Now that Robert Mueller’s fruitless “Russia collusion” investigation is wrapping up — with no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion — a bombshell new probe suggests there was election collusion between Hillary Clinton and Ukraine.
Manafort Tax Files Were Intentionally Leaked
Ukraine’s Prosecutor General, Yurii Lutsenko, told The Hill‘s John Solomon that his office launched a criminal investigation into a Clinton-Ukraine collusion plot to rig the 2016 election in Hillary’s favor.
“Lutsenko says he has an audio tape recording of a top Ukrainian official admitting that his agency intentionally leaked financial records about former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign in order to sway the election in Hillary’s favor.
Lutsenko accused the Obama-era U.S. embassy in 2016 of interfering in his ability to prosecute corruption cases, saying the U.S. ambassador gave him a list of defendants that he would not be allowed to pursue and then refused to cooperate in an early investigation into the alleged misappropriation of U.S. aid in Ukraine.”
Manafort Committed His Crimes Long Before He Met Trump
Paul Manafort was the manager of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign for five months. Trump fired Manafort in August 2016 amid revelations that Manafort failed to disclose his past lobbying work on behalf of Ukraine.
As part of Robert Mueller’s sham investigation of alleged collusion between Trump campaign aides and Russia, Mueller discovered that Manafort had evaded taxes several years before he joined the Trump campaign.
As BizPac Review reported, Manafort was indicted for tax evasion and money-laundering for business activities he engaged in between 2006 and 2014.
Manafort did not join the Trump campaign until April 2016, and was fired five months later, in August 2016.
Collusion? Hillary Met With Ukrainian President Two Months Before Election …
March 19, 2019
Elizabeth Warren’s call to abolish the Electoral College is part of a pernicious pattern
Unlike, say, Beto O’Rourke, who offers nothing upstairs, or Kamala Harris, who flits with the wind with regard to what she’s in favor of, Elizabeth Warren is a Democratic presidential candidate with some specific ideas.
And they’re not good ones.
Here’s what’s probably her worst, from Twitter:
Every vote matters. We need to get rid of the Electoral College so that presidential candidates have to ask every American in every part of the country for their vote, not just those in battleground states. #WarrenTownHall pic.twitter.com/UT3mYHXHQ2
— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) March 19, 2019
It’s a programmatic call from the worst of the Democratic electoral operatives’ dream book: to wipe out the constitution and replace it with riggings for Democrats. With Warren, it’s now coming into the mainstream as a respectable idea.
It’s also awful, an idea clothed in the California-style slogan of “count all the votes,” which is the rationale used for the open practice of ballot-harvesting there. “Count all the votes.” “Every vote matters…”
What it is is a bid to second-guess and smash up the wisdom of the founding fathers for the sole reason that Democrats don’t like losing. Call it the Democrat Pacifier for Permanent Power Act of 2020.
Sounds so nice — who could be against it? But what we have here is a proposed dismantling of a founding constitutional pillar of our country, which is that every state matters. If the Electoral College is abolished, not every state is going to matter; just the big ones are. End the Electoral College, and candidates will adjust their platforms to advocate for the interests solely of large states. If tiny Vermont needs something, too bad. Democrats will campaign to scarf up the California and New York vote and not bother to go to…Wisconsin. And with the large number of Democrats over the age of 70 now running for president, that’s convenient, given the energy required for campaign travel.
There is a recent argument that as things stand now with the Electoral College, candidates actually spend most of their trip time in swing states rather than tiny states, but it still proves that size isn’t necessarily the determinant — the competition of ideas (read: purple states), combined with the winner-take-all system, is. Purple states won’t matter either if the Electoral College is abolished.
Democrats actually benefit from one aspect of the Electoral College as it is, given that in a state like California, its sizable number of Electoral College votes (their numbers inflated by the fact that a quarter of the nation’s illegal aliens live in the state) all go to the leftist candidate of the majority, despite the fact that a sizable minority voted for the Republican. Every vote count? Well, not exactly. My vote as a conservative for President Trump or some other Republican is always translated into a blue Electoral College vote for a Democrat, and close to half of California voters’ votes are, given the winner-take-all system, which is how it goes. But the state representation elsewhere remains, which is why our republic works and why we see political back-and-forth. Were California and New York to become the only games in town, there would be no pendulum swing — just a Mexican PRI–style rigged one-party “perfect dictatorship.”
That was why the Electoral College was put there to compensate for the tyranny of the majority, something seen in every third-world hellhole calling itself a “democracy.” It’s important that smaller states and their interests matter, too.
Here’s another thing about the Electoral College worth noting: at the U.S.’s founding, the College came as the result of a deal. The smallest of the 13 colonies, such as New Jersey, were squarely against joining the Union, because they knew that their interests would be swallowed up by much larger New York. The Electoral College was instituted in a compromise deal crafted by the founding fathers to get those smaller states into the Union. So if the deal is broken with the abolition of the Electoral College, and the U.S. goes to a tyranny-of-the-majority model, those states would have a reasonable legal case to secede, given the bargain that was struck.
Now, I get what Democrats are upset about: it’s got to be tough to lose when the absolute popular majority of votes for president goes to a Democrat, while the presidency is won by a Republican. It’s happened at least twice in our lifetimes. Maybe a clean-out of the near-million illegal votes, which is now Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton’s estimate, would show a truer picture. But even if every vote were cast legally, what the results show is that Democrats fail to campaign for the interests of the small states that vote against them. Their problem is one of failure to appeal to enough regions, despite wanting to rule the entire region — they want to rule Iowa as if its interests were identical to coastal California’s. They’re unhappy because they’ve lost out by not working on their appeal to more than just a narrow slice of hip, coastal voters. Instead of changing their platforms to something less odiously socialist, they want to double down and marginalize North Dakota’s sentiment as irrelevant.
Is this a pattern?
I think so. They lose a lot, so they want to change the rules.
They don’t like the Electoral College.
They want 16-year-olds to vote.
They want non-citizens to vote.
They favor ballot-harvesting in California.
They are trying to nullify the Supreme Court by stacking it with their own.
They are all in for selective prosecutions of political opponents and censorship on social media to silence opponents.
It’s as if they are at odds with all of the founding principles of how the republic works, from the First Amendment to the last. Warren’s grim determination to destroy the Electoral College is just the latest of a bad pattern. The tyranny-of-the-majority model is not only a PRI model; it’s a Venezuela model. Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez destroyed the integrity of the electoral system long before his country went into its current disastrous slide. Socialist meddling in the electoral apparatus is hell on a republican democracy. Elizabeth Warren is just promoting it with her latest bad idea.
President Donald Trump continued excoriating General Motors on Monday, for closing an automotive plant in Lordstown, Ohio.
“Get that big, beautiful plant in Ohio open now,” Trump said. “Close a plant in China or Mexico, where you invested so heavily pre-Trump, but not in the U.S.A. Bring jobs home!”
The president also expressed frustration that “talks” between General Motors and the United Auto Workers Union would begin in September or October.
“Why wait, start them now!” he wrote. “I want jobs to stay in the U.S.A. and want Lordstown (Ohio), in one of the best economies in our history, opened or sold to a company who will open it up fast!”
Trump began attacking General Motors CEO Mary Barra on Sunday for closing down the plant at a time when the American economy was booming.
His posts on Twitter earned a phone call from Barra over the weekend.
“I asked her to sell it or do something quickly,” Trump revealed. “She blamed the UAW Union — I don’t care, I just want it open!”
The Lordstown, Ohio plant employed about 1,500 American workers and produced the Chevrolet Cruze before it closed. General Motors announced plans in November 2018 to lay off up to 14,700 workers in North America.
In June, General Motors announced that the revamped Chevrolet Blazer would be produced in Mexico, as the company employs about 15,000 people there. In December, they announced a new plant opening up in China.
Barra and Trump initially had a good relationship as she joined him for meetings and roundtables promoting the U.S. auto industry.
But GM’s continued layoffs raised tensions between the president and the CEO of General Motors, who was once considered a possible Vice President candidate by failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
“Very disappointed with General Motors and their CEO, Mary Barra, for closing plants in Ohio, Michigan and Maryland,” Trump wrote in November 2018. “Nothing being closed in Mexico & China. The U.S. saved General Motors, and this is the THANKS we get!”
General Motors and the UAW are going to start “talks” in September/October. Why wait, start them now! I want jobs to stay in the U.S.A. and want Lordstown (Ohio), in one of the best economies in our history, opened or sold to a company who will open it up fast! Car companies…..
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 18, 2019
….are all coming back to the U.S. So is everyone else. We now have the best Economy in the World, the envy of all. Get that big, beautiful plant in Ohio open now. Close a plant in China or Mexico, where you invested so heavily pre-Trump, but not in the U.S.A. Bring jobs home!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 18, 2019
Very disappointed with General Motors and their CEO, Mary Barra, for closing plants in Ohio, Michigan and Maryland. Nothing being closed in Mexico & China. The U.S. saved General Motors, and this is the THANKS we get! We are now looking at cutting all @GM subsidies, including….
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 27, 2018
Appearing on CNN’s Newsroom Friday, former vice president Al Gore claimed 99.9 percent of scientists agree with his position on climate change.
A partial transcript is as follows:
BROOKE BALDWIN: Mr. Vice President, despite all the science, all the warnings, there are still [climate] skeptics at the highest level of government. To what do you attribute that?”
AL GORE: Well, I don’t think that there are, obviously, there’s no basis for doubting what Mother Nature is telling us now. It’s beyond consensus of 99 percent of the scientists. Just listen to Mother Nature, and the climate-related extreme weather events have quadrupled in recent years. Here in the U.S. alone, in less than nine years we’ve had 17 once-in-a-thousand-year events, and they keep on coming, and they keep on getting worse. So, the old strategy of trying to fool people into disbelieving the evidence in front of their own eyes is failing. And, we’re crossing a tipping point now, Brooke. We’re seeing many Republicans change there positions and join the growing bipartisan consensus. The debate’s not about the science. That debate’s long since over. The debate now is about the best ways to move as fast as we can to solve this crisis.
March 16, 2019
What Trump does not do…and it’s fantastic
When Democrats lost to a non-politician in 2016, they could not swallow the failure and began to degrade their opponent’s victory (by manufacturing “Russia collusion”), insult people who voted for the winner (calling them racist), and assassinate the character of the winner (calling him a dictator). To make the case for the third act, they invented a story that Donald Trump likes dictators and wants to be one and will not leave office if not elected in 2020. But his actions show the opposite. Trump does not want to be a king or a dictator, while his predecessors behaved as if they wanted to be.
To demonstrate this fact, I will provide examples of what Trump has not done and what King Barack H. Obama and King George W. Bush did. Here is a list:
- Trump does not invite singers and performers to the White House to sing and perform for him and his family, while Obama and Bush did. They sat like kings and used our tax money to be entertained.
- Trump does not go to Kennedy Center honors or Mark Twain prize ceremonies to sit in a special place and be watched by the crowd as a king.
- Trump does not perform at the White House Correspondents’ dinner as the chief of the country. He does not care about entertaining the media and being praised by them.
- Trump calls media as they are (biased and unprofessional) without violating their rights. He does not need them to praise him as King Obama and King Bush did. All dictators love to be praised. Trump does not care about the elite’s expectations.
- Trump is focused on results and delivering his promises. He does not keep people in office who do not deliver.
- Against all leftists’ propaganda, Trump has not gained any personal benefit from being in power. All reports show that his business is not as good as before 2016.
- Trump did not bow to the king of Saudi Arabia as Obama did. He did not praise Putin as Bush did. He did not try to normalize relationship with Cuban dictators and did not write personal nice letters to the dictator of Iran, as Obama did.
- Trump is not writing fat checks to people who chant “death to America” (like Hamas).
- Trump did not need any praise from Europeans and pushed them to pay their fair share in NATO.
- Trump did not budge to socialists, Islamists, and fascists, while both Obama and Bush were lenient toward them. Their failures were effective in giving a boost to those groups.
The reasons Trump does not do these things are less important than the not doing them itself. Trump, whatever he is, is the elected leader of American people and has behaved as an elected leader.
Nobody is perfect. Democratically elected leaders are supposed to be average — average government by average people. Our founding fathers never wanted (fake) philosopher-kings as our leaders.
March 15, 2019
Corrupt Chicago infected our nation’s politics, with Obama as its agent
With every passing week, we’re learning more about how the FBI and the Obama Justice Department did their best to ensure the election of Hillary Clinton by undermining Donald Trump. Try as Democrats might to prevent it, the truth is slowly coming into the light, thanks to some tenacious seekers of truth on the right side of the political spectrum. What has become crystal-clear in this forensic process is the reality that the Democratic Party, led by Barack Obama, is a corrupt criminal enterprise that if left unchecked will eventually poison the lifeblood of this country, a societal sepsis that, like most such systemic infections, may prove fatal to the body of America.
What has brought us to this critical point in our nation’s destiny? I submit that it is the malignant Chicago political machine and Chicago politics, introduced into the national bloodstream in the form of Barack Obama, a local community organizer whose pleasing demeanor and sonorous, mellifluous oratory, and nothing more, led to his phenomenal rise from political unknown to frontrunner for president. He was a product of the Chicago Machine, a political cartel quite willing to front this unknown young black man for president if it brought the machine’s bosses greater national influence and power, which it did.
To head up a corrupt system of enforcement, a thoroughly corrupt leader is required, and the Democratic Party had a ready candidate waiting in the wings: senior legal advisor to the Obama campaign Eric Holder. If you tried, you couldn’t devise a better agent for the toxic infection of the federal Justice Department and its enforcement arm, the FBI, than Eric Holder. In testimony before a congressional investigation of white voter suppression by Philadelphia Black Panthers, Holder made it clear with his “my people” reference that he and his Justice Department were unquestionably skewed racially. It is only now that we are confirming our suspicions as to how thoroughly and corruptly he and his boss had skewed it politically.
With the revelations coming out of congressional hearings into the FBI investigations into Donald Trump, we are learning just how despicably corrupt our national law enforcement has become, employing venal Chicago prosecutorial and policing methods on a national scale. The latest has an FBI lawyer telling congressional investigators that her agency’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s all too obvious violations of federal security laws were thwarted by unnamed persons in the Obama Justice Department, persons who, as we all know, do not ever operate without the approval and direction of their superiors, a rule that holds true going all the way to the top.
Or the bottom — depending on your point of view.