing semantic games and said that if they want to put the shutdown on him, fine, he would be willing to shut down the government if he could not get the wall.

How can anyone believe that the Democrats support border security — wall or no wall — when they have repeatedly broken their promises to work with Republicans on it, when they demonize all opponents of illegal immigration and amnesty as racists, when they oppose all reasonable measures to guard the border, and when many of them actually advocate the elimination of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement?

After the meeting, Pelosi and Schumer continued vilifying Trump, with Schumer describing Trump’s behavior in the meeting as a “temper tantrum” and Pelosi telling colleagues, “It goes to show you: You get into a tinkle contest with a skunk, you get tinkle all over you. … It’s like a manhood thing for him — as if manhood could ever be associated with him.”

It’s undeniable that Pelosi and Schumer initiated the aggressive exchanges, that they personally insulted Trump and were rude and condescending to him, that they openly objected to transparency, and that they misrepresented their own position on border security.

Say what you want about Trump, but he very honestly said that he was determined to get a border wall, that he preferred to have this discussion in front of the entire world and that he would be willing for the government to shut down over it. Pelosi and Schumer are just as willing to shut down the government over it but unwilling to be honest about it.

I applaud President Trump for bringing this issue front and center and exposing the fraudulent and reckless position of the Democratic leadership on border security.

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book is “Jesus Is Risen: Paul and the Early Church.” Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at www.davidlimbaugh.com.

DONATE

Eenie meenie, chili-beanie, the spirits are about to speak! The Washington Post does some reading of the Robert Mueller tea leaves today after a week in which the special counsel’s filings seem ever closer to threatening Donald Trump’s presidency. But is it really just getting closer to an anti-climax? Michael Cohen’s sentencing signals a potential end, even if it’s not the one Trump’s foes think:

In the cases of Cohen, former campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and former national security adviser Michael Flynn, Mueller has proceeded to the sentencing of each without first making him testify at trial against others.

That’s at odds with the common practice of prosecutors — which is to hold the stick of a tougher prison sentence over defendants until they have completed all of their cooperation, particularly any public testimony.

While the recent legal action has led to speculation that prosecutors are narrowing in on the president in anticipation of more criminal charges, Mueller’s sentencing timeline suggests a different outcome to some legal experts — that the accounts of those cooperating witnesses will appear in a written report, not in court.

That would come as no surprise to Andrew McCarthy, who’s been making this argument for weeks. Nor should it be a surprise to the rest of us, since the Department of Justice’s legal policy is that they cannot indict a sitting president. As special counsel, Mueller is bound by that finding, and Mueller is not the kind of person to go rogue, at least not in that sense. The special counsel probe wasn’t going to end in a presidential perp walk, no matter what the fantasies of the fever swamp might be.

Cooperators “usually go last,” former Whitewater independent counsel Robert Ray tells the Post, because they’ve usually been asked to testify in a trial. With Flynn, Papadopoulos, and now Cohen all cooperating and sentenced (Flynn’s sentencing hearing will come next week), Ray concludes that “we are nearing the end.”

What about Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi, though? The situations of those presumed persons of interest still have not been settled, or at least that’s what it seems. That might mean that we’re not quite nearing the end, but it’s a bit curious to see Mueller settle up with all of his cooperators — and to settle a score with Paul Manafort for not cooperating as agreed — before that point. Cohen wouldn’t likely have had much to do with Stone or Corsi, but Flynn and Papadopoulos theoretically might have, or at least have testimony that would be useful in a trial.

If Ray’s right, then it might be that Mueller will finish without trying anyone on the core issue of supposed Russia collusion. That would be an even larger anti-climax, with nothing but a report along with some process-crimes plea deals in hand. That is, however, the consistent track record of special counsels. And it would fit with McCarthy’s read of the situation before the Cohen plea deal was announced:

First, he is not going to indict the president, which would precipitate a trial at some point. The convicted liars are not going to be jury-trial witnesses, so Mueller is not concerned about their lack of credibility. The report will detail disturbing — and thus politically damaging — connections between Trump associates and Kremlin cronies. But there will be no collusion crime, and thus no charges and no need for witnesses.

Second, with the media as his biggest cheerleader (other than Jeff Flake), the false-statements pleas create the illusion of a collusion crime, and thus appear to vindicate Mueller’s sprawling investigation. As I’ve previously explained, the game works this way: The media reports that Mueller is investigating Trump–Russia collusion and that dozens of people have been charged or convicted; but the media omits that no one has been charged, much less convicted, of any crime involving collusion between Trump and Russia. The great mass of people who do not follow the news closely come away thinking a Trump–Russia collusion crime is an established fact; by now, Mueller must be tightening the noose around Trump because he’s already rolled up a bunch of the apparent accomplices.

Third, defendants convicted of making false statements are very useful because Mueller is writing a report, not preparing for a jury trial. Convicted liars never get cross-examined in a report. Nor do they give the bumpy, inconsistent testimony you hear in a courtroom. Instead, their version of events is outlined by a skilled prosecutor, who writes well and knows how to make their stories sing in perfect harmony. They will sound far better in the report than they would on the witness stand. We’ve already gotten a taste of this in the offense narratives Mueller has incorporated in each guilty plea. Read the criminal information in Cohen’s case and ask yourself whether Mr. Fixer could have recited matters with such clarity.

That doesn’t mean that Trump’s out of the woods yet. Mueller might still have some surprises up his sleeve, and the report might contain a lot of damning information that could prompt Congress to act. But at least based on what we’ve gleaned from the filings, that may just come down to questionable accusations of campaign-finance violations, far short of what people expected.

There’s another reason to think that the end is nigh. Don’t forget that William Barr will likely get confirmed as Attorney General very early next year, which will put him in charge of the special-counsel probe. Mueller probably feels a lot more comfortable handing his report to Rod Rosenstein rather than Barr, and Rosenstein will need to decide what to do with it before Barr becomes his boss. The clock is ticking loudly on that option, and Mueller knows it.

The administrators are protecting the snowflakes from ‘hate speech’.

Via Washington Times:

A non-profit group filed a First Amendment lawsuit Thursday against officials at the University of Texas, accusing them of crimping free speech on campus.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in the Western District of Texas, follows a spate of incidents at the system’s flagship campus in Austin and some satellite campuses. Most recently, the Young Conservatives of Texas were attacked by angry liberal students when the group set up a table on a quad to express support for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Speech First Inc., the plaintiff, said the university has a speech code that’s both “vague and overbroad,” in an attempt to stymy viewpoints some students deem offensive.

“We had heard some really bad stories from our members there, and we were following reports from there, and it just sort of became a perfect storm,” said Nicole Neily, president and founder of Speech First, which has also initiated a First Amendment lawsuit this year against the University of Michigan.

Ms. Neily also cited the conclusion of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which gives the University of Texas a “red light” for speech codes it says are at odds with the First Amendment and principles of free speech.

School system President Gregory L. Fenves, along with several other top administrators, were named as defendants in the lawsuit.

The Austin campus did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Speech First said the school deploys a Campus Climate Response Team to police speech, swooping down on what the administrators label “campus climate” or “bias” incidents.

Since September 2017, the Response Team has investigated more than 100 reports of alleged bias, according to Speech First.

Keep reading…

Want a good morning laugh?

Get a load of National Review’s Kyle Smith and his hilarious vivisection of Michael Avenatti, whose rise and fall is shows just how absurd he and his Democratic cheerleaders always were. Here’s the start of the piece and don’t tell me you don’t want to read further:

Remember when Michael Avenatti was the Democrats’ big hope for 2020? He wasn’t just that, though. Parachuting in to launch his presidential campaign to the DNC’s “Ethnic Council” and its black caucus in Chicago in August, he enthusiastically adopted the party’s guiltspeak. “People that look like me, white men, we need to stand up,” he told his minority audience, exactly the kind of cost-free identity-politics self-castigation without which no Democrat can hope to rise very far. In the same month, Avenatti spoke at the “Democratic Wing Ding” dinner in Iowa and announced plans to visit at least 20 more states.

The response was fanatical. Avenatti was hailed as a hybrid attack dog and sex god. All Democrats bowed to the Trumpslayer. Picture a two-fisted, high-T version of 2008 Barack Obama, and you’ll have some idea of how professional Democrats viewed him as they rushed to polish his boots with their tongues. “Hottie Avenatti” became a meme. If geothermal hatred of President Trump was warming the Democratic party’s heart, Avenatti was the cause of significant engorgement in its undies. “I wouldn’t not f*** him,” one activist said. “Unprompted, several Democrats admiringly discussed Avenatti’s physique to VICE News,” ran one reporter’s account, noting that “I have a thing for bald guys” was a typical remark. (Great news, Joe Biden, you can take out your plugs!)

“He’s in, right? He’s running for president and I think it’s good he’s here and I think that all the other candidates should also be showing support,” Jane Kleeb, the chairwoman of the Nebraska Democratic party told Vice. A party consultant added that Avenatti’s background was no impediment to his path to the White House and was maybe even an asset. “If it takes Stormy Daniels and Michael Avenatti to make the difference between people not going bankrupt over healthcare, then we’ll take that deal . . . Even insiders are open to a new way of doing things.”

This was less than four months ago: Peak Avenatti. Since then his stock has followed somewhat of a Pets.com trajectory.

From the article, we learn the extent of adoration Democrats showered onto the fool – something I did not know, given how gross he was. This indeed was the man once proclaimed by Democrats to be our savior from Trump. That fizzled out and then and Smith describes the pathetic porno lawyer’s desperate attempt to keep grabbing the spotlight even after the initial Democratic Party adoration went kaput, chasing and chasing the cameras like an ambulance, and ending up looking like the Rev. Al Sharpton in the wake of the Tawana Brawley fiasco. After that, he started getting evicted and facing girlfriend-beating charges, with his prized client, porn ‘star’ Stormy Daniels distancing herself from him as all of this stuff made him look like the creep he really is. Thrashing and thrashing, the more he resisted, the worse he looked. Then the adoring Democrats started to abandon him…and disinviting him…and pretending they never knew him.

Eeeew. What a way to end it.

Meanwhile, Smith, whose piece is very, very hilarious, is getting to be one of my very favorite writers.

Image credit: Luke Harold, via Flickr // CC BY-SA 1.0

Want a good morning laugh?

Get a load of National Review’s Kyle Smith and his hilarious vivisection of Michael Avenatti, whose rise and fall is shows just how absurd he and his Democratic cheerleaders always were. Here’s the start of the piece and don’t tell me you don’t want to read further:

Remember when Michael Avenatti was the Democrats’ big hope for 2020? He wasn’t just that, though. Parachuting in to launch his presidential campaign to the DNC’s “Ethnic Council” and its black caucus in Chicago in August, he enthusiastically adopted the party’s guiltspeak. “People that look like me, white men, we need to stand up,” he told his minority audience, exactly the kind of cost-free identity-politics self-castigation without which no Democrat can hope to rise very far. In the same month, Avenatti spoke at the “Democratic Wing Ding” dinner in Iowa and announced plans to visit at least 20 more states.

The response was fanatical. Avenatti was hailed as a hybrid attack dog and sex god. All Democrats bowed to the Trumpslayer. Picture a two-fisted, high-T version of 2008 Barack Obama, and you’ll have some idea of how professional Democrats viewed him as they rushed to polish his boots with their tongues. “Hottie Avenatti” became a meme. If geothermal hatred of President Trump was warming the Democratic party’s heart, Avenatti was the cause of significant engorgement in its undies. “I wouldn’t not f*** him,” one activist said. “Unprompted, several Democrats admiringly discussed Avenatti’s physique to VICE News,” ran one reporter’s account, noting that “I have a thing for bald guys” was a typical remark. (Great news, Joe Biden, you can take out your plugs!)

“He’s in, right? He’s running for president and I think it’s good he’s here and I think that all the other candidates should also be showing support,” Jane Kleeb, the chairwoman of the Nebraska Democratic party told Vice. A party consultant added that Avenatti’s background was no impediment to his path to the White House and was maybe even an asset. “If it takes Stormy Daniels and Michael Avenatti to make the difference between people not going bankrupt over healthcare, then we’ll take that deal . . . Even insiders are open to a new way of doing things.”

This was less than four months ago: Peak Avenatti. Since then his stock has followed somewhat of a Pets.com trajectory.

From the article, we learn the extent of adoration Democrats showered onto the fool – something I did not know, given how gross he was. This indeed was the man once proclaimed by Democrats to be our savior from Trump. That fizzled out and then and Smith describes the pathetic porno lawyer’s desperate attempt to keep grabbing the spotlight even after the initial Democratic Party adoration went kaput, chasing and chasing the cameras like an ambulance, and ending up looking like the Rev. Al Sharpton in the wake of the Tawana Brawley fiasco. After that, he started getting evicted and facing girlfriend-beating charges, with his prized client, porn ‘star’ Stormy Daniels distancing herself from him as all of this stuff made him look like the creep he really is. Thrashing and thrashing, the more he resisted, the worse he looked. Then the adoring Democrats started to abandon him…and disinviting him…and pretending they never knew him.

Eeeew. What a way to end it.

Meanwhile, Smith, whose piece is very, very hilarious, is getting to be one of my very favorite writers.

Image credit: Luke Harold, via Flickr // CC BY-SA 1.0

(CNSNews.com) — Seventy-five percent of the federal government is already funded through all of fiscal year 2019, according to the House Committee on Appropriations. That means a total government shutdown cannot happen.

On Sept. 21, President Donald Trump signed a “minibus” appropriations law that funded the Department of Energy; Military Construction and Veterans Affairs; and the Legislative Branch for the entirety of fiscal 2019, which does not end until next Sept. 30. Then, on Sept. 28, Trump signed another “minibus” law funding the departments of Defense, Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS) and Education through the end of fiscal year 2019.

“With the signing of this package today, Congress will have enacted the majority of all discretionary spending for the year–75%–prior to the end of the fiscal year, an accomplishment that hasn’t occurred in over two decades,” House Appropriations Chairman Rodney Ferlinghuysen (R.-N.J.) said when Trump signed that second “minibus.”

Bloomberg reported that of the government’s $1.24 trillion discretionary budget (the part of the federal budget that is appropriated by Congress), $931 billion has already been appropriated and only $314 billion is still pending.

The Sept. 28 minibus included a continuing resolution to keep the rest of the departments funded until Dec. 7, 2018. On Dec. 3, Congress passed a short-term resolution changing the deadline to Dec. 21.

While many news outlets are flashing ominous headlines warning of a “looming government shutdown,” the reality is that only some of the smaller departments would be affected in the event of a partial shutdown. The two biggest departments, Defense and HHS, are already funded.

Of the potentially affected agencies, only nonessential government personnel would be unable to come to work – such as research scientists. Essential personnel, or government employees whose work is necessary to ensure the safety and security of Americans, would still do their jobs.

Border patrol agents, for example, are considered essential personnel. They would continue to work in the event of a partial shutdown, even though the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is not yet funded.

The delay in securing funding for the DHS and other departments is due, in large part, to a stalemate in Congress over proposed funding for President Donald Trump’s border wall. While Trump wants $5 billion to build the wall, Democrats are only willing to yield, so far, $1.3 billion.

On Tuesday, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Rep. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) visited the White House to discuss border wall funding with Trump. At the meeting, Trump said he would be “proud to shut down the government for border security.”

Other departments that are not yet funded include Transportation; Housing and Urban Development; Interior and the Environment; Commerce, Justice and Science; State; Financial Services and Agriculture.

It’s been a busy few weeks in media land, what with Michael Cohen’s sentencing and talk about whether Donald Trump will be impeached, or Michael Flynn’s sentencing and talk about whether Donald Trump will be impeached, or Jamal Khashoggi’s death and how that relates to whether Donald Trump will be impeached.

Mind you, I’m not necessarily saying this isn’t newsworthy. While I don’t think the special counsel needs to be covered with a breathlessness usually reserved for the first few hours after a plane crash (except elongated to 24/7 status), there have been some pretty serious developments in the past few weeks that have changed the complexion of things.

That being said, this doesn’t give the media a pass on reporting other aspects of the Trump presidency — particularly those that might paint it in a favorable light.

For instance, you basically had to actively search to find any mention of the Opportunity and Revitalization Council, a $100 billion initiative to deliver growth in urban communities.

“With the creation of today’s council, the resources of the whole federal government will be leveraged to rebuild low-income and impoverished neighborhoods that have been ignored by Washington in years past,” the president said at a Wednesday event in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, where an executive order establishing the council was signed..

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

“Our goal is to ensure that America’s great new prosperity is broadly shared by all of our citizens. Our country is doing better than ever, economically, and we’re able to do that.”

The council will be led by Ben Carson, head of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

“Today, the nation’s unemployment rate is at a 49-year low. Jobless rates among African-Americans down to a record low of 5.9 percent. Wages on the rise,” Carson said. “While we can all be proud of these achievements, one challenge has remained: There are still communities in our country that have seen little or no new investment in generations.”

According to the Baltimore Sun, the new program will offer breaks on capital gains taxes to investors in distressed zones — obviously a huge boost to predominately black and minority neighborhoods, which are still lagging in indicators like wage growth.

The opportunity zones, Carson said, “are home to approximately 35 million Americans. The Department of Treasury estimates that the Opportunity Zone legislation could attract over $100 billion in private investment, which will go a long way to spur on jobs and economic development.

“This kind of medicine is precisely what a doctor would prescribe to heal communities where nearly 1 in 3 people live in poverty, and unemployment is nearly twice the national average.”

Pastor Donté Hickman, who the president said is “helping lead a groundbreaking project in the newly designated opportunity zone,” hailed the initiative.

“As pastor of the Southern Baptist Church, and through our Mary Harvin Transformation Center Community Development Corporation, in partnership with other faith-based stakeholder institutions, developed the East Baltimore Revitalization Plan, addressing development needs of over 100 acres just north of Johns Hopkins Hospital,” Hickman said.

“Mr. President, I want you and every agency and potential investor to know that in Baltimore — and in particular, Broadway East, Baltimore — that we have the plan, we have the property, we have the people, we have the professional expertise, and we have the prospectus to jumpstart your urban initiative.  Baltimore is prepared to be a demonstration project for a national urban revitalization strategy.”

RELATED: Ben Carson Calls Democrats Out as Straight-Up ‘Racists’ in Bold Interview

President Trump just announced an urban revitalization council, that will produce $100 billion in capital for urban areas from Arizona to Baltimore.

Cities ruined by democrat failures will now get the help they need.

And there’s all but a media blackout.#BlackTwitter #Maga pic.twitter.com/GKuKfK4mYG

— Adrian Norman (@madriannorman) December 13, 2018

I think we can all agree this is a pretty big deal. Not only will it take a $100 billion step toward alleviating poverty in urban communities, it does it with investment as opposed to handouts. All of this without any tax money.

So why is it almost impossible to find news about this anywhere?

Yes, I understand, the special counsel is a big ratings driver. So are arguments between the president and Democratic leadership, especially when they’re conducted in front of an array of reporters and cameras. However, if you’re the news, at some point you have to cover — well, the news. This is part of it.

The New York Times had a relatively short (at least for them) piece about it. Vox, with the predictability of the monsoon season returning to India, covered the story thusly: “Ivanka Trump reportedly advocated for a tax break she and Jared Kushner could profit from.” See, because they’re in real estate, and this could help real estate. Clearly their primary incentive here. There was certainly coverage to be had, mind you, but it wasn’t front page stuff — and try to find it on CNN or MSNBC.

At some level, so-called objective news outlets have to cover the full spectrum of stories. That’s all conservatives ask. And, even with that low bar, we’re constantly disappointed.

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

After November’s election results, I got the feeling that it wouldn’t be too long before Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader (and soon to be speaker, assuming all goes well) Nancy Pelosi were feeling their oats like they were Quaker.

Earlier this week, they forgot that they were dealing with the one man in Washington who’s never not feeling his oats, Donald J. Trump. When they tried to engage him over the possibility of a partial government shutdown next week if the wall isn’t funded by Congress, things got a bit dicey.

“I’ll tell you what, I am proud to shut down the government for border security,” the president told Schumer during a contentious Oval Office meeting, “because the people of this country don’t want criminals and people that have lots of problems, and drugs pouring into our country.

“So I will take the mantle. I will be the to shut it down. I’m not going to blame you for it. The last time you shut it down it didn’t work. I will take the mantle of shutting down, and I’m going to shut it down for border security.”

“But we believe you shouldn’t shut it down,” Schumer said.

TRENDING: Melania Gifts Special Christmas Drawing to Girl, Parents Left ‘Stunned and Amazed’

Schumer was a bit more unequivocal later on. “I want to be crystal clear: There will be no additional appropriations to pay for the border wall. It’s done,” he said on the Senate floor.

Schumer’s line is basically this — falling illegal immigration numbers show that we don’t need the wall, so why fund a project that isn’t needed? After all, what we have now must be working, right?

There are so many problems with that I almost don’t know where to start. However, for the purposes of this article, I know where to start and finish: with the word of the Department of Homeland Security, the department which deals firsthand with the threat of illegal immigration on a daily basis.

“DHS is committed to building wall and building wall quickly. We are not replacing short, outdated and ineffective wall with similar wall,” the department said in an article published Wednesday. “Instead, under this President we are building a wall that is 30-feet high.”

And they weren’t shy about who was behind the wall, either. “FACT: Prior to President Trump taking office, we have never built wall that high,” the article stated.

Here’s the difference between the old wall and the new (big, beautiful) wall, as pictured on their website:

DHS said that they utilized $292 million in funds from Congress to build 40 miles of this kind of wall in three sectors — El Centro, El Paso and San Diego. These were “Border Patrol’s highest priority locations in place of outdated, operationally ineffective barrier,” according to Homeland Security.

“As of November 21, 2018, (Customs and Border Protection) has constructed more than 31 of the 40 miles with the remaining 9 miles scheduled for completion by early 2019,” they said.

RELATED: Attack on Boy Was So Brutal the Knife Was ‘Warped,’ Suspects Are MS-13 Members, Illegals

So, how much of a difference does this wall make? Here’s another visual demonstration, just in case you didn’t get the idea:

And how good is the newer style of border fencing at keeping illegal border crossers out?

“On Sunday when a violent mob of 1,000 people stormed our Southern border, we found the newly constructed portions of the wall to be very effective,” DHS said.

“In the area of the breach, a group of people tore a hole in the old landing mat fence constructed decades ago and pushed across the border. U.S. Border Patrol agents who responded to the area ultimately dispersed the crowd, which had become assaultive, and apprehended several individuals. All of the individuals were either apprehended or retreated into Mexico. That evening, the fence was repaired.

“There were no breaches along the newly constructed border wall areas,” they noted.

As for the $5 billion that Trump is requesting in border security funding, DHS says that will go a long way.

“When combined with the funds provided in FY 2017 and FY 2018, if funded at $5B in FY 2019 DHS expects to construct more than 330 miles of border wall in the U.S. Border Patrol’s highest priority locations across the Southwest border,” the article read.

“The Bottom Line: Walls Work,” the article concluded.

“When it comes to stopping drugs and illegal aliens across our borders, border walls have proven to be extremely effective. Border security relies on a combination of border infrastructure, technology, personnel and partnerships with law enforcement at the state, local, tribal, and federal level.

“For example, when we have installed wall in Yuma Sector, we have seen border apprehensions decrease by 90 percent. In San Diego we saw on Sunday that dilapidated, decades old barriers are not sufficient for today’s threat and need to be removed so new — up to  30 foot wall sections can be completed.”

In short, what we have now isn’t sufficient for the threat, contrary to what Sen. Schumer may believe. And contrary to what Democrats might believe, walls work. Walls are a good thing. These facts are all independent of whether or not President Trump gets the $5 billion he’s asking for in order to build it. If you don’t believe me, just ask DHS.

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

Ah, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. The FBI’s favorite lovebirds. It’s such a shame that their fairytale romance was spoiled by a bunch of right-wing conspiracy theorists, the fact that they sent a bunch of politically inflammatory texts regarding individuals they were investigating and the fact that they were both were married to other people. True love really is dead.

However, if you want to see the dying embers of that ill-starred fling, I have some good news: over 20,000 more “lost” texts from them have been uncovered thus far. So, if they’re ever declassified, you can see even more of Strzok and Page than you’ve already seen. The amour. The chills. The incessant calls to “stop” Trump.

So, as you may have already heard, a lot of messages between Strzok and Page weren’t preserved properly — specifically, those between the end of the 2016 election and Robert Mueller’s special counsel. Strzok, as you also may have heard, was part of that special counsel investigation until the agent was taken off and buried in human resources after his texts with Page about Trump (and how much they mutually loathed him) were discovered.

A partially redacted report by the Office of the Inspector General released on Thursday revealed the results of their investigation into the missing messages — namely, 20,071 new texts.

“The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General 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 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,” the report read.

TRENDING: Melania Gifts Special Christmas Drawing to Girl, Parents Left ‘Stunned and Amazed’

“Specifically, the OIG’s Cyber Investigations Office was asked to attempt recovery of these missing text message for the referenced period from FBI issued mobile devices issued to Strzok and Page.

“In view of the content of many of the text messages between Strzok and Page, the OIG also asked the Special Counsel’s Office to provide the OIG the DOJ issues iPhones that had been assigned to Strzok and Page during their respective assignments to the SCO (Special Counsel’s Office).”

The investigation, according to the report, involved tracking down the phones used by both Strzok and Page during the period.

“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 report read.

“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 time period that had not been produced by the FBI due to technical problems with its text message collection tool.”

I feel almost like giving that trademark Peter Strzok grin at that bit of information:

RELATED: Fox Bombshell: Peter Strzok’s FBI Mistress Lisa Page Worked for Clinton, According to Text Messages

And that grin only gets more Damien-like when we see just how big of a trove of texts this produced: “The OIG forensically recovered thousands of text messages from FBI mobile devices issued to Strzok and Page through its multiple extraction efforts.

“Approximately 9,311 text messages were recovered from Strzok’s S5 (Samsung),” the report read. “Approximately 10,760 text messages were recovered from Page’s S5.”

That’s a grand total of 20,071, for those of you without a calculator handy.

Now, what do these messages contain? We don’t really know at this point. For all we know, Strzok and Page stopped talking about Trump on Dec. 15, 2016. Maybe they decided it was time to start taking their job seriously and throw partisanship out the window. And maybe I’m Ross Perot.

The report says that what they found “included some political content, some work-related content, and some personal content.” Nevertheless, the OIG couldn’t find any “discernable (sic) patterns regarding the content of text messages missed by the collection tool but captured by enterprise.db, or captured by the collection tool but not found in the enterprise.db database.”

However, the important part was that “some political content” and how it might connect to that “work-related content.” If it’s anything like what we’ve seen already, we can prepare for yet more fireworks involving the Heloise and Abelard of the FBI.

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