News has been breaking of Russia-connected corruption within the U.S. government. But—surprise, surprise—it has nothing to do with Donald Trump and everything to do with Barack Obama.
Apparently, as Obama’s administration was approving a titanic deal to give Russian companies stack in U.S. uranium, the same Russian individuals were engaged in all sorts of nefarious behavior. Corruption, bribery, and various underhanded activities.
We never learned about it, because it appears the FBI at the time was covering it up. And who was responsible for the cover up? Oh, just the guy leading the Russian investigate today.
From Daily Wire:
Robert Mueller, who is the special counsel in charge of the Russia investigation, oversaw the FBI when the agency allegedly hid evidence it had collected that showed that Russian officials were engaged in a bribery scheme aimed at growing their atomic energy business inside the United States.
The details were outlined in a report on Tuesday which showed that the evidence was withheld even from lawmakers as they questioned the Obama administration’s approval of the sale of Uranium One to Russia’s Rosatom, which led to Russia controlling 20% of U.S. uranium.
Former Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), who chaired the House Intelligence Committee during the time the FBI probe was being conducted, told The Hill that he was never made aware of anything regarding “Russian nuclear corruption,” though many of his fellow lawmakers were concerned about the deal, which was also approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department…
“The Russian efforts to manipulate our American political enterprise is breathtaking.”
Wow, this is really looking bad for everyone involved. Obama, Clinton, Mueller are all in a big pot of corruption stew. Why were these charged covered up?
Because they didn’t want the deal to get nixed by Congress. So Mueller’s people, during Obama’s authority, hid the evidence to protect the deal.
That’s pretty shady, to me.
It suggests that the administration, and those working for it in the FBI, were all but complicit in the bribery scheme. Perhaps they were beneficiaries of bribery? How can we know, since it was covered up?
All this should lead to an investigation by Congress over just what went on back then. I had a hard time believing nobody will be prosecuted over this revelation. I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
Everybody realizes that amid Obama’s presidency, employments/monetary numbers were continually distorted to influence him to look great.
Advantageously, vital metrics were overlooked by his attendants in the Labor Department as well as by his lapdogs in the media, who should examine these sorts of things.
Things like labor participation rate and tallying the people that have stopped looking for work by and large would have caused the joblessness number to soar.
Yet, Obama and the Left couldn’t have that.
So they lied, consistently, concealing the genuine strength of our economy and the dismal substances that accompany conceding the certainties about work metrics.
Egotistically, the president bragged about his job numbers, advising his critics to check for themselves.
All things considered, many have, and the numbers demonstrate his pundits were more than correct.
As detailed at Yes I’m Right, after Trump won the election and organizations started promising to return and keep jobs in the US, Josh Earnest, Obama’s press secretary, reduced Trump’s pre-presidential triumphs, saying:
“There were 805,000 manufacturing jobs that were not just protected, but actually created while President Obama was in office.”
A bold claim, and a complete lie.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, before Obama’s disastrous presidency began in 2009, there were 12.561 million manufacturing jobs in the US.
As of November 2016, that number had fallen to 12.26 million jobs.
Which, as indicated by the laws of first-grade arithmetic, would imply that more than 300,000 assembling discounted were lost amid his administration.
The inquiry at that point turns out to be: How on earth did Josh “Not really” Earnest thought of such a ludicrous number?
Indeed, he did what the Left dependably does, by winding and twisting things to fit the story.
His strategy was unfortunately unscrupulous, as he just glanced back at Obama’s 8 years in office and found the point where producing jobs were at their lowest, which was in 2010 at 11.453 million.
That is where he began counting jobs “created” by Obama after the president’s garbage policies had effectively shaved off 1.1 million jobs.
This sort of mysterious bookkeeping is the thing that the Left’s about and why you ought to never believe any numbers that originate from the Left, or truly, any government official so far as that is concerned.
What do you think about this? Do not hesitate and write your thoughts in the comment section below.
Democrat candidate Conor Lamb declared victory over Republican Rick Saccone in Pennsylvania’s special election. This, despite no credible outlets calling it for either man.
From The Hill:
Democrat Conor Lamb declared victory early Wednesday morning in his bid for a Pittsburgh-area House special election, although the race hasn’t yet been called.
The district, which voted for President Trump in 2016 by a 20-point margin, was once considered an easy win for Republicans. But Lamb currently leads Republican state Rep. Rick Saccone by 641 ballots, with 100 percent of the precincts reporting, according to The Associated Press.
“It took a little longer than we thought, but we did it. You did it,” Lamb told supporters at his election night party shortly before 1 a.m., after he was introduced as “congressman-elect.”
Republicans are now claiming that voting machines ‘miscalibrated,’ giving Lamb votes that should’ve gone Saccone’s way.
From Washington Free Beacon:
Republicans are citing numerous problems at polling sites in Tuesday’s special election in Pennsylvania, which remains too close to officially call but appears to be trending toward an extremely narrow victory for Democrat Conor Lamb.
Lamb currently leads Republican Rick Saccone by just 627 votes and there are still absentee and provisional ballots that have not been tabulated, but Republicans are already preparing for the likely recount and even a possible lawsuit regarding issues at polling sites, according to a Republican source familiar with the deliberations.
“We’re actively investigating three instances and likely to file court action on them,” the source said.
Among the listed concerns are “miscalibrated” voting machines in Allegheny County, the only county of four in the district that went for Lamb, according to the source, who said there have been many reports of voters who intended to vote for Saccone ending up casting a ballot for Lamb.
The NRCC released this statement…
More from Western Journal:
The Pennsylvania special election for congressional district 18 may be heading to a recount, with just hundreds of votes separating the Republican and Democrat candidates and irregularities alleged in Democrat heavy Allegheny County.
As of Wednesday midday, 627 votes (0.2 percent) separate Republican Rick Saccone and Democrat Conor Lamb, the New York Times reported.
With hundreds of absentee ballots and an undetermined number of military and provisional ballots yet to be counted, the race is still too close to call.
Sounds like some strange stuff was going on.
The lawyers plan to make multiple complaints that could form the basis of their recount.
One involves allegations that touch screen machines used in heavily Democrat Allegheny County, bordering Pittsburgh, were not calibrated correctly, registering votes for Lamb that were meant for Saccone. The county is the only one of the four counties found in the district that Lamb won.
Another issue is GOP claims that their representatives were blocked from observing the absentee ballot count in Allegheny County.
In every close election, we see reports of shady things going on and we hear talks of possible recounts. However, conservatives are very aware that voter fraud is rampant in the United States.
More from Philly.com:
A Republican source familiar with the campaign said that the GOP planned to petition for the voting machines used in all four counties to be impounded, pending a recount.
It is not yet clear where such a petition would be filed. But Republicans are investigating a number of purported Election Day irregularities including problems with the machines, voters being told to go to the wrong polling places, and Republican attorneys being barred from overseeing the counting of absentee ballots in Allegheny County.
We’ll have to wait and see what happens here.
Either way, no matter who wins, Democrats will try to shape this as a victory for the left. In reality, Lamb does not represent the Democrat Party today.
Democrats can pretend that this is a referendum on Trump all they want. It’s not.
I went OFF when I hear about Hillary Clinton saying white women only voted for rump because their husbands told them to…
I’m far from the only Conservative woman with strong feelings about the comment…
Kellyanne was on Fox to talk about Hillary’s mouthgarbage… and she did NOT hold back!
“Let me tell you something, lady: The idea that I or other women like me have to ask our husbands how to vote – it’s really a joke, particularly since… this country knows who you are, first and foremost, because of who you married.”
According to Fox:
Kellyanne Conway called out Hillary Clinton Thursday for claiming Trump voters were looking “backwards” in 2016 and blamed pressure from men for why white women voted for the president.
Conway called out the former secretary of state on “Fox and Friends,” asking her to “stop pretending you’re a feminist, you’re for equality, you’re for fairness to women, and then running around accusing us of checking with our husbands and our significant others before we vote.”
I mean… I just can’t wrap my head around how this bridge troll of a woman thought that comment would go over…
Even the Dems are cringing.
Many – including Democrats up for re-election in tough states – have been critical of Clinton’s comments made at the India Today Conclave.
“She basically is, again, insulting half of the country,” Conway said, adding it’s a “joke” for Clinton to claim that women vote based on their husbands’ views.
“This country knows who you are because of who you married,” said Conway, addressing the former first lady.
Conway said Democrats might want Clinton to stop, but Republicans are hoping she keeps talking about her loss and the president’s supporters.
In a major victory for President Trump and his quest to enforce the rule of law when it comes to illegal immigration, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Texas’s ban on ‘sanctuary cities’ can proceed.
The unanimous decision by the court’s panel allows states to punish those jurisdictions that fail to cooperate in turning illegal immigrants over to the federal government for deportation.
They ruled that the federal government’s ‘detainer’ requests were, in fact, legal, and the Texas law requires that local authorities comply with them or risk jail time or removal from their position.
Check this out:
#MAGA Federal Appeals Court Upholds new Texas law forcing sanctuary cities to recognize and process ICE detainers
Judge Edith H. Jones concluded that opponents of the measure would not succeed on the merits of their case, adding “none of the other challenged provisions of (the law) facially violate the Constitution.”
Texas Governor Greg Abbott celebrated the ruling on social media.
“Allegations of discrimination were rejected,” he wrote. “Law is in effect.”
The law that bans ‘sanctuary cities’ was passed in May of 2017, with Abbott warning some “sheriffs could wind up behind the very bars they are releasing these criminals from.”
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton praised the Appeals Court ruling, issuing a statement that reads in part, “Enforcing immigration law prevents the release of individuals from custody who have been charged with serious crimes.”
He reiterated that the law banning ‘sanctuary cities’ in his state “is lawful, Constitutional and protects the safety of law enforcement officers and all Texans.”
The law has been fervently defended by Republicans citing one public official in general – Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez.
Hernandez vowed on the day President Trump was sworn in to limit cooperation with ICE.
“The public must be confident that local law enforcement is focused on local, public safety, not on federal immigration enforcement,” she said, seemingly unaware that enforcing the law does affect public safety.
Perhaps this is the first elected Democrat who should be removed from office or jailed for refusing to enforce the law.
Are you happy to see the ban on sanctuary cities upheld in Texas? Share your thoughts below!
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg confronts calls from many corners to recuse herself from the high court’s considerations of President Donald Trump’s brief travel ban order, given her expressed animus toward the CEO.
The Supreme Court set Monday, June 12, as the due date for challenges to the travel ban to present their reactions.
The Trump organization has asked for sped up procedures for the situation, which means a decision to lift or keep set up a Fourth Circuit order blocking implementation of the request could happen moderately soon.
Ginsburg was an extremely vocal adversary of Trump’s presidential candidacy, slandering him in the media on various events the previous summer.
“He is a faker. He has no consistency about him, “she told CNN last July. “He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? ”
At the point when asked by The Associated Press how the Supreme Court may be influenced by a Trump administration, she stated: “I do not want to think about that possibility, but if it should be, then everything is up for grabs.”
Days later Ginsburg told The New York Times, “I can not imagine what this place would be – I can not imagine what the country would be – with Donald Trump as our president.”
She included that the possibility of Trump as president helped her to remember something her late spouse used to state: “Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”
Gregg Jarrett in a piece for Fox News notes that federal law requires that “[a] ny justice … shall disqualify himself [or herself] in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. He shall also disqualify himself … where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party. ”
Moreover, lawyer David Weisberg in an opinion piece distributed in The Hill on Monday composes that the legal Code of Conduct is clear in regards to Ginsburg’s hostile to Trump articulations and her need to recuse herself in the travel ban case.
The code expresses that a judge ought not “publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office.”
The code further states that “[a] judge … should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”
On July 13 The New York Times editorial board rebuked Ginsburg after her arrangement of hostile to Trump comments, expressing that “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg needs to drop the political punditry and the name-calling.”
After a day, Ginsburg issued an announcement:
“On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised, and I regret making them. Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect. ”
The previous fall liberal Harvard law educator Allen Dershowitz said that Ginsburg ought to recuse herself from all cases including President Trump, given her past explanations.
Jarrett finishes up his opinion piece, “The noble traditions of the Supreme Court will be compromised should Ruth Bader Ginsburg decide she is above the law and beyond the scruples it demands.”
What do you think about this? Do not hesitate and write your thoughts in the comment section below.
If you ask a Democrat, they’ll say to limit gun ownership.
But that easy and knee-jerk answer never works. Just look at all the gun-free zones that are host to murder.
The correct answer is to arm citizens. Would-be shooters will think twice if they knew their victims would be shooting back.
That’s just what this Western state believes. They just signed a bill into law that will make sure every American has a fighting chance.
The bill is being praised as a pro-Second Amendment law. It has restored this important right to the people.
From Washington Times:
Gov. Matt Mead has signed into law a measure allowing people to carry concealed weapons into churches and other houses of worship in Wyoming.
The legislation Mead signed Monday was approved earlier by the Wyoming Legislature…
Supporters say church-goers need the ability to defend themselves against attackers such as a man who killed 26 people in a Texas church shooting in November. They also note that churches can now allow people to open-carry weapons.
Nobody likes the idea of people packing heat in a church. But it’s better than having dead people in a church. In a time when sick losers open fire on Houses of God, we need to be prepared.
Let doctors and professionals discuss the causes of mass shootings. The rest of us? Let’s protect our families.
The recent shootings at churches could have been easily stopped, had a church-member been armed. Not everyone has to carry a gun.
Only a few vigilant members of the congregation need to be strapped. They can even be ushers or deacons placed by the doors. The rest of the church can worship in full security.
This kind of legislation makes sure that no citizen is left defenseless. Police work hard to keep our communities safe.
But they can’t be everywhere. It’s insane to think that an American citizen cannot fight back in the face of death.
Hopefully, more states will adopt Wyoming’s policy. If so, we will finally see an end to mass shootings.
President Donald Trump has been in office for a little more than a year, and we are all still patiently waiting for substantive progress to be made on a border wall between the United States and Mexico.
It hasn’t been for lack of trying on the part of the commander-in-chief. His office remains open for business, but the obstructionists on the Left simply refuse to play ball and focus on the actual needs of our nation as a whole.
That being the case, it can make it seem like a wall is never going to happen. However, there is a way that it could easily happen – and be paid for to boot.
A simple Trump maneuver could quickly pay for the entire $18 billion border wall and send Mexico into the meltdown of all time!
The New York Post explains.
That’s the finding of recent immigration studies showing the $18 billion wall President Trump plans to build along the southern border will pay for itself by curbing the importation of not only crime and drugs, but poverty.
“The wall could pay for itself even if it only modestly reduced illegal crossings and drug smuggling,” Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, told The Post.
This isn’t a mere pie in the sky dream from Camarota either.
He comes to the table fully equipped with facts that outline his case, and he exposes the outright absurdity of not having a wall in place while doing so.
Absent a wall, the Homeland Security Department forecasts an additional 1.7 million illegal crossings at the US-Mexico border over the next decade.
If a wall stopped just 200,000 of those future crossings, Camarota says, it would pay for itself in fiscal savings from welfare, public education, refundable tax credits and other benefits currently given to low-income, illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America.
If a wall stopped 50 percent of those expected crossings, he says, it would save American taxpayers a whopping $64 billion — almost four times the wall’s cost — to say nothing of the additional billions in federal savings from reduced federal drug interdiction and border-security enforcement.
Is a border wall going to magically solve all of our nation’s problems?
Of course not, and it would be foolish to think that it would. That said, it would cut down on a whole lot of the more serious ones our nation faces as a whole, and that would result in even more savings for American taxpayers.
Camarota has outlined an excellent case for why it needs to happen and how we can get there. Good luck to the spin-meisters in the liberal echo chamber as they continue to attempt to portray it as if it would somehow be a bad thing.
President Trump is right to call for tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. Tariffs are often used as a last resort, but the domestic steel industry has reached that point.
Rather than attacking the president for his proposal, all Americans should applaud him for beginning to end our nation’s wholesale surrender on trade.
The president’s action is already producing results, as U.S. Steel announced Wednesday that it will restart one of its idled blast furnaces in Granite City, Illinois and create approximately 500 jobs.
I have visited communities deeply affected by steel imports.
Coatesville, Pennsylvania is home to the oldest continuously operating steel mill in the country, and is among the last places in America capable of supplying the military with steel armor plate that meets exacting defense specifications.
In 2007, when the Pentagon escalated the war effort in Iraq, Coatesville’s sister mill in nearby Conshohocken turned its production on a dime to fulfill military orders for the steel needed in mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles.
Today, both mills teeter on the brink of collapse. So workers there listened intently when candidate Trump promised to rearrange trade agreements and bring factory jobs back to this country.
The president’s announcement last week of a 25 percent tariff on imported steel and a 10 percent tariff on imported aluminum is precisely what he promised.
Enacting these tariffs will restore some needed sanity to the global trade in the metals markets, which is in imbalance because of the actions of China’s government.
Beijing has followed a state-led policy with a goal of dominating the global steel industry. This has been so successful that China now makes half the world’s steel.
Big government subsidies enable Chinese steel mills to dump steel on world markets at prices below the cost of production, creating unfair competition for steel mills in the U.S. and other nations.
There is no end in sight to the overcapacity China has created.
Chinese steel has consequentially flooded outside of its borders and roiled the global market, affecting mills and workers everywhere.
In the United States – the most open steel market in the world – 10 blast furnaces have closed since 2000, and our remaining mills only operate at roughly 75 percent of their capacity.
More than a quarter of our market is serviced by imports. During a decade of slow but steady economic expansion, the American steel industry has instead remained in a malaise, its workers plagued by the threat of layoffs.
This is the reality in steel making communities like Lorain, Ohio, or along the lakeshore in Northwest Indiana.
Yet in the face of these facts, many of the president’s fellow Republicans are lashing out at his attempt to address these problems.
Despite that, President Trump beat an almost entirely free-trading field in the 2016 GOP primaries. Though he continues to enjoy support of the conservative base, some Republicans will apparently not stomach even this slightest break from trade policy dogma.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and many House Republicans are seeking to block or water down President Trump’s plans, though last year Ryan himself proposed a 20 percent border adjustment tax on all imports.
National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn (before his resignation in protest Tuesday) was marshalling Wall Street collaborators and global companies to attack the tariffs proposal, even though taken to their maximum extent the tariffs would mean a $9 billion cost spread through a $20 trillion economy.
That same crowd completely misjudged America’s years-long economic embrace of the Chinese government, which is currently using this influx of wealth to fortify an enormous mercantilist police state.
These same critics argue tariffs will raise consumer costs and hurt steel communities far more than they help.
But the only credible review of former President George W. Bush’s comparable tariffs in 2002 showed most steel consumers didn’t see a significant price hike, and that American steel prices rose even more slowly than global prices did.
Those tariffs allowed a domestic industry staggered by more than 30 bankruptcies time to recover – and even recapture market share before China’s steel juggernaut emerged.
The critics also claim there is no national security basis for protecting American steel. But they conveniently ignore the fact that you can’t build a steel mill quickly in an emergency, and that our steelmaking redundancies are already becoming thin.
The Navy’s Virginia-class submarines rely on specialty armor plate forged in places like Coatesville. There is only domestic producer of electrical steel necessary to build power transformers – the kind of infrastructure needed after a natural disaster in Texas or Puerto Rico.
An economics textbook wouldn’t see anything wrong with America offshoring its entire steel industry, but most Americans would be unnerved to be defended by tanks made with Chinese steel, nor would they support them rolling down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington in a military parade.
Instead of attacking the president, the critics should instead show us their own plans to stop the economic bleeding in America’s industrial belt.
Because too often, it’s all about President Trump. He’s regularly accused of looking to the past when he speaks of industry, and specifically of steel.
But the people in our steel mill towns know their communities won’t ever again look like they did in the 1950s. That’s not what they’re asking for; they’re simply asking to be included in America’s future.
This tariff will give them a chance at that – and set the tone for how we should now approach China and its state-led capitalism.
Already, China is well on its way toward dominating the markets for future-oriented technologies like semiconductors and artificial intelligence, and it has used trade as a tool to achieve that objective.
China forces technology transfers upon foreign firms operating in its borders. It rampantly abuses intellectual property protections.
And it’s even unsurprising then that the only time Chinese military officers have been indicted in the United States for cyber espionage was for spying on private businesses.