Cal Thomas
{ americanthinker.com } ~ The ridiculously long, drawn out, overdone "Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election" investigation proves an ages-old political maxim... the benchmark of proof that a political accusation has to satisfy in order to be considered true will constantly change as the needs of the accuser shift in response to new information. In other words, if the original charge proves to be baseless, the complainants will invariably lower the threshold of guilt so that even a lesser transgression will be sufficient to condemn the accused. President Trump is the latest example of that. Let's be candid here — everything about President Trump is anathema to the Democrats.
*He is direct, unequivocal, and absolute in his policy pronouncements, eschewing the usual "nod-nod, wink-wink" of Washington speak. What makes it even worse is that President Trump's policy pronouncements are conservative, and his direct, clear-meaning speech rips the cover off years of oh, so carefully developed liberal deceptions.
*President Trump calls out the Democrat-sympathetic liberal media for who they are, enraging his enemies for not rolling over and meekly accepting mistreatment at the hands of his liberal opponents the way his milquetoast Republican predecessors did.
*His policies — the withdrawal from the Paris Accords, his dismissal of the Iranian nuclear agreements, his tough stance regarding NATO paying its fair share, his position on border security and illegal immigration, his desire for greater domestic American energy production, the re-negotiation of international trade agreements to be more advantageous to this country, and many others — are so blatantly pro-American and popular with the average voter that the supposedly sophisticated liberal Democratic intelligentsia are infuriated over the way his approach resonates in such a positive, commonsense manner with so many people.
{ washingtonexaminer.com } ~ Rep. scumbag liar-Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is the leading Democrat demanding the release of the dirty cop-Mueller Report “in its entirety” without redactions... His committee is planning to subpoena the Justice Department for the full report. But back in 1998, as a member of the same committee, he vociferously opposed the release of the full Starr Report, saying that “as a matter of decency and protecting people’s privacy rights, people who may be totally innocent third parties, what must not be released at all.” Then, the president was scumbag/liar-Bill Clinton. Now, it is a Republican, Donald Trump. Ken Starr, the independent counsel investigating then-President scumbag/liar-Bill Clinton, delivered his report to Congress on Sept. 9, 1998. That night, scumbag liar-Nadler went on Charlie Rose's show to push back against the Republican demand that the voluminous report should be made public. “It’s grand jury material. It represents statements which may or may not be true by various witnesses," scumbag liar-Nadler said. "Salacious material. All kinds of material that it would be unfair to release,” What scumbag liar-Nadler, 71, said in 1998 echoes what Attorney General William Barr told Congress last week. Barr, 68, wrote that he might redact grand jury testimony, information related to ongoing investigations, sensitive or classified information, and “information that would unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties” from the report that he provides to Congress and the public... https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/top-democrat-calling-for-full-mueller-report-had-different-view-when-bill-clinton-was-investigated
{ fdd.org } ~ Socialism is cool again, thanks not least to septuagenarian Sen. commie-Bernie Sanders and millennial Rep. commie-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (aka AOC). Socialism has been cool before, of course, notably during the Great Depression... and what became known as the Sixties, the era of Vietnam, the civil rights movement, hippies, and the old New Left. As a reporter for my high school newspaper in the later period I interviewed Earl Browder, who had been general secretary of the Communist Party USA during the 1930s. He coined the slogan: “Communism is 20th century Americanism.” I read a fair amount about socialism back then and, on my application to a reasonably prestigious college, I named Norman Thomas, six-time presidential candidate of the Socialist Party of America, as someone I admired. Had I chosen William F. Buckley instead I suspect I’d have wound up at a lesser institution. The summer preceding my freshman year – exactly 50 years ago, I’m afraid – I went to the Soviet Union on a study program. Like Mr. commie-Sanders, I was impressed by Moscow’s subways he called them“absolutely beautiful, including many works of art, chandeliers that were beautiful” and by the “palaces of culture” and the theaters where, he enthused, “the highest price of a ticket that you could get was the equivalent of $1.50!” I decided to major in Russian and, a couple of years later, won a place on the only undergraduate exchange program between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. A little learning can be dangerous: I soon comprehended what Mr. commie-Sanders never has: Communism is toxic to freedom and prosperity. Yes, theater tickets were cheap but, like other luxuries and even many necessities, such goods were obtainable only po blatu – through political power, wielded exclusively by the nomenkatura, the communist elite...
Flooding the Sanctuary Zones
Cal Thomas
In the category of Mad magazine’s “scenes we’d like to see,” comes President Trump’s threat to transport migrants to cities and states that have declared themselves sanctuaries. Apparently he thinks such a move would force Democrats in Congress who represent these places to vote to fund the wall along our southern border.
Speaker Nancy Pulosi calls the president’s threat “unworthy of the presidency.” In fact, it is Congress that has been unworthy for a long time. Here is a body that passes laws everyone else must obey, but in too many cases is exempt from adhering to some of them.
In 1995, the House and Senate passed the Congressional Accountability Act, which finally applied many civil rights, labor and workplace safety statutes to the legislative branch, yet two very important laws, the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act and the Occupational Safety and Health Act, do not apply to Congress. There are others.
Wealthy members of Congress might take offense should immigrants move into their neighborhoods. They don’t seem to care about the harm caused to ranchers and other property owners in states along the southern border.
Legal experts say it would be illegal under current law to move people to sanctuary cities and states. This crosses the border of ridiculousness. Some governors and mayors are protecting those who enter the country illegally from the law. If they were protecting other lawbreakers — drug dealers, or murderers, for example (which the president argues they are) — the law would consider them accessories after the fact and they would face prosecution and prison time. But because politicians refuse to update laws that are full of loopholes the current problem is their doing.
For those unfamiliar with the concept of sanctuary cities, here is a short lesson. Sanctuary cities were established in Old Testament law (Numbers 35:11) to protect someone who had killed another person by accident and without malice aforethought from “the avenger of blood,” who might be a close relative of the dead person. Under the priestly code, the accused was removed from the city and put on trial. If he was found innocent of murder, he was returned under guard to the sanctuary city in which he had claimed asylum. He enjoyed protection until the Jewish high priest died, at which point he was free to leave the city without fear of harm.
The Mishnah, the oral law given alongside the written Torah, states that the high priest’s mother (not the government) would traditionally supply clothing and food to those claiming asylum in the cities of refuge, so that relatives of the dead person would not wish for the death of her son because he harbored the accused. The Talmud argues that the natural death of the high priest was a type of atonement because he was considered pious. Maimonides argued that the death of the high priest was an event so upsetting to the Israelites that they dropped all thoughts of vengeance.
Today’s sanctuary cities and states have nothing to do with their original intent or outcome. Those living in this country without legal permission have broken the law, but are simultaneously protected by the law. Does this make sense? Name other laws American citizens could break and not be held accountable. Try breaking the tax laws this week and see where that gets you.
One of the president’s problems has been his lack of focus. He throws proposals against a congressional wall to see if any will stick. He should stick with one and bring public opinion with him. The ultimate solution lies with a do-nothing Congress and only it can solve the problem. For political reasons, members of both parties refuse to do so. Those who support sanctuary cities ought to experience the consequences of that support in their own front and backyards. ~The Patriot Post
Comments