Sunday, April 22, 2018

The Dire Consequence of the Republicans Losing Congress

If Democrats win back control of Congress, Democrats will continue using public schools to circumvent your values; molding and shaping your kids into their image.

Unlike most Republicans, Trump courageously challenged Democrats, moving forward on building a border wall.

If the Democrats win Congress, more babies will die.

The Democrats winning Congress will emboldened them to press forward with their war on religious freedom, forcing Christians to kneel in worship to the leftists' false god of liberalism.

Democrats controlling congress will reinstate America treating Israel badly.

If Democrats take back Congress, these foaming-at-the-mouth leftists will strike at We the People with "Great vengeance and furious anger," punishing us for daring to undermine their agenda.

We cannot allow Democrats to regain control of Congress. 

Democrats' lawsuit is a risky publicity stunt

This week, the Democratic Party seems to have proven this by filing a civil RICO lawsuit against President Trump's campaign, various campaign staffers, WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, the Russian Federation, and specific Russian officials and operatives.

The inclusion of Trump's campaign as a defendant appears to be a publicity stunt.

It is noteworthy that Trump himself is not a defendant in this case, and also that there is no allegation that campaign finance laws were broken because of a foreign in-kind contribution.

Take, for example, Trump's famous joke at the beginning of the Republican 2016 convention, in which he expressed his hope the Russians would find Hillary Clinton's "30,000 emails that are missing." This is actually cited in this lawsuit as evidence Trump's campaign was in the know or somehow involved in illegally causing harm to the DNC through the Russian releases of stolen Democratic emails.

Also offered as evidence are a couple of pages filled with Trump tweets and Trump speech excerpts that referenced the emails put out by WikiLeaks.

The lawsuit also points to the fact that WikiLeaks sent private direct messages over Twitter to Donald Trump Jr. so he and his dad could share links to its stolen documents.

How likely does it seem contacts would be established in such a sloppy, artless manner if Trump's campaign were simultaneously in constructive contact with Russian intelligence? 

Barbara Bush had a life well lived

Fifteen years later, when Barbara Bush's eldest son was president and I was seated beside him at the WHCA dinner head table, I related that story to George W. Bush.

In her autobiography, Barbara Bush, who had been dark-haired before her little girl got sick, wrote about the toll Robin's death took on her - and on her eldest child - and also how the tragedy bound she and George together.

"That started my cure," wrote Barbara Bush, who had baby Jeb to care for as well as a 7-year-old boy needing attention.

George Bush would be back at Phillips Academy in Andover, Mass., and Barbara Pierce was ensconced at Ashley Hall in Charleston, S.C. The two smitten teenagers wrote letters, went on a double date during spring break, and shared a first kiss - their first-ever kiss, both always insisted.

Bush, who was the youngest fighter pilot in the U.S. Navy, named his planes Barbara I, Barbara II, and Barbara III. Two of them were shot down in combat, the second one leading to his harrowing rescue in enemy waters.

By the end of her life Barbara Bush knew she no longer fit the modern feminist ideal - and hadn't for some time.

"At the end of your life, you will never regret not having passed one more test, winning one more verdict, or not closing one more deal," Mrs. Bush said at the 1990 Wellesley College commencement. 

The 'deep state' is real. But are its leaks against Trump justified?

Since Trump was elected, unusually sensitive leaks of intelligence information designed to discredit him and his senior leadership have poured forth from current and former intelligence officials in the deep state.

These leaks probably mark the first time ever that the content of foreign intelligence intercepts aimed at foreign agents that swept up US-person information was leaked.

Many people, including many who are not in the Trump camp, have interpreted these leaks to violate a third taboo by marking a return to the Hoover-era FBI's use of secretly collected information to sabotage elected officials with adverse political interests.

There is, of course, the possibility that the anti-Trump leaks, on their face political and unprecedented, were nonetheless justified whistleblowing, akin perhaps to leaks about illegal surveillance programs or about illegal interrogation practices at CIA black sites.

The lines crossed by the deep state leaks against Trump were thought to be absolute ones until 2017.

Even if it turns out that Flynn and others close to Trump were in the bag for the Russians, many people will for a long time view the anti-Trump leaks as political abuse of intelligence to harm political enemies.

This perception will be deepened by the Trump administration's relentless and often false attacks on the integrity of the intelligence community, including its false suggestion that the original collection that incidentally captured Flynn's communications, as opposed to the leaks of such information, was illegitimate.

Democrats are getting desperate as Mueller stalls

For the second time, the president was told he is not a target of Mueller, this time by Rod Rosenstein, the deputy assistant attorney general who created Mueller.

Despite a large, secret budget and a squad of seasoned gunners, many of them Clinton supporters, Mueller hasn't produced any evidence of a crime by the president.

In a more reasonable era, Rosenstein would blow the whistle and declare, "Time's up." As I wrote two weeks ago, he or Mueller should at least end the guessing game and tell the public where the probe stands, where it is going and when it's going to get there.

A Trump surrogate during the campaign, Giuliani has known Mueller for many years.

Getting the truth of biased actions against Trump by law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the Obama administration is as critical as the Mueller investigation.

Mueller, if he's the straight arrow he purports to be, can't be happy that his chief witness against Trump is now the star of a traveling clown show.

As long as Mueller is digging for any and all dirt on Trump, the potential remains that the government will be paralyzed. 

President Trump and the Attorney-Client Privilege

A few weeks ago, President Donald Trump was an outwardly happy man because of the utterance of one solitary word from the lips of special counsel Robert Mueller to one of Trump's lawyers.

In the course of its continuing investigation of Trump, Mueller's team came across evidence of criminal behavior on the part of Michael Cohen, Trump's longtime New York City lawyer.

In opposition to Cohen's motion, federal prosecutors argued that Cohen and Trump have engaged in behavior together that may have been criminal or fraudulent and that they used the attorney-client privilege to mask their communications.

The federal prosecutors also argued that Cohen was not truly performing legal work for Trump; rather, they said, he was a fixer of Trump's image and a trickster to Trump's adversaries.

Trump's lawyers demanded that everything seized from Cohen be turned over to Trump because he was and is - as far as Trump knew - Cohen's sole client.

Judge Wood ordered the FBI to copy all that was seized and send copies to lawyers for Trump and for Cohen and to federal prosecutors; and then the lawyers can argue to the court what is privileged and what is fair game for the prosecutors' use.

Has Trump been in cahoots with a bad guy as federal prosecutors have alleged? Is this prosecutorial team in Manhattan more dangerous to Donald Trump than Mueller and his crew in Washington? Was evidence about Trump the real goal of those early-morning FBI raids? Is the president no longer just a subject and now a target of a new team of federal prosecutors? Who can safely confide in a lawyer after this?

China Syndrome

There’s been a quiet but dramatic shift in where we get our prescription drugs. We are increasingly dependent on China. And that could be a major national security risk. Healthcare author Rosemary Gibson makes a convincing case in the new book: Chinese R-X: Exposing the Risks of America's Dependence on China for Medicine.

Sharyl Attkisson: In the 1990's, the US, Europe, and Japan manufactured 90 percent of the key ingredients from medicine and vitamins. But now China is the largest global supplier. Why the change?

Rosemary Gibson: The change is because when we started buying generic drugs, which are terrific because they can be a lot less costly than brand name drugs, we had to find a cheaper place to cheaper way to make them. And China was more than willing with its lower labor costs to be a place where companies could buy those key ingredients.