.
Dems Tied to scumbag/liar-nObama’s Pro-Iran
‘Echo Chamber’ Spread Terror Regime’s
Anti-Trump Talking Points
by Adam Kredo
{ freebeacon.com } ~ A cadre of former top scumbag/liar-nObama administration figures and their allies in Congress have been working to amplify anti-Trump talking points issued by a senior Iranian regime official... in what sources have described as an effort by scumbag/liar-nObama's pro-Iran echo chamber to drive a wedge between President Donald Trump and his national security team. As tensions mount between the United States and Iran, leading Democrats have become embroiled in controversy for widely repeating anti-Trump talking points first issued by Iran's hardline regime. Additionally, former top officials from the scumbag/liar-nObama administration have taken to social media and other outlets to push a narrative that Trump is at odds with his hawkish National Security Adviser John Bolton over how far to go in punishing Tehran for its global support of terrorism and continued efforts to secure contested nuclear technology. The effort to push this narrative to the media has gained steam following a war of words between Trump and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who is said to have been in contact with top Democrats in Congress and their allies in the scumbag/liar-nObama administration, sources said. Just days after Zarif labeled Bolton and other top Trump national security officials as the "B Team," former top scumbag/liar-nObama aides Ben Rhodes and Colin Kahl repeated this rhetoric online in a series of postings bashing Trump. Rhodes and Kahl are most well known as the creators of a pro-Iran "echo chamber" that was used to mislead Congress and the American public about the terms of the landmark nuclear deal, which Trump abandoned last year. It has become increasingly clear in recent days that these former officials and their Democratic allies in Congress are seeking to build support for the United States to reenter the Iran nuclear deal should a Democrat defeat Trump in the next election, as the Washington Free Beacon has reported in past weeks. The direct line between Tehran and top Democrats spilled further into public view last week when photographs from the cellphone of Sen. Dianne Fein-stein's (D., Calif.), a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, showed that she had been in contact with Zarif, a primary architect of the nuclear accord. Photographs of Fein-stein's phone showed a contact page with Zarif's information, prompting her office to rebuff requests for explanation. "I can't comment on who the senator does or doesn't speak with," Fein-stein's communication's director told Politico...
.
For Democrats, the Party’s Over
by Conrad Black
{ msn.com } ~ If the Democrats are really tempted by impeachment, bring it on. Since the day after the 2016 election they have been threatening this... placing their chips on the Russian-collusion fantasy and then on the phantasmagoric charade of obstruction of justice. The attorney general accurately gave the ingredients of the offense of obstruction of justice in his four-page summary of the dirty cop-Mueller report: a corrupt act for corrupt purposes in contemplation of a legal proceeding. The attorney general, William Barr, the then deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, and the Justice Department counsel concurred that none of the elements was present in the conduct of the president as recounted by dirty cop-Mueller. The dream died, except in the febrile imagination of the Democrats, who launched an unfounded attack on the attorney general’s integrity. Everyone knows that the prospects of a successful move to impeach and remove the president from office by two thirds of the Senate finding that he has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt to have committed high crimes and misdemeanors, as the Constitution requires, are less than zero. The turn of the tables has been exquisite and complete. The idea that anyone ever nominated by a serious American political party would collude with a foreign power to rig a presidential election is insane. No one, not even a scoundrel such as Aaron Burr or a third-party naif such as Henry Wallace, would have dreamt of such a thing. But in their desperation and denial after the unimaginable victory of someone pledged to clean out the entire political class that has ruled America since the Reagan years, the Democrats paid $10 million for a false dossier on Trump, corrupted and politicized the intelligence services and the FBI, set up an echo chamber of self-verification with the national media Trump had already reviled as dishonest, and provoked the creation of a special counsel to look into Trump–Russian collusion. The Republican congressional leaders sat on their hands to see if the leader none of them had supported would be impeached, and the Democrats and their scripted media choristers smugly carped and waited like noisy crocodiles for their victim to be reduced to inert helplessness. Guess what.Mueller did his best, with a character assassination of the president from selected Star Chamber testimony of no legal relevance and an attempt to pull the pin on a damp grenade by citing a series of legally innocuous facts and declaring an inability to exonerate for obstruction, though collusion with Russia was hopeless. dirty cop-Mueller knew that that was not his brief — no one had asked him to do anything except state whether or not there was valid reason to impeach the president. His spurious and cowardly recitation of legal fineries that fulfill none of the requirements for obstruction combined with a sorrowful statement of inability to exonerate on that charge is, in fact, an exoneration. It was the best dirty cop-Mueller, a slab-faced Trump-hater who assembled a famished wolf-pack of pathological Trump-haters as his investigative team, could do: He failed the Democratic lynch mob because he couldn’t find any evidence, and he failed the country in not producing a fully honest and impartial report. The Democrats are left at a crossroads: keep swinging like punch-drunk prizefighters lashing out when they hear the bell of a passing streetcar, or abandon the impeachment ship while there is still room in the lifeboats...
.
commie-Bernie Sanders Defends His
Attendance At Rally Calling for
Death Of Americans
by Daniel GreenfieldIt did not go well. It went so badly that the New York Times put up a transcript of the socialist politician's rambling, furious and defensive answers. Latest: Louisville: Over a Dozen Children Come Forward To Expose Network of Pedophile Cops Who Abused Them for Years "As a mayor, I did my best to stop American foreign policy, which for years was overthrowing governments in Latin America and installing puppet regimes," commie-Sanders ranted. Senator commie-Sanders falsely claimed that his collusion with enemy regimes was an attempt to prevent wars. When asked about his attendance at a Marxist enemy rally calling for the deaths of Americans, commie-Sanders launched a series of hostile and defensive remarks.
Q. In the top of our story, we talk about the rally you attended in Managua and a wire report at the time said that there were anti-American chants from the crowd.
commie-Sanders. The United States at that time — I don’t know how much you know about this — was actively supporting the Contras to overthrow the government. So that there’s anti-American sentiment? I remember that, I remember that event very clearly.
Q. You do recall hearing those chants? I think the wire report has them saying, “Here, there, everywhere, the Yankee will die.”
commie-Sanders. They were fighting against American —— Huh huh —— yes, what is your point?
Q. I wanted to ——
commie-Sanders. Are you shocked to learn that there was anti-American sentiment?
Q. My point was I wanted to know if you had heard that.
commie-Sanders. I don’t remember, no. Of course, there was anti-American sentiment there. This was a war being funded by the United States against the people of Nicaragua. People were being killed in that war.
Q. Do you think if you had heard that directly, you would have stayed at the rally?
commie-Sanders. I think Sydney, with all due respect, you don’t understand a word that I’m saying. commie-Sanders refuses to state that he would not have attended the rally if he had heard a call for the death of Americans. That's as good as an admission.
.
North Carolina Fails To Pass Bill
That Would’ve Made Raping Women Illegal
by Matt Agorist
with a fateful decision by the state Supreme Court in 1977, to pass a law allowing the legal rape of women who revoke consent to sex once the act has been initiated. Despite garnering national coverage for such a horrifying law over the past few years, the law on the books still stands. Furthermore, a bill that would’ve made such an act illegal, died in a Senate committee this month. As the News Observer reports, “North Carolina may remain the only state in the country where someone cannot be charged with rape for continuing to have sex with a partner who told them to stop. It stems from a 40-year-old legal precedent.” “It doesn’t look like it’s going to move,” said Dylan Arant, State Sen. Jeff Jackson’s legislative assistant. “Sen. Jackson has not been given a clear reason why. We’re still going to try and find a way to get it done.” Earlier this year, a team of 11 media partners including Carolina Public Press and The Fayetteville Observer extensively examined the state law in North Carolina and their findings are worrisome, to say the least. If actual sexual penetration occurs under the banner of consensuality, that agreement to have sex cannot — according to North Carolina law for decades — be suddenly revoked, even if a man turns violent. “If the actual penetration is accomplished with the woman’s consent, the accused is not guilty of rape, although he may be guilty of another crime because of his subsequent actions,” the North Carolina Supreme Court wrote in its decades-old decision in State v. Way. “It’s really stupid,” stated then-19-year-old Aaliyah Palmer — who allegedly agreed to sex — but revoked consent when the man she’d met at a party turned violent — to the Fayetteville Observer. “If I tell you no and you kept going, that’s rape.” Palmer understandably surmised her brutal encounter amounted to rape — as it did — but discovered to her astonishment state law disagreed...
.
CAIR Report Conflates Anti-Muslim
Bigotry with Opposition to Islamism
by Bradley Martin The report, titled: "Hijacked by Hate: American Philanthropy and the Islamophobia Network," highlights how more than 1,000 mainstream foundations donated almost $125 million to 39 so-called "anti-Muslim hate groups." Nihad Awad, founder and executive director of CAIR, has even gone as far to praise this document as "the most comprehensive report on the Islamophobia network ever produced." In reality, CAIR's press conference and published report are jam-packed with inconsistencies and baseless claims. Awad and CAIR blame President Trump for a rise of anti-Muslim hatred in the United States. But there is one big problem. This report, by its own admission, focuses on philanthropic funding donated during the last years of former President scumbaqg/liar-nObama's administration, from 2014-2016. This is not to mention that, though bigots have undoubtedly perpetuated some horrific and awful crimes against Muslims in the United States, the FBI actually reports a 6% drop in religiously-motivated hate crimes against Muslims from 2016. Yet strangely enough, CAIR's report does not criticize the former American president by name. While Nihad Awad was quick to condemn New Zealand's "white supremacist terrorism" in March, it seems not all violent hatreds are equal in his eyes. Awad has defended both Islamist terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah, referring to them simply as "liberation movements." Similarly, Zainab Arain research and advocacy manager at CAIR and co-author of the report has a long history of praising Islamist movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood and promoting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, such as the modern variation of the long-debunked blood libel that claims Israel kills Palestinians to steal their organs...
CAIR needs to be removed from the USA..
.
No, the GOP Tax Cuts Are Not Increasing the DeficitLewis Morris: You can easily tell the difference between a conservative and a leftist by their answer to this question: Does the federal government have a spending problem or a revenue problem? Conservatives, who understand the laws of economics and respect the power of financial freedom, will answer with “spending.” Leftists, who always assume that any money you make belongs to the government and you only get to keep a portion of it, will always insist that the government is short of money.
Hyper-leftists, who have successfully taken over the Democrat Party, are always looking for the rich to pay more in taxes. The term they like to use is “fair share.” When pressed on what that so-called fair share looks like, though, they’ll never give a straight answer. It is meant to be a nebulous number, a moving target that can be adjusted at will to fit whatever socialist scheme they are looking to fund at the moment. Free college, free health care, living wages, free homes, etc.
That being the case, leftists naturally hate tax cuts. Democrats used to campaign on the promise of tax cuts for the middle class, but they rarely do that anymore. Tax cuts in any form mean less government revenue — or so they want you to believe. Economist Arthur Laffer proved decades ago that under the current over-taxation system, tax increases eventually lead to lower tax revenue, and the best way to raise federal revenue is actually to lower tax rates. Instead, leftists always express their desire to raise taxes on the rich to “ease the burden” on the middle class. This is hogwash. Democrats want middle class taxes to remain high, but with the rich seemingly paying an even bigger share, it appears as if the middle class is getting a break.
We saw this at work throughout the previous administration. Taxes were high, with calls to raise them even higher for upper-income earners. Meanwhile, federal spending went through the roof. Trillion-dollar deficits became the norm, and the annual fleecing that upper-income taxpayers and corporations endured didn’t have any effect. Federal revenues shrank and overspending doubled the national debt in eight years. Laffer’s theory was proven correct, and the federal government’s spending problem was apparent for all to see.
Then along came the Republican tax cuts. Sorely needed to jumpstart the economy, these across-the-board cuts were the bane of the Left. Not one single Democrat in Congress voted for the cuts, because they were politically invested in the claim that lower taxes would unfairly benefit the rich, and that the cuts would cost the government money and add to the deficit. This sudden concern for fiscal responsibility after eight years of record-breaking deficits under Barack scumbag/liar-nObama was politically convenient and publicly laughable.
After the tax cuts proved to be a success, leftists pivoted and tried to tell Americans that they actually did not receive a tax cut. And when people’s income-tax refunds shrank slightly, they started to believe it. No one wanted to reflect on how much more they were taking home in each paycheck over the course of the year, which often meant a lower refund at the end of the year. And a large portion of the population seems to believe that they are entitled to a tax refund every year thanks to the slick advertising campaigns of H&R Block, TurboTax, and other corporatized tax preparers.
Sad to say, Democrats and their media friends did a great job in convincing a lot of Americans that they did not benefit from the tax cut. Now, they’re blaming the continued high deficits on the Trump tax cuts as well. The claim is that the tax cuts have led to less government revenue and, thus, higher deficits.
This is not true. Revenue is actually greater now than before the tax cuts went into effect. The federal government collected over $2 trillion in the first seven months of this fiscal year, which started October 1. This is an increase of close to 2% from the same time in fiscal 2018, and 6% higher than the revenue collected from fiscal 2017, before the Trump tax cuts went into effect. The Treasury Department estimates that fiscal 2019 will bring in $3.4 trillion in tax revenue, 3% more than last year.
So why are deficits still climbing?
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that spending is up $181 billion compared to this time last year, outpacing revenue by $146 billion. And the extra $100 billion in revenue that Treasury is predicting this year won’t come close to covering the additional $400 billion in spending.
Democrats are lying through their teeth about the impact of the Trump tax cuts, but Republicans are also to blame when it comes to spending. Neither party has proven to be trustworthy with the purse strings of Congress. Trump’s proposal to work with the Democrats on a $2 trillion infrastructure program isn’t doing anyone any favors, either.
Thanks to Trump and the Republicans in Congress, we have a saner tax policy than we have had in years. But the federal government will also need a sane spending policy if it’s going to mean anything in the long term. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/63125?mailing_id=4287&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4287&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body
Comments