Friday, March 3, 2017

From where I sit, it looks as though the Russians own the democrat party!

Flopping Aces ^ | 03-03-17 | DrJohn 

The invective being heaped on Jeff Sessions by democrats is astounding. Democrats are spitting out words like "perjury" and "treason" as part of their plan to cripple the Trump administration.  Recusal not being enough, Pelosi called for Sessions to resign.
For the record, Jeff Sessions did not commit perjury.
The criminal law only prohibits lying to Congress under two statutes — 18 USC 1621 ands 18 USC 1001. Section 1621 requires a person “willfully and contrary” to a sworn oath “subscribe a material matter” which is both false and the person knows to be false. Section 1001 is basically the same, without certain tribunal prerequisites: it also requires the government prove a person willfully made a materially false statement. This requires three elements: first, a false statement; second, the false statement be “material”; and third, the false statement be made “knowingly” and “willfully.” A statement is not false if it can be interpreted in an innocent manner. A statement is not material if it is not particularly relevant to the subject of the inquiry. Willfully is a very high standard of proof: it requires the person know they are committing the crime, and do so anyway. None of the three exist as to Sessions.
Sessions did not lie. Period. Al Franken did not ask the simple question- "Did you discuss the Trump campaign in your meetings with the Russians over the last year?"  Instead, he asked an intentionally ambiguous question which made an answer complicated so that the response could be used a weapon to later bludgeon Sessions.
It's not the first time Franken has made an ass of himself. Far from it.

Now, note the title to this interview:

"Attorney General under fire over Russia meetings"  Hmm It's time to examine Newton's Third Law of Politics: for every action, there is at least an equal and opposite reaction. If one is come under fire for Russia meetings....then let's bring the fire.
Here's Chuck Schumer serving up a helping of his good friend Vladimir Putin

Dianne Feinstein is thick with the Russians

Barack Obama met with his Russian handlers at least 22 times in the White House.
Sen. Clarie McCaskill flat out lied about meeting with the Russians.
Hillary Clinton is up to her server with the Russians. Even HuffPoo asserts that the Russians hold a sword of Damocles over the Clinton's.
From where I sit, it appears that the democrat party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Russian state.
About that lying to Congress thing- Sessions did not lie. Then again, lying has been a cottage industry for democrats over the last eight years.
obama lied endlessly about health care, red lines and bad intel.
Eric Holder made a career of lying to Congress.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama will get to finish his complete destruction of the Democrat Party!


Although I hate using this comment..."Read my lips", but, please read my lips!!! Very soon ex-POTUS, Barack Hussein Obama will surface from his "walled" eight thousand square foot compound home in Washington, DC, to assume and take the leadership command of the "lost-at-sea" Democrat Party.
He will bask in the glory adoration, and unending worship, of his "lost-at-sea" Democrat Party cronies like Clinton, Sanders, Warren, Schumer, Pelosi, Durbin, etc., while he continues applying his political, death curse that he has bestowed so well on the coming political death of the Democrat Party!!!
Foolish & incompetent Democrats will follow his lead, like the blind sheep they are, and, will follow him over the cliff into political obscurity!!! Just as he setup the Clinton loss last November, Obama will ply his political failure mantra to the Democrats, once again, giving the Democrat Party the fatal political death that is coming rapidly in November, 2018!!! Folks that do learn from history are always doomed to repeat it again!!!
The current Democrat Party needs Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton, like an unwanted bitching uncle or aunt at Thanksgiving dinner!!! Some folks, just never learn!!!

Muslim WSJ Reporter Visits Georgetown to Explain Why She Voted for Trump, Shocks Students ^ | March 1, 2017 | Staff 

Editor's Note: This piece was coauthored by Cortney O'Brien and Matt Vespa.
Washington, D.C. - Activist and former Wall Street Journal reporter Asra Nomani, who once taught at Georgetown, is both a liberal and a Muslim. With her background, you may be surprised to learn that she proudly voted for Donald Trump in November. She came to Georgetown Wednesday night for a conversation with Jewish Civilization Professor Jacques Berlinerblau to explain why she supports the president. The event was organized by The Georgetown Review.
It became clear that one of Nomani's main reasons for voting for Trump was national security. She especially liked Trump’s executive order on immigration, although she admitted the rollout could have gone smoother.
“It’s a first step, a stumbling step, to restoring order,” she said. Trump is at least "identifying the Islamic extremism problem."

Asra Nomani and moderator Jacques Berlinerblau

As a Muslim, Nomani was not hesitant to admit the problem can and should be addressed in her own community.
“We’re still caught in a tribal culture,” she said.
Muslim groups, she explained, were offered front door access to the Obama White House, yet they argued the problem is not within Islam. These kind of groups keep them in “victimization” status, she said.
“We can’t use Islamophobia to shut down conversation.”
Nomani went into further detail about the somewhat odd situation she was in post-2016 election: she was a liberal (she makes no qualms about that), but voted for Donald Trump. She’s a Muslim in Trump’s America. For liberals, that makes no sense. I should probably rehash her op-ed in The Washington Post from last year that explains why she voted for Trump, which her to being ostracized from the liberal camp, which also tied into the latter portion of the discussion:
[A]s a liberal Muslim who has experienced, first-hand, Islamic extremism in this world, I have been opposed to the decision by President Obama and the Democratic Party to tap dance around the “Islam” in Islamic State. Of course, Trump’s rhetoric has been far more than indelicate and folks can have policy differences with his recommendations, but, to me, it has been exaggerated and demonized by the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, their media channels, such as Al Jazeera, and their proxies in the West, in a convenient distraction from the issue that most worries me as a human being on this earth: extremist Islam of the kind that has spilled blood from the hallways of the Taj Mahal hotel in Mumbai to the dance floor of the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Fla.
In mid-June, after the tragic shooting at Pulse, Trump tweeted out a message, delivered in his typical subtle style: “Is President Obama going to finally mention the words radical Islamic terrorism? If he doesn’t he should immediately resign in disgrace!”
Around then, on CNN’s “New Day,” Democratic candidate Clinton seemed to do the Obama dance, saying, “From my perspective, it matters what we do more than what we say. And it mattered we got bin Laden, not what name we called him. I have clearly said we — whether you call it radical jihadism or radical Islamism, I’m happy to say either. I think they mean the same thing.”
By mid-October, it was one Aug. 17, 2014, email from the WikiLeaks treasure trove of Clinton emails that poisoned the well for me. In it, Clinton told aide John Podesta: “We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL,” the politically correct name for the Islamic State, “and other radical Sunni groups in the region.”
This “dancing” around calling what things are, especially evil thing, is partially why other people voted for Trump. If you can’t talk honestly about a problem, you’ll never find a solution. And if you can’t identify the corrosive element that’s eating away at society, you can never engage honestly in a debate of ideas that will snuff out the regressive forces. ISIS is a radical Islamic terrorist group, as is al-Qaeda. Why was the Obama administration so hesitant to lump them in this camp?
During President Trump’s joint address to Congress, he said those three magic words that triggered Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, who tweeted, “What was accomplished by declaring war on ‘radical Islamic terrorism’? Just alienating Muslim allies who we need, and emboldening terrorists.”
In her op-ed, Nomani noted how we should probably put quotes around the words “Muslim allies,” and that the millions of dollars the former first lady received from Qatar and Saudi Arabia for the Clinton Foundation was the deal breaker.
What worried me the most were my concerns about the influence of theocratic Muslim dictatorships, including Qatar and Saudi Arabia, in a Hillary Clinton America. These dictatorships are no shining examples of progressive society with their failure to offer fundamental human rights and pathways to citizenship to immigrants from India, refugees from Syria and the entire class of de facto slaves that live in those dictatorships.
Yes, we shouldn’t hate Muslims, of course—she wrote, but we also have to push back against the hate by Muslims as well; something that modern liberalism sees unwilling to do.
As a result of the hesitancy, she feels that American liberalism has failed Islam in some capacity. The deafening silence from feminists after scores of German women were sexually assaulted during New Years Eve celebrations in Cologne a year ago was astounding. What’s even more disconcerting was the city’s mayor, who spurred outrage when she advised women to keep men at arm’s length for protection. It came off as putting the responsibility of not being attacked on the victims. Would this have even been considered if white, Christian males had engaged in sexual assault en masse? Probably not, but this is the toxic nature of political correctness.
Like Bill Maher, Nomani notes how fighting for liberal values (equality, free speech, etc.) stops at the water’s edge with Islam. Why is it that liberals give the far right in Islam a pass? They seem to get a pass on sex slavery, honor killings, segregation of prayer by gender, and genital mutilation. She noted the disconnect through citing our fight against racial injustice and segregation at home, which we exported to South Africa that was fighting the apartheid regime established by white minority rule. Also, we’re against theocracy in the United States, so why aren’t we fighting the theocracies that dominate the Muslim world?
Nomani noted that Islamists have hijacked social democrats in Europe. There’s this rather unsettling alliance between Europe’s far left and Islam’s far right, which is explicitly shown when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Now, Berlinerblau wondered if all of this was more of a manifestation of a hyper-progressive element that’s dominant and vocal on college campuses, but nonexistent elsewhere.
Nomani seemed to be focused on one thing: finding the sensible middle. The far right’s antics needs to be rejected, but the far left’s agenda of identity politics needs to go as well. In the process, bring some humanity to the discussion, try and understand someone who doesn’t think like you. She might have had a bit of an edge in this regard as she grew up in West Virginia and saw how eight years of Obama didn’t do much for her local town. No wonder why Trump seemed like a breathe of fresh air, along with the notion that he wasn’t afraid to call things what they are in real life.
We may disagree with Nomani about abortion rights and global warming, but concerning shedding our discourse of political correctness, identity politics, and having open and frank discussions is something I think we all can get behind.
The students in attendance were mostly civil and asked very thoughtful questions at the conclusion of her remarks. Yet, during the Q&A session, some young minds could not fathom how she could claim the president was not sexist or racist. When she uttered the words, one male student in the audience yelled out, “Grab her by the pussy!,” in reference to Trump’s “locker room talk” in the now infamous "Access Hollywood" tapes. A female student sitting beside me kept muttering to herself, “Did she really just say he’s not racist?!”
Yes, in fact, she did. And she had already just spent an hour explaining why.
Watch the whole intriguing conversation below, via the Georgetown Review Facebook page.
A Conversation with Asra Nomani

All 100 Senators Contacted Russian Government This Week!

Breitbart ^ | March 3, 2017 | Joel B. Pollak 

Attorney General Jeff Sessions found himself at the center of controversy this week because he answered a question about the Trump campaign’s contacts with the Russian government without talking about his contacts as a United States Senator.
The assumption made by the media, the Democrats, and even some Republicans was that even routine contact with the Russian government is burdened by suspicion of collusion. Not since the McCarthy era have suspicions reached such levels.
But if Sessions ought to resign, perhaps the entire Senate should quit. Because on Monday — two days before the Washington Post broke the highly scandalous story that Sessions had met the Russian ambassador twice in the course of his duties — every single United States Senator had formal contact with the Russian government. And not just any functionary: they had contact with Russian President Vladimir Putin himself. Worse (apparently) still, they initiated the contact with the Russians.
The contact was a letter, signed by the entire Senate, urging Putin to release a valuable library of Jewish religious texts that was seized by earlier Russian regimes and which has been the subject of a legal and diplomatic dispute in recent decades.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Trump's advisers push him to purge Obama appointees (no shit)

POLITICO ^ | 03/02/2017 | Josh Dawsey 

Advisers to President Donald Trump are urging him to purge the government of former President Barack Obama's political appointees and quickly install more people who are loyal to him.
A number of his advisers believe Obama officials are behind the leaks and are seeking to undermine his presidency, with just the latest example coming from reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions met twice last year with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. and apparently misled senators about the interactions during his confirmation hearing.
That was coupled with a New York Times story that Obama appointees spread information about the investigation into the Trump campaign's contacts with Russia in an attempt to create a paper trail about the probe. Trump's aides have also blamed Obama appointees for other damaging leaks, like Trump's erratic phone calls with foreign leaders.
Inside the White House, the chatter about Obama officials in the government has heightened in recent weeks, one administration official said. And advisers are saying it is time to take action.
"His playbook should be to get rid of the Obama appointees immediately," said Newt Gingrich, a top surrogate. "There are an amazing number of decisions that are being made by appointees that are totally opposed to Trump and everything he stands for. Who do you think those people are responding to?"
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOURIST STAY AWAY: San Francisco drops out of FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force!

Hot Air ^ | 3 Mar 2017 | John Sexton 

The Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) is a partnership between local police and the FBI aimed at uncovering and preventing terrorist plots before they happen. Last week the city of San Francisco announced it was suspending its cooperation with the JTTF. From Fox News:
“In my opinion, the decision by the mayor and the police chief to withdraw the San Francisco Police Department from the JTTF is really narrow-minded,” said Mark Rossini, a retired FBI special agent, and founding executive of the National Counterterrorism Center, who served as a representative to the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center. “Politics aside, and the mayor and leaders of San Francisco have their right to their opinion, political opinion and beliefs. But when you’re working in law enforcement, law enforcement should know no politics.”
The FBI leads the 104 Joint Terrorism Task Force units across the country, but the majority of intelligence about crime and terror comes from local sources, said Claude Arnold, a former U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations, who worked in California.
“There is less chance of uncovering networks, plots, missing pieces of a puzzle, without cities participating in the JTTF,” Arnold said.
The 10-year old memorandum of understanding on which the JTTF partnership in San Francisco was based was already set to expire in March. Last week the city’s new police chief announced unexpectedly that he was suspending the agreement a month early. Officially, his decision has nothing to do with President Trump, but it just happens to coincide with the city holding meeting with activists who are concerned the agreement could be used by the new administration to target Muslims. From ABC 7 San Francisco:
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama’s Goal to “Oust” Trump from Presidency Via Impeachment or Resignation

Tea Party ^ | 3/2/2017 | Staff 

Former President Barack Obama is leading the charge to “oust” Donald Trump from the presidency by either forcing his resignation or through his impeachment, according to a close family friend.
The Daily Mail reports that Obama is being aided in his crusade by ex-senior advisor Valerie Jarrett, who has moved into Obama’s nerve center just two miles from the White House to help him build momentum behind the “mounting insurgency” against Trump.
On Tuesday, former Attorney General Eric Holder also revealed that Obama was close to returning as a full time political operative.
“It’s coming. He’s coming,” Holder told reporters. “And he’s ready to roll.”
Obama was reportedly weary after eight years in office and had to be convinced to lead the insurgency against Trump but has now, “Come to embrace his role as the leader of the opposition against Trump, whose policies he loathes and whose presidency he considers illegitimate,” according to the report.
The family source told the newspaper that Obama’s ultimate goal was to force Trump to step down, either through resignation or impeachment, and that the former president is “dismayed at the way Trump is tearing down his legacy—ObamaCare, the social safety net and the welcome mat for refugees he put in place.”
As part of the effort, in its final days in office, the Obama administration sought to sabotage Trump’s incoming presidency by spreading, “information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians,” according to a New York Times report.
The Obama-led insurgency is also being fueled by a constant drumbeat of pressure over the administration’s alleged links to Russia, the latest example targeting Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
As Breitbart reports, top Democrats are demanding Sessions’ resignation over his meeting with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak on two separate occasions because Sessions told the Senate that he did not have any “possible contacts between members of President Trump’s campaign and representatives of Moscow.”
However, as Sessions has clarified, the meetings were in his capacity on the Senate Armed Services Committee and had nothing to do with Trump’s campaign.
As the Department of Justice’s Sarah Isgur Flores points out, Sessions’ answer was truthful because he was asked about “the Trump campaign — not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee.”

Yes, Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid U.S. Russian Uranium Deal

Counter Propa ^ | 19 February 2017 | H. A. Goodman 

In 2015, The New York Times stated “As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation.”
The next paragraph in this New York Times piece states “And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”
Vox, POLITIFACT, and others haven’t commented on the two quotes above and have only pontificated against President Trump’s awkwardly worded claims.
Hillary Clinton didn’t “give up” 20% of U.S. uranium to Russia, but Uranium One donations to the Clinton Foundation might have influenced the State Department and Obama’s administration to approve the deal.
Was it merely coincidence that Uranium One officials were Clinton Foundation donors, or is there legitimate conflict of interest?
Also, did the FBI tape Bill Clinton’s speech at a Moscow bank?
There’s absolutely no way for Vox or any other Clinton public relations firm to spin the fact Bill Clinton received $500,000 from a Moscow bank with ties to the Kremlin.
Also, nothing said at Trump’s press conference refutes the fact Uranium One officials donated millions to the Clinton Foundation amid the sale of U.S. uranium to Russia.
After Trump’s recent press conference, millions of Clinton loyalists gleefully read a POLITIFACT piece titled Donald Trump repeats his Mostly False claim about Hillary Clinton, Russia and uranium.
That POLITIFACT piece references another POLITIFACT article titled In a nuclear claim, Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton ‘gave up’ one-fifth of U.S. uranium to Russia.
Both articles rate the truthfulness of Trump’s accusation that Clinton “gave up” (or was solely responsible) for the uranium sale.
As with all Clinton scandals, the entire story is far more complicated (with defenders focusing on semantics and plausible deniability more than possible foul play), and leads to a major conflict of interest; especially in today’s neo-McCarthy Democratic Party.
Frist, Clinton didn’t even intentionally use a private server, so she didn’t “give up” 20% of U.S. uranium all by herself.
The issue POLITIFACT, Vox and others conveniently circumvent is the New York Times quote stating “As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation.”
Did millions of dollars to her Foundation influence Clinton?
Furthermore, three FBI field offices wanted to investigate the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation has been the subject of quid pro quo controversies, from an AP report to weapons deals. Last year’s AP Report states millions in donations correlated with access to America’s Secretary of State:
At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.
If you replace Clinton with Trump in the story above, how would Washington Post journalists react? 85 people give $156 million to Trump’s foundation and nobody questions the transfer of money?
This story (if Trump were the subject) would spark outrage today. Instead, Vox and others defended Clinton and denied any possible conflict to interest.
As for the uranium deal (approved under an Obama administration that eventually sanctioned Russia for alleged election tampering), it’s similar to Clinton’s weapons deal scandal reported by the International Business Times. Read the International Business Times article titled Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton’s State Department.
This all gets back to the POLITIFACT articles.
POLITIFACT states “The State Department did approve the Uranium One deal, but it didn’t act unilaterally.”
And… this is supposed to be a good thing?
The New York Times states “The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.”
Vox recently called Trump a Russian stooge, yet it was Clinton’s State Department that approved a deal bringing “Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.”
President Obama’s administration approved a uranium deal that motivated Pravda to write “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”
If Putin is America’s great adversary, why did Clinton’s State Department and eight other agencies approve the deal?
Why didn’t President Obama veto the deal?
Why did Uranium One officials feel the need to donate millions to the Clinton Foundation amid the sale?
This blind spot within American media is the reason Trump won the White House. Clinton engages in an overt controversy, and the American press focuses solely on the semantics within Trump’s accusation. With Clinton, it’s never using a private server to hide information. Everything is merely a coincidence, or there’s enough semantic leeway for plausible deniability. Yoga emails were deleted, not Clinton Foundation emails.
As for the billions lost in Haiti linked to Bill and Hillary Clinton, Hatian-born journalist Daddy Cherry demands the Clintons “Return Haiti’s Earthquake Billions.”
Congratulations, vigilant and daring American press, whose only goal is to defeat Trump. You’ve again focused on Trump’s wild accusations, while ignoring the giant elephant in the room.
Once again, America is playing Trump’s game (fact checking based on semantics, as opposed to the overall picture) and refusing to hold Hillary Clinton accountable for a genuine conflict of interest. This paved the way for Trump’s recent conflicts of interest.
Sure, Hillary Clinton didn’t “give up” 20% of U.S. uranium.
Trump is wrong about Clinton “giving” the uranium to Putin.
Also, it’s 20% of U.S. uranium capacity, that’s true.
There, feel better now DNC?
You shouldn’t if you think Russia influenced the election and fear the implications of General Flynn’s phone calls, or Trump’s contacts with Russia.
I highlight the impact of the Obama administration’s uranium deal with Russia in the following segment on H. A. Goodman YouTube:
Is it America’s national interest to have “Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain”?
In the McCarthy era atmosphere of today’s Democratic Party, what if Trump approved the sale of 20% of U.S. uranium capacity to Russia, as his foundation received millions?
For every fact-checking piece mocking Trump’s claims, simply reread the original NYT story. The New York Times explains the possible quid pro quo arrangement in a now legendary piece by Jo Becker and Mike McIntire titled Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal:
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
Again, would this be condoned if Trump’s foundation had accepted millions from uranium one?
Also, why were Uranium One donations “not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors”?
There’d be widespread calls for impeachment if this happened with Trump, and people would be right.
The Clinton Foundation received millions of dollars, as the Podesta Group lobbied on behalf of Uranium One. Uranium One was already owned by the Kremlin, while the Podesta Group was lobbying on behalf of Uranium One. The Obama administration sold U.S. uranium to a company that was essentially owned by Putin.
The fact 9 agencies had to sign off on the deal is irrelevant. If Clinton’s State Department, under Obama approved the deal, this shows Hillary Clinton was never worried about Russian aggression or influence.
Uranium One officials felt the need to donate to Clinton’s Foundation during the uranium deal, and that brings up the question of Clinton’s influence on Obama’s administration.
Most importantly, the Clinton Foundation coincidentally shut down its Global Initiative, shortly after Clinton lost, and no longer accepts foreign donations.
Why did Bill and Hillary shut down the Clinton Global Initiative?
Could it be that the Clintons no longer have access to give to donors?
Or is it only Trump who has conflicts of interest?
The Clinton Foundation did accept millions of dollars from Uranium One during the sale, approved under Obama’s administration, while the Podesta Group lobbied on behalf of company owned by Russia. In addition, the Panama Papers reveal Clinton’s ties to the Kremlin. Therefore, it’s a fact Clinton and President Obama presided over the sale of 20% of U.S. uranium capacity to Russia. If the fact Uranium One officials donated millions amid the deal doesn’t bother you, then there’s a job waiting for you at Vox.

Russian Ambassador Met with Obama Officials in White House SIX Times During Hillary Clinton Uranium Scandal!

The Gateway Pundit ^ | March 3, 2017 | Jim Hoft 

Now this… Ambassador Kislyak met with Obama White House officials six times in 2010 during the Clinton uranium scandal. Kislyak met with Obama officials six times in 2010: December 2010, October 2010, May 2010, April 2010, February 2010 and March 2010.

In October 2010 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton permitted the Russian takeover of Uranium One – a move estimated to give HALF of US Uranium output to the Russian government.

Throughout the deal $145,000,000,000 poured into the Clinton Foundation from investors who profited from the deal.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Great Projectionists: Democrat Party Ties to Russia are Criminal ^ | 3/2/17 | Jim Hoft 

Projectionists – A projectionist is a person who operates a movie projector. It is also the term used to refer to those who participate in an illegal or unethical activity but rather than recognize their own errors, choose to redirect their errors on others to deflect their own illegal or unethical activity. Projectionists are cowards and frauds.

Democrats are master projectionists. They are currently making up false stories about the Trump Administration participating in illegal activities with the Russians. The Democrats are blaming their loss in the election on the false narrative that the Russians stole the election for Trump.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...


Ann Coulter ^ | 3/01/2017 | Ann Coulter 

The first sentence of Congress' Obamacare repeal should read: "There shall be a free market in health insurance.”

Right there, I've solved the health insurance crisis for 90 percent of Americans. Unfortunately, no one can imagine what a free market in health care looks like because we haven't had one for nearly a century.
On NBC's "Meet the Press" this weekend, for example, Chuck Todd told Sen. Tom Cotton that his proposal to create affordable health care that would be widely available, "sounds good," but "do you understand why some people think that's an impossible promise to keep?”
(The "do you understand ...?" formulation is a condescension reserved only for conservatives, whose disagreement with liberals is taken as a sign of stupidity.)
Todd continued: "To make it affordable, making it wider, I mean, that just seems like -- you know, it seems like you're selling something that can't be done realistically.”
Dream Sequence: Chuck Todd on Russia's "Meet the Press" after the fall of the Soviet Union: "Do you understand why some people think that's an impossible promise to keep? To make bread affordable, making it wider, I mean, that just seems like -- you know, it seems like you're selling something that can't be done realistically.”
It turns out that, outside of a communist dictatorship, all sorts of products are affordable AND widely available! We don't need Congress to "provide" us with health care any more than we need them to "provide" us with bread. What we need is for health insurance to be available on the free market.
With lots of companies competing for your business, basic health insurance would cost about $50 a month. We know the cost because Christian groups got a waiver from Obamacare, and that's how much their insurance costs right now. (Under the law, it can't be called "insurance," but that's what it is.)
Even young, healthy people would buy insurance at that price, expanding the "risk-sharing pools" and probably bringing the cost down to $20 or $30 a month.
In a free market, there would be an endless variety of consumer-driven plans, from catastrophic care for the risk-oblivious to extravagant plans for the risk-averse.
You know -- just like every other product in America.
You should visit America sometime, Chuck! The orange juice aisle in a Texas grocery store knocked the socks off Russian president Boris Yeltsin. (Imagine how cheap a double screwdriver must be in America!)
Just as there are rows of different types of orange juice in the grocery store –- and loads of grocery stores -- there will be loads of health insurance plans and insurance companies offering them.
Americans would finally be able to buy whatever insurance plans they liked, as easily as they currently buy flat-screen TVs, cellphones and -- what's that product with the cute gecko in its commercials? I remember now! CAR INSURANCE!
Evidently, insurance is not impervious to the iron law of economics that every product sold on the free market gets better and cheaper over time.
The only complicated part of fixing health care is figuring out how to take care of the other 10 percent of Americans -- the poor, the irresponsible and the unlucky. And the only reason that is complicated is because of fraud.
Needless to say, the modern nanny state already guarantees that no one will die on the street in America. The taxpayer spends more than a trillion dollars every year on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security disability insurance so that everyone's health is taken care of, from cradle to grave.
Unfortunately, probably at least half of that sum is fraud.
Policing fraud is difficult because: (1) the bureaucrats dispensing government benefits believe there is no fraud and, if there is, it's a good thing because it redistributes income; and (2) we keep bringing in immigrants for whom fraud is a way of life. (See "Adios, America! The Left's Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole.”)
Consequently, after the first sentence establishing a free market in health insurance, the entire rest of the bill should be nothing but fraud prevention measures to ensure that only the truly deserving -- and the truly American -- are accessing taxpayer-supported health care programs.
I'd recommend sending as much as possible back to the states, and also paying bounties to anyone who exposes a fraud against Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. Anyone caught committing health care fraud should get 10 years. Not in prison, in a Medicaid doctor's waiting room.
But I'm sure you guys in Congress have come up with lots of great ideas for policing fraud in the SEVEN YEARS you've had to think about it. (Hello? Is he breathing? Dammit, I'm not getting a pulse!!)
Then, Congress can start removing all the bad stuff from the U.S. Code, such as:
-- the requirement that hospitals provide "free" care to anyone who shows up (how about separate health clinics for poor people with the sniffles?);
-- the exemption of insurance companies from the antitrust laws (where all our problems began); and
-- the tax breaks only for employer-provided health insurance (viciously and arbitrarily punishing the self-employed).
The goal of "universal health care" is very simple to achieve, just as the goal of "universal wearing of clothing" seems to have been taken care of.
The government can provide for those who can't provide for themselves, but the rest of us need to be allowed to buy health insurance on the free market -- an innovation that has made America the richest, most consumer-friendly country in the world.
It's taken 50 years, but, thanks to Hillary's losing the election, we finally have liberals on the record opposing the Soviet Union. Can't all of Washington come together and end our soviet health care system?

Pelosi: Loretta Lynch Meeting With Bill Clinton Was ‘Serendipitous’ ^ | March 2, 2017 | Stephen Obregon 

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said Thursday there is no comparison between current Attorney General Jeff Sessions meeting twice with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. last year and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch meeting privately with Bill Clinton last year as the FBI investigated his wife's private email server.
Pelosi told reporters Thursday at a press conference that Sessions should resign for not disclosing his meetings with the Russian ambassador during his confirmation hearing to become attorney general.
Reporters asked Pelosi how the controversy surrounding the Sessions revelation compared to Lynch's private meeting with Bill Clinton on a plane as the FBI probed his wife's private server to see if she mishandled classified material.
Pelosi said the two situations are completely different, Townhall reported.
Lynch "did not have a major role" in Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign," Pelosi said. "This is a completely different thing."
She appeared to be referring to the fact that Sessions was a prominent campaign surrogate for Trump during the 2016 election.
The House's top Democrat went on to say the meeting between Lynch and Bill Clinton happened by chance and was a pleasant encounter, calling it "serendipitous."
The former president and Lynch met privately on a plane in Phoenix last summer as the FBI was investigating Hillary Clinton's email practices. The FBI recommended days later that the Justice Department pursue no criminal charges against the former secretary of state.
Lynch and Bill Clinton said the email scandal did not come up during their conversation, which they said focused on grandchildren and social activities.


IWB ^ | March 3, 2017 | IWB- Pamela Williams 

It is official, and it is shocking. We are at war! Obama founded OFA in January of 2013 with Michelle Obama, which was the primary organization for his campaign. He has moved Valerie Jarrett, his Senior Advisor from his White House years, into his new Washington mansion to head the campaign to oust President Trump. He is not trying to hide his intentions, and I call it “sedition”! It is incitement and rebellion against the government, and it is straight out of Saul Alinsky”s RULES FOR RADICALS.
The modus operandi of OFA comes straight from Obama’s belief in Marxism and from his years as a left-wing community organizer. It is a combination of AGITATION AND PROPAGANDA, and this is exactly what Saul Alinsky advises. Understand in this belief the ends justifies the means quest for power – POWER, AND IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW ONE GETS IT! One may break the law, use deception, and concealment of the true revolutionary agenda. Further, it entails militant obstructionism while attacking the character and legitimacy of the victim. We know now what President Trump is up against, but he is not alone. WE THE PEOPLE know now we are at war with an actual organization (OFA), and it is a legal one, as the Obamas legally founded it as his means to capture the Presidency. WE THE PEOPLE let this happen, as this crook slipped through our gates into the highest position of power we could hand him.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

"This Is Either The Most Elaborate Cover-Up Of All Time, Or The Dumbest"

Zero Hedge ^ | 3-3-2017 | Tyler Durden 

As the mainstream liberal media continues to be handed leaks (on a smaller and smaller and more and more desperate basis) from what appears to be angry ex-Obama-ites lingering in the halls of Washington - ever ready to combat a slight rise in Trump's popularity or shift in the "he's the devil" narrative with some new "the Russians did it"-inspiring drivel - many Americans are growing very weary of the drip-drip-drip of nothingness. The latest leak - which was immediately met with howls from The Democrats screaming for his head - was the fact that then-Senator Sessions met with a Russian ambassador in his office in The Capitol during the campaign and did not tell Al Franken about it during his confirmation. As The Wall Street Journal remarks, the story about the connection between Russia and the Donald Trump presidential campaign is either the most elaborate cover-up of all time, or the dumbest.
More evidence for dumb theory arrives with the news that during his confirmation hearings Attorney General Jeff Sessions didn’t tell Senators about two 2016 meetings with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S.
The Washington Post reported late Wednesday that Mr. Sessions had two conversations with Sergei Kislyak last year, one a brief chat amid a gaggle of other ambassadors at a public event at the GOP convention in July, another in September at the then-Senator’s office.
Yet at his Jan. 10 confirmation hearing, Democrat Al Franken asked Mr. Sessions what he would do if he learned that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign had communicated with the Russian government. “I’m not aware of any of those activities,” Mr. Sessions replied, adding that “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

John McCain and Lindsey Graham proved not everything is terrible in Washington

The Washington Post ^ | 03/03/2017 | Chris Cillizza 

A year or two ago, I got the idea of writing a post every weekend about only good news in politics across the country. I scrapped it after a month — not enough material. (I am not kidding.)

Since then, the political climate has only worsened and coarsened; the 2016 campaign was a low point and, unlike past presidencies, the first six weeks of Donald Trump's administration haven't exactly been a honeymoon. More people are interested in politics than ever before, but that interest is almost entirely directed at hating the other side, not rooting for their team.

Enter John McCain and Lindsey Graham. The two senators, who have been close friends and legislative partners for the better part of the past two decades (they met when Graham was a House manager for the impeachment of Bill Clinton), sat down for a conversation with CNN's Dana Bash on Wednesday night.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Daddy Donald and the Demobrats (Excellent definition of the Rats) ^ | March 3, 2017 | Timothy Daughtry 

If the Democrats continue with their whining, oppositional behavior, and frequent tantrums, they probably should just go ahead and change their name officially and become the Demobrats. In fact, it’s probably required by some truth-in-advertising law somewhere.
A friend once hilariously acted out his experience of driving his young family from New Jersey to Florida for vacation. With the parents in the front seat and their young children in the back, he demonstrated the art of keeping his eye on the road and driving with his left hand while reaching behind with his right in an ongoing attempt to physically restore order. “I said get back on your side. Put that down. Stop pulling her hair. Don’t make me stop this car!”
When the kids were young and especially rowdy, he said that posture pretty much reflected his experience of the whole trip some years.
Watching the news these days, the image of President Trump in the front seat and the left creating a ruckus in the back keeps coming to mind. The grown-ups in the country decided on Election Day that enough was enough, and we needed to change our direction. We put Donald Trump and the GOP in the driver’s seat that day, but since the results began rolling in, we’ve heard nothing from the left but tantrums and distraction.
“You gave me the wrong doll. I wanted the doll in the pantsuit. I hate this doll.”
“Jeffie talked to the Russians. Take him back home. He can’t go on the trip.
“I gotta go to the courtroom.”
“But, honey, you just went to the courtroom.”
“I gotta go again, and I gotta go real bad.”
“Can I drive? Let me drive! Why won’t you let me drive? Why are you so mean? You’re not my real president.”
“Look, I’m wearing my hat that looks like girl parts. You should see the looks on the faces of the people in the other cars.”
“Where did you get that? Take that off! It makes you look like…well, you know what it makes you look like.”
“I can wear it if I want and you can’t stop me. I know my rights!”
“I just went to the courtroom. I told you you should have stopped.”
The country is extremely divided between mainstream America on the one hand and the far left and coastal elites on the other. We get that. And we expect opposition. But, if it can’t be loyal opposition, can’t it at least be grown-up opposition? Could the left just offer some mature options for getting the economy rolling again or how to make sure that terrorists aren’t exploiting our broken immigration system?
Could they take off the girl-parts hats for a moment and put on their thinking caps?
Like any parent who is trying to safely maneuver in traffic while dealing with chaos from the kiddies, President Trump faces a dilemma. He knows that he has to stay focused on his responsibilities, and yet, if he ignores the distractions they will just escalate. On the other hand, the more he gives in to the distractions, the harder it is to do the job we elected him to do.
And the left knows that too. That’s why they’re pitching hissy fits about anything and everything.
Most grown-ups reflect at some point on how we got to where we are, and there are often regrets that we try to see as learning opportunities. In our calmer moments, mainstream America might wonder how we let it get to this point. Where did we go wrong?
Maybe we should have intervened more forcefully when the campus radicals of the 1960s rioted and took over administration buildings. Instead of coddling them and later making them professors, maybe we should have kicked their ungrateful butts off campus and made them get jobs commensurate with their skills. Perhaps a stint in an entry-level job in the fast-food industry would have instilled a little more humility.
Maybe we should have just impeached public officials who trashed the Constitution in favor of an elitist, left-wing agenda. Yes, that would have been unpleasant, but maybe a little unpleasantness then would have saved us from a lot more unpleasantness now.
Maybe we should have dropped our subscriptions to newspapers that pushed a leftist agenda instead of reporting the news. Maybe we should have stopped watching biased television news back when the bias was subtler and less in-your-face. Perhaps market pressure would have promoted reform.
Maybe we should have fired teachers who went on left-wing rants in their classrooms and intimidated students who expressed mainstream views.
When we look back on this time, will we wish that we had stayed the course and not let the zany antics of the madcap left distract us from what we knew to be the sensible course?
One thing we can know for sure. If we let the bratty left distract us, we’re going in the ditch.